HUMA Committee Meeting

     Good morning, committee members. The clerk has advised me that we have a quorum, and the sound tests for those appearing virtually have been approved.

    With that, I will begin the 42nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

    Pursuant to the motion adopted on Monday, May 4, 2026, the committee is meeting on homelessness in Canada for the first hour and housing starts for the second hour.

    Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending remotely and in the room.

    You have the option to participate in today's meeting in the official language of your choice. If you're in the room, please select the channel that gives you the proper interpretation for you. For those appearing virtually, please click on the globe icon at the bottom of your screen and choose the official language you wish to participate in. If there is an interruption in translation, please get my attention and we'll suspend while it is corrected. As I indicated, those appearing virtually have been tested, and the sound quality meets the requirements for translation.

    For those in the room, please put your devices on silent—I'm including myself—and please refrain from tapping on the microphone boom in front of you. This is for the benefit and protection of our translators. As well, please wait until I recognize you by name before proceeding.

    With that, we'll introduce the witnesses for the first hour. We had a minor change. On homelessness, from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, we have Michelle Boileau, mayor of the City of Timmins. Appearing from Jasper Place Wellness Centre, we have Taylor Soroka, co-founder. From Réseau Solidarité Itinérance du Québec, we have Eric Edström, public and media affairs officer. Each witness has five minutes.

    We'll begin with Madam Boileau.

    Thank you.

    Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee.

    My name is Michelle Boileau. I am the mayor of the City of Timmins, in northern Ontario, and the chair of the standing committee on social economic development at the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, or FCM.

    Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today on behalf of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, which represents more than 2,000 municipalities and nearly 90% of the Canadian population.

    I'm here to say that this study could not have come at a better time. All across Canada, large cities and small municipalities alike are facing a homelessness crisis that is growing in scale and complexity. Shelters are under pressure, encampments are multiplying and local services are being stretched to the limit.

    The renewal of the national housing strategy is a critical opportunity to learn from experience and build on what is working. Municipalities are at the front line of this crisis, and we see its human impacts first-hand. These are our neighbours. Because we're rooted in our communities, we understand what is needed on the ground, but we cannot solve homelessness alone. We all have a part to play, and now is not the time to walk away.

    Real and meaningful progress requires all orders of government pulling in the same direction to ensure our most vulnerable residents are not left behind. Provinces and territories oversee many of the health, social service and housing supports that people rely on. The federal government plays a critical leadership role through investments and national policy coordination. A renewed national housing strategy must be anchored in a housing first approach.

    FCM welcomes federal investments to increase the supply of affordable non-market housing, but buildings alone, as we know, do not solve homelessness. Communities also need operating funding, alongside capital funding, so that supportive housing providers can deliver mental health supports, addiction services, outreach and case management.

    We also need to move beyond a crisis response and embrace prevention. The most effective way to reduce homelessness is to keep people housed in the first place. Every day, Canadians are falling into homelessness more and more because of rising rents and economic pressures, but they are, above all, falling through system gaps.

     Investments such as rent supplements, portable housing benefits and programs like the Canada housing benefit can prevent homelessness before it begins by helping low-income households remain stably housed. As we know, not only is prevention more humane, it is also far less costly than responding after someone has already lost their housing.

    FCM's most urgent recommendation is to maintain and expand Reaching Home. It is the backbone of local homelessness responses across Canada, supporting shelters, outreach teams, housing stabilization services, indigenous-led initiatives, encampment responses, and the community organizations working every day to help people move from homelessness into housing, because they are helping people move through the continuum.

    However, demand is growing much faster than available resources. Communities across Canada are being asked to respond to record levels of homelessness with funding that does not reflect the scale of today's challenge. The Parliamentary Budget Officer has identified an annual funding gap of approximately $3.5 billion in Canada's homelessness response system. Municipalities are making up that gap, and we see the consequences of that gap every day: shelters operating beyond capacity, growing encampments, overstretched outreach services and vulnerable Canadians unable to access the supports they need.

    FCM is calling on Ottawa not only to renew Reaching Home, but also to make it a permanent and expanded pillar of Canada's homelessness response.

    Municipalities are ready to work in partnership with the federal government to achieve results, but to do so, they need predictable, long-term funding. If we allow this program to expire and don't adapt it to the scale of the realities we're facing on the ground, the pressure on our communities will increase.

    Let's not wait until we reach the point of no return. Homelessness is one of the main social challenges in Canada. Renewing Canada's national housing strategy presents a rare opportunity to strengthen partnerships between different levels of government, invest in homelessness prevention and expand solutions with a “housing first” approach.

    Let's work together to ensure that everyone in Canada has access to safe and affordable housing.

     FCM stands ready to work with the federal government, provinces, territories, indigenous partners and community organizations to achieve that goal.

     I look forward to answering your questions.

    Thank you. Meegwetch.

    Thank you, Ms. Boileau.

    Ms. Soroka, you have five minutes, please.

     Thank you, Chair.

    Good morning, members of the committee.

    My name is Taylor Soroka. I'm the co-founder of the Jasper Place Wellness Centre here in Edmonton, Alberta, a community development organization I founded together with my father, Murray, who, regrettably, couldn't join us today. I know he would have liked to be here.

    It's an honour to contribute to this committee study on homelessness in Canada. I thank you for the invitation.

    I want to begin with a distinction that I believe is foundational to this study and to getting policy right. Homelessness is not complicated; it is complex, and that difference is costing lives.

    Our organization works in a community that knows complexity up close. Edmonton is the city of champions, but we're also the frostbite capital of Canada, a city where temperatures fall to -30°C, and where people lose their fingers, their feet and, ultimately, their lives, not because of some abstract failure but because they had nowhere safe to go.

    I know that complexity does not fit on a policy form. It does not communicate well to a frightened public watching encampments grow outside their windows, so we have done what humans do with things we cannot hold. We've named the most visible, most basic surface feature and called that the problem: no home—homeless. In collapsing that enormous human complexity into a single administrative category, we've named the symptom and lost sight of the patient.

    The word “homeless” groups together residential school survivors and the person with a traumatic brain injury, the young woman who aged out of foster care at 18 with nowhere safe to go, the veteran, the man living with untreated bipolar disorder. What they share is one thing: no safe place to call their own. What they don't share is anything else. That's the complexity. It's not hard to understand. It's human.

    The pace at which this crisis is growing has created a common misunderstanding. When people see encampments in their parks, or when they feel unsafe walking through their own neighbourhood, they conclude the solutions must not be working. I understand that, but the truth is the opposite. The research is not ambiguous: Housing first works and supportive housing works, but they are being outpaced. An outpaced solution looks identical to a failed one unless you know the numbers.

    In Edmonton, the average wait time to access supportive housing is 512 days—512 days in the frostbite capital of Canada, in the city of champions. That wait exists because we have not built enough, but it's not only about supply. Too much of what we have built has been designed to scale rather than to the person, with large facilities where no one knows your name, never mind your story. For our neighbours living with the most complex needs—deep psychosis, severe mental illness, brain injury—that design feature is the most costly of all. They need the most from their housing: psychiatric care, clinical support and real intensity.

    Housing is the foundational solution, always, but the supports inside it have to match the people it is for, and that's a real gap we're facing and one we have to build next. When we respond to the complexity of a human being with enforcement, encampment clearances and the removal of the visible signs of suffering rather than what it causes, we're not solving the problem. We're moving it. We're breaking the trust that makes intervention possible. We are choosing, in the language of my field, social control over social care. The data is consistent. It costs more, produces worse outcomes and makes the work of organizations like mine profoundly harder.

    At the Jasper Place Wellness Centre, we fit in the gaps where systems fail people, and we do it through a design called a healing house. We start with the building, because the building itself is a solution. Housing is always the answer.

    A healing house is, first and foremost, housing. Each one sits on a single city lot and has 12 self-contained units. The entire main floor is common space. It has a kitchen where residents can cook together, watch the Oilers, the best team in Canada, hold house meetings, do chores and access therapy and programming. The whole building is fully accessible. Research is clear that communities of eight to 12 people produce better outcomes for those navigating severe mental health and complex trauma. We built that finding into the walls.

    On top of housing, you layer a program, and now you have an intervention. Programs come and go with funding cycles—that's the reality of this work—but when capital funding built a healing house, it built an essential infrastructure that stands for a lifetime. If the program ends, the building keeps housing people as affordable housing, supportive housing or whatever the community needs next. The investment is never lost.

     For a federal government deciding where dollars go, I cannot overstate how important that distinction is. Two programs currently operate out of our healing houses today, each one built at an intersection where the system loses people.

    Bridge healing sits between the emergency department and the street. When someone is discharged from an Edmonton hospital with nowhere to go, they come to us into a healing house with wraparound supports, including health care access, income navigation, housing assessments and connection to treatment. It costs $140 a day compared to upwards of $1,000 in hospital, and the outcome is a 76% reduction in health care utilization among participants. That number is not just a program result. It's proof of the housing first model that, if you stabilize someone first, if you start with housing, everything else changes.

    Recovery and transition sit between detox and residential treatment, a gap that historically meant relapse. A person who completes detox is medically stable and has a confirmed intake date. We hold the stage. We keep the thread from breaking.

    I'm sorry. Any points you missed, you can follow up on. You can capture those in response to questions, which I'm sure you'll get. Thank you for your opening statement.

    We'll now conclude the witnesses' opening statements with Mr. Edström for five minutes.

    Good morning, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.

    Thank you for inviting the Réseau Solidarité Itinérance du Québec to appear before the committee today.

    I have been closely following the work that has been done so far, and I welcome the attention that has already been paid to issues related to homelessness prevention. Given the limited time allotted to each witness, I decided to be efficient by trying to build on the views already expressed, while also addressing some of the questions already raised. This will allow the committee members to come up with new questions, as they see fit. I was inspired by the member for Brome—Missisquoi who is here today and who mentioned that he has so many more questions.

    In response to the question as to whether greater flexibility and predictability in funding would enable organizations to allocate more resources to providing direct services rather than managing administration, we would say that removing the uncertainty surrounding funding stabilizes financial management and helps retain the expertise within organizations. The alternative is to terminate a contract or lose spaces if funding is not confirmed in a timely manner.

    In response to the question as to whether prevention should be regarded as a social and economic investment, our answer is that it would benefit the entire population, because it would create a social environment more conducive to improved health and well-being and would ease pressure on public services. In addition, it would promote greater social and economic participation and prevent people from having to experience the trauma of homelessness, because we've failed to provide them with a stable environment or haven't been able to support them when they needed it. Beyond the monetary costs, this is a human investment that remains relevant.

    In response to the question as to whether shelters create a vicious circle that traps people in homelessness and perpetuates their problems, we would argue that shelters are the last line of defence in a system that has failed in its duty towards vulnerable people. Shelters do not perpetuate homelessness. For many, they are the first step in a long journey of navigating a system of ill-adapted and poorly connected services, rebuilding their trust in others and in society, and rebuilding their own lives after seeing their basic needs and rights repeatedly violated while they were living on the street. Shelters respond to basic needs and offer a range of services that contribute to people's social, civic, housing and economic reintegration, among others. Relying on the family or the community to provide support ignores the underlying causes and solutions by denying collective responsibility. It actually creates hidden homelessness. We must protect and assert the fundamental right to adequate housing, which must be stable, safe, healthy and not overcrowded.

    In response to the question as to where the main challenge lies with respect to current funding, whether it's the amount of funding available or how it's distributed and administered, we would say that both aspects need to be addressed. We need the funding allocated to the Reaching Home program to be increased in order to ensure an adequate level of service and reduce the pressure on organizations to seek additional funding. Since homelessness is so widespread, we need to reduce the gap between the designated communities and those yet to be established. We also need greater predictability and stability in how the program is managed. Announcements need to be made in advance, project proposals need to be made public for at least a month and at appropriate times, and a response needs to be provided within perhaps two months or less.

    Finally, in response to the question as to whether the goal of Build Canada Homes to build affordable housing on a large scale is a practical solution that will reverse the trend, we would say that we have recently noticed a gradual shift from the term “social housing” to “affordable housing”, which is much more vague. Furthermore, there's a lot of catching up to do on social housing. It's important to build the housing the community needs, not the housing that developers want to build. If we've missed the mark when it comes to social housing in recent decades, we can't be expected to make up for it without the proper tools. There is a cultural difference between the Housing First program and the holistic approach we have implemented. I wouldn't go so far as to credit it with all the results, far from it, but Quebec must be doing something right with our holistic approach, given that the rise in homelessness since the pandemic has been slower in Quebec than elsewhere in Canada.

    It's important not to focus only on bricks and mortar and leave the provinces to handle the bulk of the support. Certain aspects of Build Canada Homes remain somewhat opaque, which is why we hope the federal government will maintain some version of the tried and true Reaching Home program, for which agreements have already been signed. It should be improved with increased flexibility and predictability when it comes to funding, aspects that have been lacking until now.

    You will receive our brief shortly, which includes tables based on the Fitzpatrick typology of homelessness, references to the holistic approach aligned with the existing system in our province, as well as our proposals, which you can take into account as you prepare your recommendations.

    In the meantime, I urge the committee to continue to give a broad definition of homelessness prevention the increasing prominence it deserves in discussions, as we have done since the fourth États généraux de l'itinérance au Québec, held in November 2024.

    The committee has heard it before. Witnesses from across Canada have confirmed that they are working hard and trying various strategies to reverse homelessness trends.

    We need to maintain the flexibility required to adapt measures on the ground based on needs. There is room for innovation, but some tried-and-tested solutions are still working very well.

    Thank you for your attention. I look forward to taking any questions you may have regarding my answers.

    Thank you, Mr. Edström.

     We will begin the first six-minute round with Ms. Falk.

    Thank you very much, Chair.

     I'd like to thank each of the witnesses for taking the time to be here and for sharing their expertise and knowledge.

    Ms. Soroka, you're very close to where I am, even though you're in another province. I'm located in Lloydminster. There's a lot of transportation back and forth for a lot of people in my community and riding to Edmonton.

    You talked about wraparound services without saying it and their importance. It's important that wraparound services be embedded not only in housing but, I would argue, in every area when we're looking at social services. Sometimes people just need that extra support to boost them up and help them out.

     We have a great organization in Lloydminster. It's on the Alberta side of the border. We have our own issues when it comes to funding because we have some things that are physically located on the Alberta side and others on the Saskatchewan side. You have residents on either side and you have governments saying, “That's not our responsibility because that's not our citizen.” At the end of the day, homelessness and addiction know no bounds, and people need to be treated like people.

    The organization that we have is called Residents in Recovery. It is a great model. It's people living together. It's accountability and community. It's that number that you talked about of eight to 10 people who are together and really helping each other out, which is important.

    I just wanted to make a note of the importance of those wraparound services.

    Throughout this study, we've heard testimony on the importance of prevention in reducing homelessness. I'm just wondering, based on your organization's experience, what prevention measures you believe are most effective in helping people avoid homelessness.

    Funding for individual participants or individual community members in providing rent supplements is the number one way we can prevent homelessness. That's direct funding. If someone gets sick and isn't working for two weeks out of the month, then they can still pay their rent.

    It's that direct, clear and easy-to-access funding that can supplement someone's gap. We are all just a flicker away. We can all face gaps in our lives.

    That's the best way.

     That's for sure, yes. Any one of us can have an incident, tragedy or setback that can drastically change the trajectory of one's life.

    Which level of government do you believe is best to address or administer that?

    I heard earlier testimony—I want to say it was from the FCM—about locals being able to know what's going on in their community and that type of thing.

    Sometimes I know from an Ottawa vantage point that Ottawa doesn't know best when it comes to communities, especially rural communities like my own. If you need to go to a doctor, that's a two-and-a-half-hour drive. If you don't have a car, if you don't have somebody who can drive you, how do you get to your specialist appointment? If you're paying for an ambulance, that's another cost that isn't necessarily covered.

    Who would be the best to administer individual assistance, as you've suggested?

     I would agree that it should be local organizations in the community on the ground. Local organizations know the individuals by name who need that support. It allows the support to happen fast and in a way that is timely for their situation.

    I will highlight, exactly as you said, that this includes the municipal, provincial and federal governments.

    Health care access is a huge part of our homelessness crisis. You hit it on the head. Local, clear and to-the-person connection is how that money will move fastest and have the most impact.

     When I had my social work experience, it was in a medical setting. We actually weren't permitted to discharge people without having a place for them to go. I don't know how that's changed since the increase of our homeless population. Since COVID and with the burden on our health care system, there just are not enough beds. There are not enough doctors. There are not enough nurses. There's not enough.

    It's good to hear that you guys are positioned to be able to catch some of those people. If you're not, at the end of the day, they're just coming back. Especially in the wintertime when it does get cold, you're then trying to navigate the emergency room as an emergency room as opposed to a drop-in shelter. It's important that those gaps are being met. People aren't falling through the cracks, I guess. That's great to hear that you're doing that.

    At what point in a person's housing instability is intervention most likely to be successful?

     That depends on every person, and they know best. The people I serve on a daily basis know when they need housing. They know when they need support, and they know what that support looks like. I do think that looks different for every person in terms of housing intervention. In my experience, every person I serve has known what they've needed. They have the agency to tell me exactly what that looks like. I just don't always have the tools to meet them and meet their need where they're at for the intervention.

    Are you finding that there is a willingness by those who need services to ask for services, or are you finding that your organization has to go out and seek to find people?

     We have upwards of 100 people accessing our community centre throughout the day. Those are unique individuals, and they are coming to us. I will point out that our emergency departments in Edmonton and across Canada are inundated with people looking for support. It just might not be the right place. People are looking for help, always. They just might not find the right person to help them.

     Thank you, Ms. Falk.

    Next we have Monsieur Joseph for six minutes.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Through you, Mr. Chair, I'll go to Mr. Edström.

    Welcome, Mr. Edström. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank you for your commitment to helping people in vulnerable situations.

    My question for you is really quite short and simple.

    During our discussions, you raised a point that I think deserves to be explored further. You said that, while greater predictability and flexibility in response to homelessness are essential, the phenomena of encampments must not become normalized or trivialized.

    Can you elaborate on that?

    In the context of the fight against homelessness, year after year, and given what we are experiencing and the deteriorating situation, we have to keep an open mind and try not to manage spaces rather than people. We shouldn't start prioritizing the right to encampments over the right to housing, which should be broader and include these individuals.

    Encampments exist. They are a reality. No one normally chooses to live in an encampment. It's usually supposed to be temporary, but it can sometimes drag on. However, these folks need to be reintegrated into society as soon as possible, and there are ways to help them. As the witnesses online were saying, some of these folks know this, but they're not always quite ready to be reintegrated into society at the exact time we reach them. However, the support system needs to be in place.

    As for the folks living in encampments, there are some—and I emphasize the word “some”—who have substance abuse or mental health issues. When someone decides to seek help for an addiction, we have to respond right away. If we wait two or three weeks, the situation might deteriorate. The individual might continue to have contact with others and their substance use is likely to continue. When the person is ready for help, we need to be there to support them with a range of services available.

    That's what matters. It's about having that range of services in place and being ready not only to support people when they want to get off the street, but also to prevent them from becoming homeless in the first place.

    I'd like to delve into that a little more.

    In your view, how can we strike a balance between the need to adapt our actions in the short term and the objective of preventing encampments from becoming permanently established?

    The camps exist. We can't start tolerating the intolerable. That is what happens eventually. We can't give up and tell ourselves that homeless encampments are a reality we have to live with. These camps exist because the people living there have fallen through the cracks in various ways.

    We were talking about prevention. Everyone is one eviction, one workplace accident or one break-up away from potentially finding themselves on the streets, in a vulnerable position. We need multilayered support, which forms part of a broader strategy. In other words, if everyone has a decent income, there is less risk of ending up in this situation when life's uncertainties strike.

    When people are going through a crisis, we need the means to reach out to them. It is always at turning points like these that a person's life changes. It costs far less in terms of effort and money to prevent someone from becoming homeless than to try to intervene once they are already in that situation.

    My next question is about Build Canada Homes.

    Do you feel that we are supporting the broad objectives of this organization, which aims to increase the supply of affordable housing?

    In my area, in Longueuil, this has resulted in a project to build 1,055 homes, 40% of which will be off-market housing.

    In your view, is off-market housing an important tool for prevention, in addition to the $1 billion in investment announced for supported housing and transitional housing?

    It is a supplement. However, as I said at the start, off-market housing, affordable housing and deferred affordable housing can mean different things. We know what social housing is; the definition is very clear, and it also meets a need. There's no doubt that building homes helps. We have some catching up to do in this area for all types of housing, but we still need to clarify what affordability actually means.

    As I said, we welcome Build Canada Homes' investment projects. However, we need to see how they are implemented and what type of housing is being built. Is it aimed at families? Where are they being built? Is it exclusively on Crown land, or is it close to communities, as was the case in Longueuil?

    It may be a good solution, but it's a major program. The devil is in the details. We need to see how it will be implemented and how it will be approached. We welcome a major investment in the fight against homelessness; it is very important. However, it's not just about building. Support is also crucial. Simply putting a roof over someone's head does not solve all their problems.

    As someone said, when all you've known for some time is life on the streets, you might not feel at home in an apartment. All you want to do is go back to what you know. That's why it's important to have a multilayered support network for different situations.

    Thank you. If I understand correctly, you need to have a support network.

    Could you also explain what “support” means?

    There are all sorts of support services. As I was saying, it can be related to mental health, a decline in physical health, reintegrating into a community or developing social connections.

    I'd draw a parallel with the health care system and hospital beds. If there aren't enough nurses or support staff, sometimes hospitals are forced to close down beds. This situation is somewhat similar. We have the housing, but we don't have everything needed for someone to feel at home there.

    Thank you, Mr. Edström.

    Thank you, Mr. Joseph.

    Ms. Larouche, you have six minutes.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    I would very much like to thank the witnesses for joining us today.

    Ms. Boileau and Ms. Soroka, your respective views are extremely interesting. We can see the pressure that the issue of homelessness, among other things, is placing on local authorities. Thank you. I may have the opportunity to come back to you.

    I'd like to start with you, Mr. Edström.

    As the member of Parliament for Shefford, a constituency whose main town is Granby, I can tell you that, unfortunately, I really have no choice but to take an interest in the issue of homelessness. The homelessness situation in Granby has evolved over the years. This was not the case before, but the City of Granby has had to tackle the challenge of homelessness head-on.

    However, the main problem for the municipality of Granby and for you, as a representative of the Réseau Solidarité Itinérance du Québec, is the much-discussed issue of designated communities.

    You are obviously not surprised that I am raising this with you again today. You have heard that Granby is not a designated community, despite the difficulties it faces and the need for further investment. In the Eastern Townships, resources tend to be directed towards Sherbrooke. We understand that Sherbrooke has its own challenges, but Granby needs more resources.

    How do you view this issue of designated communities?

    What should be changed for the future?

    Why is it essential for Granby to become a designated community?

    Several towns find themselves in the same situation as Granby in this regard. I think the nature of homelessness has changed recently. Previously, people might have headed for the major cities. Now, they try to stay closer to their local community. I think we need to maintain this flexibility and adapt to changing circumstances.

    Generally speaking, organizations that receive funding under the Reaching Home program or Quebec's interdepartmental action plan on homelessness are being held accountable. Strangely enough, no one ever has any complaints, so I think the money is well spent. Sometimes, however, it isn't spent where we'd like it to be, or on the services we'd like to see.

    Therefore, there is often a need for the flexibility to recognize that, for example, in a slightly more rural area, outreach workers need to travel further and reach out to people who are scattered across a larger area. These people sometimes need services that aren't available locally. So, we need to be able to take money from certain budgets and allocate it elsewhere. If there is too much compartmentalization, we end up with money that cannot be spent. It might be allocated, for example, to the construction of a shelter even though the town already has one, when what we really want is to provide direct support on the ground.

    I'll quickly draw a parallel. We may well have money and think it's a good idea to invest it in Sherbrooke, Granby or some other place, but we need to look at the bigger picture. We can't build a bridge in a location chosen simply on the basis of how many people swim across the water. At some point, we have to realize that services need to be well distributed and that people will try to find out what is available.

    As things stand, in 2021 or 2022, several communities were not selected. However, it is now 2026, and the situation has changed. Programs must therefore adapt so that they can provide services where they are needed.

    This is what you bring to the table in your role within the Réseau Solidarité Itinérance du Québec. I congratulate you on that vision. As you say, we should have this broader perspective across the whole region.

    As for the Reaching Home program, we fully understand what you are saying. I fully understand the need for predictability, funding increases and flexibility.

    However, here again, there is a great deal of uncertainty about the program's future. In my area, I hear that people are extremely fond of this program. There is a bit of uncertainty about whether the program will be renewed and the direction things are heading. The Minister of Housing and Infrastructure is leaving room for doubt by saying that it is coming to an end and that it will become something else. We're not quite sure what the situation is at the moment. It's a bit unclear.

    What impact does this have on organizations working in the field of homelessness?

    It is not clear whether the program will be renewed or not. Decisions obviously have to be made. When the announcement comes late, or if the program continues but we are unsure of its status, adjustments are made. Sometimes this involves spending money quickly at the end of the year because there are funds left in the budgets. So we're constantly having to be flexible, when we could be planning much more effectively. We know the program ends in 2028. We therefore need to start discussing right now what will be put in place.

    There may be aspects of Build Canada Homes that can address some of the challenges posed by the situation, but we're familiar with the Reaching Home program. It's a perfectly decent program, and people like it. There's still room for improvement. The agreements have been signed, so we know the money reaches the organizations quickly.

    If the government wants to start a new initiative and choose something else, it needs to do so quickly. This is causing people some concern. They're wondering what they'll end up with, whereas the Reaching Home program primarily needs greater flexibility and predictability. In itself, this program has proven its worth.

    You're right. I look forward to visiting the Coalition Impact de rue mobile unit in my riding. I know that other mobile unit initiatives are operating in the Rouville RCM to connect with people in Rougemont and Saint‑Césaire. Yes, things have reached that point. The idea is to connect with people where they are and focus more on prevention.

    I want to pick up on the prevention issue again, because it always comes back to housing. The idea of affordability comes up a lot, and it's one of the criticisms we hear concerning Build Canada Homes.

    It's all well and good to say that affordability is a big challenge, but I wonder what impact using a more unclear term will have, especially in Quebec. In Quebec, the community social housing concept is more familiar. It involves asking people to contribute a portion of their income toward their housing. That has a big impact.

    Yes, but that way, there's some accountability involved. The definition of social housing is clear. The cost is based on a portion of earnings. None of the other terms offer a clear, unequivocal definition of what the words “affordable” or “non-market” mean. There are different levels, and sometimes, that addresses a need.

    Once again, however, we have to define exactly what it is. Affordable housing has no set definition. It sometimes comes as a surprise to learn what affordability really is. It's highly subjective and, as I was saying, housing is going to be affordable in 20 years. Right now, however, the people living there are struggling to put food on the table, and they don't want to wait 20 years. Any housing that someone keeps for 10 years will inevitably become affordable, but that's not what people want.

    Thank you.

    Mrs. Goodridge, you have the floor for five minutes.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

    Ms. Soroka, I'm going to start with you.

    I'm the member of Parliament for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, so I'm relatively familiar with Edmonton.

    I'm relatively familiar with some of the programs you run, specifically the bridge healing program, which I think needs more attention. It's a really innovative program, a partnership between Alberta Health Services and your organization, working with the Royal Alexandra Hospital Foundation and others. I'm wondering if you could explain what it is and what makes it different from basically every other program in Canada.

    We were originally funded by Alberta Health Services. Today our funding comes from ALSS. I forget what that's called. Someone can google it.

    Bridge healing sits in between the hospital and homelessness. If you are unhoused and leaving the emergency department and if we have a vacancy, you come and stay with us. We do have wraparound supports, but one of the most unique things about this program is that it's person led.

    I do want to be very clear, before I explain “person led”, that bridge healing fits into the continuum of housing programs that already exist. We catch people in the gap between emergency care and the street, but then we use housing first. We use supportive housing. We use seniors housing and veterans housing to get people to the next phase.

    “Person led” means we meet people and see them as a whole person. We use emotional intelligence and try to help people unpack the backpack they've been carrying for the last 10 or 20 years. We have health care aids, social workers and nurse practitioners. It's health focused, but human centred and person led.

    I was an MLA before I came here. We had lots of conversations about these kinds of programs.

    One of the big pieces that a lot of people don't understand is that, when someone who's homeless ends up in the hospital—let's say their infection gets a little bit out of control—if they had a home to go to, they could be released far earlier because they would be able to maintain the hygiene requirements to prevent them from re-entering the hospital system. If they don't have a home to go to, they end up staying in the hospital at a cost to the taxpayer of substantially more money, and they're in a place that is not actually home or home-like in any capacity.

    Part of the concept of supporting organizations like yours from the Government of Alberta, at least initially—and this is going back quite a few years—was the very concept of getting those people into a better program for what they actually needed, so that they could get that support.

    Madam Boileau, are there any programs like that in the Timmins region, or anything like that which has that transitional housing to allow people to leave a hospital space or a medical space, to get into transitional housing?

     In fact, your question is timely because that's where we've identified the biggest gap in the continuum.

     I've been pleased to learn that we've just initiated a similar initiative called the launch pad. It's an area, a room, a space in our current emergency shelter which is serving that same purpose. Again, it's that idea of eight to 12 people still living in a congregate setting but being able to support each other.

    We are seeing that, but we're finding now that, due to its proximity to the emergency shelter and to encampments that have formed in the area, we might not be seeing the success we could be seeing.

    That being said, in just six months we've been able to house 23 people successfully, and they still maintain their housing, so we know this program could work.

    That's wonderful.

    Ms. Soroka, as someone who comes from Fort McMurray and represents Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, I know that lots of people end up in the big city because it's easier to be homeless in an anonymous place where they don't have friends and family looking in on them all the time, and they can easily disappear.

    How much of the population that you serve is from outside of the Edmonton area?

    That's a great question.

    I can't give you an exact percentage for the bridge healing program, but across our programs, it's over 30% of people who don't call Edmonton their forever home.

    We have people from indigenous nations across Canada and northern Canada. We're the gateway to the south. You said it exactly right. If you're accessing health care here, you might get lost; you might not make your flight home. A huge part of the Edmonton complexity is that we serve everyone from our northern communities, and they get lost in our system.

    Mr. Villeneuve, you have five minutes.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I want to thank the witnesses for joining us today. They are making a valuable contribution to our work. So I want to thank them for taking the time to come and meet with us.

    Mr. Edström, I was mayor of Bromont for eight years. Bromont is a small town with 12,000 residents. I was very active in the RCM and, like my colleague, Ms. Larouche, from the neighbouring riding, I saw homelessness change over the years. It is quite troubling. In fact, I saw unhoused persons even in Bromont, a small town with a population of 12,000. Bromont isn't exactly big.

    In your opinion, has the profile of unhoused persons changed over the years?

    If so, what accounts for the change?

    There's been a change. One of the main causes is evictions. That's why people are ending up on the streets.

    A count was done not that long ago. The number of unhoused individuals in Quebec—people visibly without housing—is the same as the number of people living in Bromont. About 12,000 people, spread across Quebec, are experiencing visible homelessness.

    That said, they may have been experiencing hidden homelessness before that. That's something else that has changed. People exhaust their options. They are no longer couchsurfing or living in someone's basement. Now, they are forced to camp outside quite involuntarily.

    I think that a growing number of people like these are ending up on the street. Once, they had a place to go, they had a social safety net, but it developed more and more holes. We have to equip that safety net with multiple layers of support. Once we've helped them get housing, people need access to an adequate income, health care, food, transportation and safety.

    In the long run, a kind of deterioration can occur on several levels. People end up stretching their budgets to the limit. A minor setback sometimes forces them to take in a roommate. At some point, they lose their apartment.

    We did a count and it produced quantitative statistics. The qualitative data are coming a bit later this fall, and then we will be able to see why people become unhoused, where they were before and what was going on.

    That said, even with the data we have, which dates back to 2022, we already know that things have changed. We perceive a kind of gradual exhaustion. For some, it's almost like torture. Eventually, they reach a breaking point and, unfortunately, they temporarily end up on the street.

    Living in a car is never easy. Fady Dagher, now chief of police with Montreal's Service de police de la Ville de Montréal—and previously chief of police for Longueuil—went to spend the night with unhoused persons for a few days. He said that after two or three days, he, a person healthy in mind and body, slowly began experiencing mental health problems. Homelessness wears down even those who start out perfectly stable. The experience leaves them with multiple traumas, and makes them harder to help.

    So the goal is to be able to catch people early on. The profiles have changed. We are going to learn a few more details about the nature of these changes, but there's a kind of distress that pulls people closer and closer to the streets. Unfortunately, it's getting easier to end up in these extreme situations.

    A while ago, you mentioned a comprehensive approach. I'll give you a chance to finish your thought. Would one minute give you enough time to tell me a bit more about that?

    If you had a magic wand and could make just one wish today, what would it be?

     The famous magic wand that belongs to no one.

    I wish it really did exist.

    My daughter has one, Mr. Villeneuve.

    As things stand, the situation definitely crosses party lines. I speak with Liberal MPs and Conservative MPs. What I want is for people to come together and collectively find solutions that allow organizations on the ground to accomplish their missions.

    What sometimes happens is that benchmarks are set and people try too hard to direct things. They say that the money should go to such and such a location and they cling to what's been proven. However, what's been proven applies only to a specific context, specific locations or specific situations.

    As you know, we've been trying for about 40 years to find a miracle cure, using a magic wand or other means, that would work from coast to coast to coast and fix the situation for everyone. We tried different things, but clearly, a number of them failed. What the organizations are saying, and what seems to be a matter of consensus, is that we have to allow for flexibility and quit setting budget restrictions that stop us from spending money on what's needed, where it's needed.

    Thank you very much.

    Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve. That was a good question.

    Ms. Larouche, you have two and a half minutes.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

    Ms. Soroka, thanks again for joining us and for sharing your point of view. It's extremely interesting.

    That said, I'm now going to turn my attention to M. Edström.

    It's true that everyone is just one misfortune away from ending up on the street. In secondary school, I volunteered with Maison du Père. After serving soup, I talked with someone who was unhoused. He was a lawyer who was going through a tough time after a divorce. He ended up on the street. That shocked me. We need to remember that we are all just one misfortune away from the street.

    I would now like to talk more about the state of homelessness. Right now, it seems that not a week goes by that I don't see some news or other about homelessness. The Journal de Montréal reported that a record number of seniors are increasingly falling victim to renovictions. Even with a fixed income, new housing can be impossible to find. So, they end up on the street. I'm also thinking about women experiencing hidden homelessness, or victims of spousal violence trapped in a cycle of violence for fear of ending up on the street. I could also talk about the City of Saguenay, which is striving to become a model in homelessness management.

    In fact, while we are on this topic and considering your position, are you aware of other Quebec-based models in this field?

    To see the kind of news we saw this week, that Saguenay wants to become a model in managing homelessness, only confirms that the problem exists across the region now.

    I am in charge of monitoring and reviewing the Canadian press coverage on homelessness. The things I have seen have truly changed me. I did not find out today that Edmonton is Canada's “frostbite capital”. These are isolated incidents, but if we look beyond the story, we can see there are indeed patterns. There are ways to do things everywhere, but this entire vision stems from the fact that homelessness is unacceptable. People need to have a decent income at the very least.

    Furthermore, if we work on the first layer of support—that is, if we work to improve conditions for society as a whole—we'll prevent homelessness for a great many people. Think of homelessness as a kind of vortex that pulls you in and slowly drags you toward despair. If we can prevent people on the edge of the vortex from falling into it, we've made progress. The further people are inside the vortex, the more energy it takes to pull them out of a situation that is slowly leading them toward homelessness. It's just as difficult for people who are currently experiencing homelessness.

    It's a good thing that cities want to take action. Much of the authority lies with the provincial government, and the funding is there, among other things. We need to help them.

    There must be genuine collaboration between the federal, provincial and municipal governments to avoid duplication and to be as effective as possible.

    Thank you, Ms. Larouche.

     Mr. Bailey, you have five minutes please.

    Thank you, Chair.

     Ms. Soroka, across Canada, homelessness is often accompanied by other issues, such as drug addiction. The opioid crisis is affecting everyone. Edmonton has seen hundreds of deaths among the homeless population. Opioid-related fatalities remain high.

    In your experience at Jasper Place, what percentage of your clients need structural addiction treatment or recovery support before or concurrent with housing?

     None of them need it before housing. Housing is the foundational aspect that empowers and acts as the conduit to recovery. As an example, I have many clients who go into detox programs, but once they finish their medical-grade detox, they have nowhere safe to go. How do you remain safe and sober in an environment that made you start using substances in the first place?

    We have to start with housing, because if someone leaves detox, they need a safe, sober place to stay. Housing is always the first step and the conduit to all of the other recovery-based solutions that we need.

    I'm a big proponent of the Alberta recovery model. I believe in recovery, not enabling.

    My question is about the housing first model. Without accountability or treatment for addictions, it led to higher rates of relapse and injury. It's exactly what you're saying.

     I'm wondering if there needs to be a different form of transitional housing that occurs after detox, but before they go into more temporary housing. Would you agree with that statement?

    I would agree that we need spaces for people to exist while they navigate the scheme of life.

    I run a program called recovery in transition, which holds people while they wait for that long-term recovery bed to become available. Even though we're currently very recovery-focused in Alberta, it can still be upwards of 10 weeks to actually access the long-term recovery program that can help someone have a new path for life.

    You are right. We need those transitional spaces for people to exist, be safe, remain sober and incorporate tools that provide them the strength to not return to use. That is even just as simple as having someone to build a relationship with who gets to know their name and their story.

     I really like the model of small groups of people, like Oxford House or 8 Pillars, but I wanted to ask you about healing house.

     I sit on the health committee. The fact that you have medical beds.... That is something I feel every homeless shelter needs to incorporate in their model. It saves taxpayer money. However, I was shocked to hear that you're receiving only $140 a day for someone who is discharged.

     How do you get those people? Do you get them from the navigation and support centres or do you get them directly from a doctor?

    They come directly from the five emergency departments in Edmonton. The only referral pathway is a social worker in the emergency department.

     Are there any federal regulation barriers currently preventing your work or the work of other organizations like yours, and how could removing red tape on housing construction and treatment beds accelerate progress? That's that magic wand.

     Yes. Truly, finding organizations that work on the main level, connecting with people and funding them directly for those community-based solutions is the number one approach that will enable...and be a conduit to things moving faster.

    The Auditor General and the Parliamentary Budget Officer have noted weak accountability and poor outcomes under Reaching Home, despite hundreds of millions of dollars in new funding.

    Are there any accountability reforms that would strengthen integrity in public spending?

    I agree with some of the other presenters today. If we could have shared definitions across Canada, it would increase accountability to actual proven outcomes. Currently, none of the programs I operate fully align with the true philosophies of the programs we're saying we're operating, like housing first. It's tough.

     I'd like to thank all of the witnesses for joining us today. On my summer tour, I'm going to call and see if you have time to welcome me and take me for a tour. I'd like to learn a lot more. Thank you.

     Thank you, Chair.

    Thank you Mr. Bailey.

    There was really good testimony given during this hour.

     We'll conclude with Ms. Harrison for five minutes.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Good morning to all of the witnesses. Thank you for the incredibly thoughtful testimony you've given so far.

    The riding I represent is Peterborough.

    My husband is a paramedic. I've seen how his job has so drastically changed from when he started to now. During the election, I asked him what the most challenging thing about his job was when he's responding to calls about the people who are unhoused in the riding. They get to know them and they know their story because the situation happens frequently. They're picking up the same person over and over again. He said the hardest thing is knowing there's nothing else he can do except drop them off at the emergency department, and more often than not, they don't even go in. They just walk away.

     Ms. Boileau, how is your municipality coordinating with housing providers, shelters, health services and indigenous partners to create a more integrated homelessness response system?

     That's one area where we've seen the most progress, despite limited resources and increasing rates of homelessness. They're rates with which we can't keep up, given the resources we're receiving.

    As I was saying, one thing we have managed to do very successfully is coordinate between community partners. Whether you want to consider it a legacy of the COVID pandemic or a crisis response and just a necessity, we've been coordinating much better and trying to break down the silos between community partners.

    We're seeing collaboration between services with the mobile crisis response team, where you have a partnership between the Timmins Police Service and the Timmins and District Hospital. We have our indigenous-led outreach services that work in partnership with our social service administration board's housing service team. We have the fire keeper patrol, which is a great example of peer-led support and navigation support.

    At this time, I would say, again, this is where there is a gap. This is very much community-led work being done. Quite honestly, we all came together to the table to collaborate on an application for a HART hub here in Ontario, which is the homelessness and addiction recovery treatment hubs model. The province has decided to put all its eggs into that basket. We were forced to get together and work together.

     Unfortunately, we weren't recipients of one of the HART hub funding announcements here in Timmins, but we haven't left the table. We're staying at the table together, and we keep working towards a long-lasting solution.

     In Peterborough, we were very lucky. We were the recipient of a HART hub. It's an incredible model. The success of it is going to be incredible. We feel so very fortunate to be recipients of that.

    I think all of you have mentioned the Reaching Home program. I'd love to know more of what you'd like to see moving forward in the next iteration of that program. That is for any of the witnesses.

    If I may, since I still have my microphone on, I'll start. I agree with the testimony of the other two witnesses who spoke today.

    The FCM supports the maintenance of Reaching Home. It's essential that we maintain Reaching Home, but that we continue to enhance it. At the very least, we need to index it to inflation. Especially that flexibility that Mr. Edström spoke so well to, as well as the predictability.... We need longer-term agreements.

    I know the question was asked about whether or not we're actually delivering positive outcomes. As long as governments continue to expect municipalities and service providers to keep delivering outcomes within election cycles, we're never going to deliver the outcomes we're actually looking for. We need 10-year agreements and long-term agreements. We're in this for the long term. We're in this as long as there's homelessness. We need to have that predictability in the funding that's coming so that we can make sound operational decisions.

    Mr. Edström, would you like to speak to the Reaching Home program and elaborate further on what you'd like to see?

    We're in it for the long term, baby. I heard that.

    We have done the same thing for maybe 40-plus years. We need to address it on a longer term to be able to change it. We need to not despair and to keep fighting. That's the problem with the encampments and things like that. You don't have to think they have to be there or they will still be there in 10 or 20 years.

    We said long-term flexibility and put in a little more money. We need indexation, at least, because every year it's not indexed, we are actually cutting corners and having to make hard decisions.

    About the people who have addiction problems and are relapsing, relapse is part of the process, so trust the process.

     That's all I have to say.

    Thank you, Ms. Harrison.

    Thank you, Madam Boileau, Madam Soroka and Mr. Edström, for your testimony today.

    The committee will suspend while we transition to the next hour.

     I call the meeting back to order.

    Committee members, we will begin the second hour of today's committee hearing. We will move to our study on housing starts.

     I would like to welcome our witnesses this morning. Both are appearing in the room.

     We have Dr. Carolyn Whitzman, senior housing researcher at the University of Toronto's school of cities.

     Welcome, Dr. Whitzman. You've been at this committee before.

    From Rental Housing Canada, we have Tony Irwin, president and chief executive officer.

    Welcome.

    Each of you has up to five minutes for an opening statement.

    We'll begin with Dr. Whitzman.

     Thank you, Chair.

    Good morning, everyone.

    Thank you for having me here.

    I'm going to start with three things, not magic wands, that might matter.

    First, the next national housing strategy should create targets for affordable market and non-market housing completions, not starts. That builds on some of the testimony you heard in the last hour.

    Second, the next national housing strategy should adopt one definition of affordable housing for all of its programs, and that should be based on an area's median household income bands. Middle-income people need different interventions from low-income people.

    Third, the federal government should adopt programs to achieve targets of 200,000 new or acquired affordable non-market homes being developed per year, with half of these being deeply affordable for very low- to low-income households, towards an eventual goal of 20% of all housing stock being non-market.

    I have written a book called Home Truths: Fixing Canada's Housing Crisis and I've done some recent work for the federal housing advocate on a rights-based approach to housing needs.

    I want to start with the title of this particular hearing. We should be measuring housing completions, not starts, because people can't live on a construction site, and there are too many stalled projects in Canada. That's something my colleague would definitely agree with.

     Despite greater federal engagement in housing policy since the 2017 national housing strategy, construction trends simply do not match the urgency of the moment. The CMHC stopped tracking completions from 2023 to 2025, but there were fewer housing starts in 2025 than there were in 2022, and there were fewer housing completions in 2022 than there were 50 years earlier, in 1972, when Canada had half the population it does today and families were larger.

    The national housing strategy has provided over $110 billion in financial support, mostly for market developers, over the last eight years, but less than 10% of their housing completion targets have been met. Only 3% of the only 18,000 rental homes completed under the $55-billion apartment construction loan program since 2017 have been affordable to the low-income households most likely to be in housing need, and these were mostly studio apartments, which are unsuitable to couples and families.

    What's even worse than poor housing completions is worsening housing outcomes. I think you heard that in the last hour. By any measure, such as middle-income home ownership affordability, low-income tenant affordability or homelessness, Canada is in the midst of a housing crisis. Canada's median multiple for home ownership is now almost two times the affordable cost. It's three times the affordable cost in Toronto and four times in Vancouver.

     Trying to bring house prices down to half or a quarter of what they are in a short period of time, like a decade, is a recipe for economic disaster, and it certainly won't lead to more than doubling housing supply, as the CMHC recommends. For instance, in Toronto, where condo prices have fallen 18% since 2022 and sales volumes have dropped 95% from 2021, there were no new condo projects registered in the first quarter of 2026.

    The national housing strategy's two headline targets were to reduce core housing need by 530,000 households and to reduce chronic homelessness by 50%, but the Parliamentary Budget Officer projects that housing need will have increased from 1.7 million households in 2016 to 2.6 million households in the 2026 census. Chronic homelessness doubled from 2018 to 2022.

    There is only one way to address those basic needs: Invest in non-market and limited dividend affordable housing.

    There are three things that the federal government needs to do.

     Focus finance on the needs of most Canadians. The federal government should limit its low-interest financing to projects that are 100% affordable to the majority of Canadians. Very low-income to median-income households are 60% of households and 100% of those in unaffordable housing. That means rents of no more than $2,500 per month nationally and ownership homes that cost no more than $254,000. It would be less in Gander, where incomes are lower, and more in Victoria, where incomes are higher.

    Dr. Whitzman, can you wrap it up, please?

    I can. I will end with one line: Let's build on what works and stop financing what doesn't work.

    Thank you.

    Thank you, Dr. Whitzman.

    Mr. Irwin, you have five minutes or less.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair and members of the committee, for the opportunity to be here today.

    My name is Tony Irwin. I'm the president and CEO of Rental Housing Canada. I was pleased to speak with this committee in April, with Dr. Whitzman, in fact, on Bill C-20. We've done this before. We've been on television. We could take this committee on the road. I'm not sure who would want to buy tickets, but we could try to sell some.

    Voices: Oh, oh!

    Tony Irwin: I do appreciate the opportunity to return today.

    Rental Housing Canada members build, own and manage homes where millions of Canadians build their lives, raise families, work, study and contribute to their communities. A strong housing system is one where Canadians can access the right home for their needs at different stages of life. Students, newcomers, middle-income workers, seniors and people saving for a first home all rely on rental housing. For many Canadians, renting is not a temporary gap in the system; it is the housing that best fits their needs.

    Purpose-built rental is closely connected to the rest of the housing system. When rental supply is limited, pressure builds across the market. Affordability becomes more difficult for renters. Mobility becomes harder for families. Non-market housing faces additional pressure when it should be focused on those with the deepest need. That is why purpose-built rental housing must remain a core part of the federal housing agenda.

    Over the last several decades, purpose-built rental housing has not always had the policy and investment conditions needed to grow at the scale that Canada requires. In the 1970s and 1980s, Canada built a significant amount of purpose-built rental housing. Since then, changing economics, higher costs, taxes, municipal fees, financing conditions and approval timelines have made many new rental projects much harder to deliver.

    It's well documented that Canada has been experiencing a slowdown in home construction in many parts of the country. People often tell me these days that rental housing is the bright light and refer to project starts to make that point. For example, in the greater Toronto and Hamilton area, purpose-built rental starts reached nearly 10,000 units in 2025, a 42% increase over 2024 and the highest annual total since the 1970s. However, this data does not necessarily reflect what my members are experiencing on the ground. That is why others have testified before this committee that housing starts should be tied to the physical start of construction on site. Waiting until a project is above grade can miss months or even more than a year of real construction activity, particularly on larger rental projects with significant foundation or underground work.

    We cannot make decisions on housing based on data points and assumptions that do not fully reflect what is happening in real time. For rental providers, lenders, and investors, every project depends on the same basic question: Can this building be financed, built and operated over the long term? That is why project viability has to remain at the centre of federal housing policy.

    Rental Housing Canada supports federal government policy action, including the acceleration of over $7 billion in the CMHC apartment construction loan program to support up to 16,500 new rental homes; mortgage insurance reforms to unlock financing for three- to eight-unit housing, including smaller-scale rental; the Canada-Ontario municipal development charge reduction program; GST relief for new rental housing; and the launch of Build Canada Homes. These are positive, practical and supply-focused measures.

    We have heard directly from our members that tools like MLI Select and ACLP have significantly helped rental projects move forward by improving access to financing and strengthening project economics. These tools matter because of the important role they play in determining whether a rental project proceeds or not.

    At the same time that the federal government moves forward with Build Canada Homes, it will be important to maintain clear roles across the housing system. Build Canada Homes can make an important contribution to non-market and community housing, while CMHC should remain a key financing partner for private-market, purpose-built rental housing.

    The federal government has taken important steps. My message today is that the policy direction is encouraging and that practical refinements can help turn that momentum into more homes. The test for federal housing policy should be this: Does it help good projects become real homes, and does it support the full range of housing that Canadians need? We should all want a housing system where public, non-profit and private partners are each able to do what they do best. Canada needs all forms of housing delivered faster, with better coordination and with policies that make projects viable.

    Rental Housing Canada is ready to continue working constructively with governments, CMHC, municipalities and all housing partners across the country to help turn policy momentum into homes that Canadians can live in.

     Thank you.

    Thank you, Mr. Irwin.

    We'll begin the six-minute round of questioning with Ms. Falk.

    Thank you very much, Chair.

    It's nice to see both of you here again. It's ironic that it's at the same time on the same panel. That's wonderful.

    Ms. Whitzman, I'd like to start with you.

     You did allude to this in your opening remarks. In your brief, you stated that housing completions are a more meaningful measure than housing starts, noting that “people can't live in a construction site” and that many projects are stalled. I'm wondering if you could explain why you believe housing starts are a problematic indicator of housing supply and housing outcomes.

     I would say that housing starts, with the provisos that Tony just said, are useful. I think the abandonment of measuring housing completions was a poor decision, which fortunately has been changed by the CMHC. It's important to measure the difference in the length of time between housing starts and housing completions, but there are quite a few stalled projects across Canada, hundreds of thousands.

    Has CMHC ever stated why they stopped measuring completions?

    I believe they were trying to cut costs. It was a poor decision of where to cut costs.

     Yes, data is usually a good indicator of if things are on track or off track. I would agree that it's important to collect that information.

    In your view, what are the main reasons that housing projects are delayed or fail to reach completion?

     As my colleague has said, whether you're a non-market or a market developer, you're influenced by construction costs, which have been affected by the trade war going on with the U.S., by labour costs, by land costs—well, not once the construction has started, so I'm going to walk that one back—and by ever-increasing development charges.

     Let me be clear that development charges need a solution. The solution isn't just to say that municipalities can sort it out, because they have less than 10% of the tax dollar. Some things are going to need to be uploaded to provinces and the federal government, but putting the onus on newcomers or people interested in a new apartment or a new owned home is a really regressive form of taxation.

    How about you, Mr. Irwin?

     In terms of why projects are stalled, I agree with much of what Dr. Whitzman said in that regard, if not all.

     When I speak to members, there are all of those same challenges around construction costs, which have been quite volatile. Also, around government fees and charges, there's been a lot of discussion. I've talked to some of you about that outside of committee.

    The number of variables.... When we go back a few years, projects got started and then economic conditions changed from that time, or they were well through the development pipeline and perhaps did break ground, but then economic conditions, interest rates and some of these things we're talking about changed.

    It does impact how a project moves forward when, in real time, you've started a large project that has taken you several years to get to, you've spent millions of dollars getting to that point, and then economic conditions change. We can't necessarily predict those things, but they do impact whether a project can go forward. That certainly has been the case over the last few years and continues to be the case.

    Yes. It seems crazy that you could be planning and getting everything lined up and it's taking several years and you're not breaking ground yet. That's crazy. That's absolutely crazy.

    Well, there are a number of reasons when you say that you haven't broken ground yet. In some cases in terms of stalled projects, they have broken ground and are stalled. They have started, and they wouldn't be considered a start yet, based on what we've been talking about in our remarks. By the definition, it wouldn't be considered a start yet. Excavation permits have been received and ground has been broken, and then things do change that impact how a project can move forward. It's not necessarily that it won't be completed, but it might take much longer because the developer has to make some adjustments and figure out how they can adapt to changing conditions.

    As for the ones that haven't started, that's a whole other conversation entirely in terms of how long it takes to get through the process, to get the necessary approvals and to get the permits. As that's happening, as we've been talking about, the number of conditions that can change, that can impact whether a project can in fact go forward, are different now, perhaps, from maybe five years ago when the project was first envisioned. That's why we advocate for faster approval times and we need to cut red tape. We need to get through some of these predevelopment processes more quickly to capitalize on better conditions, hopefully.

     Even just tax.... You have these different levels of government that all need to have some type of revenue. Whether that's at the federal, provincial or municipal level, you have different governments that are saying, “That's not my jurisdiction; it's your jurisdiction.”

    Then, to your comment about offloading onto the municipality and the municipality being the one in charge or responsible in that avenue, you have the taxpayer who is being taxed on tax, on tax, on tax. They're taxed literally to death, and literally after death, they're still being taxed. Then you have these projects to try to build or to even to invest for jobs and that type of thing that aren't happening because of the amount of taxation, regulation and red tape. They all touch one another.

     I just want to give a non-market perspective on that.

     We're well over time. You can respond to that later.

    Mr. Villeneuve for six minutes.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Ms. Whitzman, when we focus narrowly on housing starts without giving sufficient consideration to measuring completions, what aspect of reality do you think policy-makers and lawmakers might overlook?

    You talked about this at length, but I'd like to give you the opportunity to tell us more about it.

    I'm sorry that I'm not answering in French, Mr. Villeneuve, but I use a lot of jargon, and it's easier for me to talk jargon in English.

    One very important aspect for non-market developers is that they're operating on a much smaller margin and with less equity. The federal government is often the last funder to come on board. You have to wait for municipal approvals. You have to wait for other forms of funding. I don't know of a non-profit project that's had fewer than four funders. The federal government, first through the CMHC and now through Build Canada Homes, appears to be the last people to assume risk.

     We heard in the last session about the importance of the continuity of federal funding for programs like Reaching Home. The lack of continuity has been an issue, and the fact is that the federal government are the last folks in instead of the first folks in. There are so many cases of developers who have put in $1 million in predevelopment costs—and that's true whether you're a non-market or a market developer—who then are left hanging because the agreement that they'd worked out with the federal government doesn't reflect the current realities of building.

     It's really important to absolutely speed up the process and for the federal government to be the folks who assume the most risk. That's the only way that private equity is going to be unlocked, certainly when it comes to non-market housing and, I suspect, for market housing as well.

    In your opinion, to what extent is close collaboration between the federal government, the provinces, the territories and municipalities essential to resolving this difficult situation?

    Who is best positioned to address the various aspects of the current challenge?

    That is an excellent question.

    It's really important to have only one straightforward definition of affordability, because quite often, with the cobbling together of different programs, you end up having to do some very complex math indeed in order to reconcile different definitions of affordability.

    It's really important to have targets and have overall goals such as we will end homelessness by X date, we will end the low-income rental housing need by X date, and we will ensure that there's an affordable home for all Canadians by X date. The only level of government that can do that is the federal government.

     Then there's a question of how much leeway should be given to provincial, territorial and municipal governments. I would agree with a lot of what was spoken in the last hour about innovation and about the differences between rural and urban housing, but the outcomes and the targets need to be clear. That should be the basis of any agreement between the federal government and provincial-territorial governments or city and regional governments.

     We want to see homelessness go down by 20% over the next five years. You sort it out, track it every year, and you get back to us. I'm a great believer of flexibility in terms of program delivery and of absolute clarity, which frankly has been missing from the federal government, about what's meant by affordable housing and what would be necessary to create the kind of Canada that we all want in terms of year-on-year reduction of homelessness and year-on-year reduction of housing stress.

    Mr. Irwin, do you believe that Build Canada Homes will have a positive impact on housing starts in Canada and the increase in off-market housing?

     Yes, absolutely, Build Canada Homes will have an impact. When we talk about ensuring that all Canadians have homes that meet their needs and budgets, there's no question that affordability is an issue for many Canadians. We all know about that. We all talk about it in this place every day and in all of our communities. Obviously, housing is a big part of the conversation.

    The goal, as I believe Build Canada Homes has set out, in order to provide support through government land, through preferred financing and to be able to unlock affordable homes, is a goal that I certainly support and we need it. We do need more housing that is more affordable.

    Market housing is not affordable for all. There are ways we can make market housing more affordable. I think Build Canada Homes' mission to use tools that it has been provided to be able to unlock more affordable homes is very important and one that we should all be supporting as best we can.

    Thank you, Mr. Irwin.

    Thank you, Ms. Whitzman.

    Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve.

    Ms. Larouche for six minutes.

    Thank you very much, Mr. Irwin and Ms. Whitzman, for joining us to discuss a topic at the heart of a fundamental human need: having a roof over one's head and adequate housing.

    You both cited a lot of figures.

    Ms. Whitzman, I would like to come back to one of the figures you mentioned.

    You spoke about the 20% target for off-market housing. The media are reporting record numbers of evictions and people ending up on the streets, particularly seniors whose fixed incomes can no longer keep up with rising rents.

    I know you mentioned many approaches, but I would like to revisit this. This 20% target for off-market housing is often seen as a way to address what's known as the commodification of housing. In fact, several organizations are calling for it.

    Could you summarize the main steps we should take to achieve this 20% target for off-market housing?

    Could you elaborate on these potential solutions?

    In my view, this is rather central to the housing issues we are facing right now.

    Thank you, Ms. Larouche.

     I think it's really important to learn from countries that have better outcomes than Canada. One country that I'm thinking of in that regard is France.

    In the year 2000, which was 26 years ago, the Government of France created a target for all municipalities of 20% non-market housing, and of course, it created the finance instruments for new builds, renovations and acquisitions.

    The amount of non-market housing in France has since more than doubled. It was 9%, and now it's above 18%. In Paris, it's close to 25%, and of course, Paris is the most expensive city in France, partly because Paris took on a voluntary target of 30%.

    Those targets haven't changed as governments in France have changed. The financing methods haven't changed as governments in France have changed. That, to me, would be an example of clear direction.

    In terms of outcomes, 15% of low-income renters are still in unaffordable housing, which is too much. It's over 75% in Canada. That shows you the difference that clear targets and certainly a clear definition of affordability and programs make at the national level.

    It's interesting to see which projects are working around the world.

    Mr. Irwin, Ms. Whitzman just spoke about the French model.

    Have you had the opportunity to examine other international models concerning, among other things, the issue of off-market housing as a way to address the commodification of housing?

    Admittedly, I'm not as knowledgeable on that as Dr. Whitzman. My time is spent much more on issues at home than abroad.

    I do follow it some, but admittedly, I'm not as knowledgeable as Dr. Whitzman on that topic.

    You talked about what works. You mentioned, for example, the $7‑billion investment in the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, as well as the mortgage program.

    You also talked about the need for investments in Build Canada Homes.

    You gave several examples. Can you elaborate on what is working well and what needs to be improved?

     In terms of some of the current programs and policies that we're speaking about, I think, like all of these things, when we see government programs, we have to, first of all, see them over the finish line, see all the different details of them and see them actually working, see them in practice.

    The things we're talking about are, for example, the recent development charge announcement between the federal government and the Province of Ontario. I know other announcements have been made with the Government of Quebec, for example, recently as well. It's a bit different, obviously, but they're using the same funding envelope for that. We need to see that actually in practice now to understand how effective it will be.

     In Ontario, municipalities have to opt into the program. They have a very tight timeline to do that. We certainly hope municipalities will be able to actually.... I think it's fair to say that once some of these programs are actually in place, really it's up to, in that case, municipalities, but also it's up to those who build rental housing. We now need to step up. We now need to step up and actually go forward, and hopefully hold up our end of this in these scenarios, which is to find viable projects, work with our different partners and get shovels in the ground.

    With a lot of these programs, we need to see them actually implemented to know how effective they will be. On some of the most recent things I talked about, we still need the benefit of time to understand how effective they will be. I am hopeful.

     Dr. Whitzman talked about development charges, growth needing to pay for growth. I agree with that, but I think there's an acknowledgement amongst many of us that the formula, the manner in which that's been working, has not been working, or the manner in which that's been structured has not been working for some time.

    We need to come up with different, creative ways to ensure that infrastructure is built and paid for without unduly creating undue hardships on municipal governments, who perhaps can't weather that so easily. We need to figure out ways to do that, that work for everyone, that actually help us get the housing built that Canadians need, that do meet different budgets, that can be affordable for more perhaps than they do today.

    Thank you, Ms. Larouche.

    Mrs. Goodridge for five minutes.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

     Thank you to our witnesses for being here today.

     A year ago, the Liberal Prime Minister said that we were going to build at unimaginable speeds.

     Really quickly, Dr. Whitzman, has that been the reality of what you've seen in your research for the last year?

     Clearly, that's not happening. I think there's still a great deal of uncertainty around housing policy. There's been a great deal of energy spent building up Build Canada Homes.

     While I have generally positive support for the idea of Build Canada Homes, it needs to be backed up with better finance mechanisms, a much clearer idea of how much non-market perpetually affordable housing should be built, I would say, with free government land and in many cases deferral of development charges, for instance. The aim should be 100% affordable for low to median income, which is a majority of Canadians.

    I think there's been a certain amount of focus on establishment and deals made, which is great. It's a big shift for a lot of developers. I think it needs to settle down, become a lot more certain and a lot more clearly linked to those very noble outcomes of more housing in order to work better.

     One of my biggest concerns, and the biggest concern of a lot of Conservatives, has been that they're just building more bureaucracy. They're building another layer onto a layer. No one from the Liberal side has been able to explain what Build Canada Homes is going to do that CMHC and the Canada Lands Company couldn't have already done. This is one of those pieces...why they couldn't have created some change. All I've seen from my lens is further delays, because now people don't know where to go to apply for the next big project for affordable housing. They don't know who to talk to or what the process looks like, which means further delays in getting people into those houses.

     I'm from Fort McMurray. I've seen booms my entire life. I've seen boom, bust, boom and bust. I thought this was normal. It turns out that it's not normal for most people across Canada. I've seen a community that's been able to rise to the occasion and get things built. It really bothers me that this government promised to get things built, yet we've seen, effectively, no completions, just lots of announcements and reannouncements.

     Mr. Irwin, what are you seeing in the rental space? Are you seeing completions come through because of Build Canada Homes?

     No, but I would say again that Build Canada Homes is obviously quite new. We're all trying to understand how it's going to work and navigate the investment criteria and the portal. We have members engaging with Build Canada Homes. They are talking to them and other non-profits to see if they can, in fact, move projects forward. In that sense, I know there's activity.

    To the point of your question, are we seeing starts yet? No, we're not.

     We're not seeing starts, and we're not seeing completions.

    Through that program, no, we're not seeing it, but it would not be realistic to assume that we would at this point.

     Okay.

    If they had simply put that power into CMHC, which already existed, could you have reasonably seen starts happen in the last year? We've seen, effectively, nothing in the last year, despite promises of moving at unimaginable speeds. We assumed that meant fast, not unimaginably slow.

     Again, recognizing that different regions have different experiences, when I speak to members who are trying to build rental apartments in places like Toronto or Vancouver, irrespective of whatever agency we're talking about—set that aside—I ask them, “For the projects you've been able to get in the ground now, what did you need to make that happen?” They say that it's things like not paying GST, having ACLP financing or having full development charges waived. Those are what made them—

     On the GST piece, so far, the government decided they would do that for Ontario but not anywhere else.

    Do you think removing the GST on new homes built would be a good idea to help reduce costs?

     For new rental housing, we have that for more than just Ontario. That was announced by the Trudeau government a few years ago. I believe it exists in more than just Ontario. That's my area.

    Okay. That's for rental housing.

     Thank you, Ms. Goodridge.

     Ms. Fancy, go ahead for five minutes.

     Thank you very much.

     Through you, Chair, I thank Mr. Irwin and Ms. Whitzman.

     Again, it feels like we're coming full circle in some ways. I remember having some questions for you that I never got to ask last time. I want to pick up on some of them, as well as starts.

    Ms. Whitzman, you talked a lot about the missing middle in your book Home Truths. I'd like to talk about the missing middle today in terms of a couple of population demographics.

    A lot of our housing conversation here is focused more on urban areas. As a steadfast rural advocate, I'd like to ask about how the missing middle challenge differs in small towns and rural or smaller communities.

    What do you feel federal policies could do to help address some of these unique needs? I know, through Build Canada Homes, that some smaller communities were a bit resistant in terms of carve-outs or how much attention they were going to get. I'm looking at whether there are policies we could be using to help support some of our smaller and rural communities.

    Wait just a moment before you respond.

    Is that the opening of the House? Are the bells ringing?

    An hon. member: The bells are ringing.

    The Chair: It's a 30-minute bell.

    What's the will of the committee? I need unanimous consent to continue.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Okay, we will continue.

    We're in West Block. How about agreeing to continue for 20 minutes? That leaves 10 minutes.

    Thank you, committee members.

     I'll try to make it quick, Ms. Fancy.

    It's really important to think about portfolios that might be regional portfolios. I'm going to give a very concrete example. Mission Unitaînés in Quebec, where eleven 100-unit seniors buildings, using a replicable design, have been built in 11 different small communities. That's the kind of scaling up we need across Canada.

    There's absolutely no reason that.... St. Thomas, Ontario, is likely to become the first small city in Canada, since Medicine Hat, to declare functional zero homelessness, so you can do a lot in small communities. It takes a portfolio approach, I would argue, and it takes an understanding of rural realities, which might include greater need for basic water and sanitation infrastructure, but that's what housing and infrastructure, I would argue, is for.

    That's wonderful. I know in one of my communities, in Bridgewater, some of our municipalities and the town are working together on larger infrastructure projects so that they can help scale both inside and around some of our small towns.

    My other question is regarding ways that we can prevent gender-based violence through housing. I'm wondering what connections you see among housing affordability, homelessness and gender-based violence, particularly for women and seniors who could be fleeing abusive situations.

     Thank you, Ms. Fancy. That's an issue that's been very close to my heart for over 30 years.

    If you're in an unsafe situation, whether it's with a spouse who's violent or a landlord who's abusive, it's really important to be able to get into a safe space. We often think of emergency shelters and transitional housing. It may require either being able to stay in the home or being able to find a new home that's less expensive for you and possibly your children.

    It's really important not to leave out the intersectional analysis that's been in the national housing strategy. It's also really important when we're talking about homelessness to include people who are couch surfing because women are much more likely to be in an informal homelessness situation rather than to present to, certainly, municipal emergency shelters. Those are things that a good strategy would be recognizing in its outcomes and would be incorporating in the way it designs programs.

    It's a really important point, and again, I'll keep it short.

    Thank you so much. I'd love to talk more because that's also been very near and dear to my heart for many years.

    In conclusion then, this is regarding middle-income Canadians. I'm wondering about different recommendations on policy changes that would make the biggest difference for middle-income Canadians when we're talking about affordability measures with housing starts.

     I'm going to take the liberty of mentioning something that was cut off in my last page. I want to talk about limited dividend companies, which were a big part from when Canada was building 10 times as much non-market housing as it is now.

    Those were private companies incentivized to construct, hold and manage rental homes—affordable to income-tested, low-moderate, middle-income households—with no more than a 5% return rate per year. Again, I can tell you how it works in Austria and the Netherlands as part of, I would argue, the non-market sector. It's something that still exists in the NHA, the concept of a limited dividend company, and it can be explored. Again, it's something that I can't get into in full detail right now while the bells are ringing.

    If you could provide that to us, that would be very wholesome within the report.

    Thank you, Ms. Whitzman.

    Ms. Larouche for two and a half minutes.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I would like to thank the two witnesses once again for joining us for this important study.

    Ms. Whitzman, you raised an important point about the need to respect regional differences and realities. The situation in Quebec is unique because, when it comes to housing, we have the Société d'habitation du Québec, or SHQ. The Bloc Québécois supports Build Canada Homes because the SHQ will have the final say—it is the organization that best understands the realities on the ground. This will therefore be done in collaboration with Quebec.

    You also mentioned the Mission Unitaînés. This type of housing is being built in my riding, Shefford. It's true that it's a different model.

    There is also collaboration with community organizations. In my riding, the organization Holocie plays a key role in promoting social and community housing. I'm talking about social and community housing because, in Quebec, the issue of affordability arises. You mentioned it, and many witnesses before you have done so. It's extremely difficult to talk about affordability when there's no clear definition of what it should be. That term can mean anything.

    Would it be important to return to a definition that uses the term “social and community housing” rather than “affordable housing”?

    This would be in accordance with the principle that Canadians and Quebeckers should not spend more than 30% of their income on housing. This is a major consideration.

     Madam Larouche, as you may remember, I've often said some very good things about Quebec programs. However, the recent changes to those programs had more to do, I would argue, with provincial politics and federal politics.

     Having said that, I think it is really important to have a clear definition, which is different right now in Quebec than it is in the rest of Canada, of what affordability means for different income groups, and also to have a very clear view of the value of various non-market providers, such as public housing, co-op housing, non-market housing and, I'd argue, limited dividend housing.

     Having said that, I'll go back to something I said earlier, which is that I think the federal government should set goals and definitions, but then let provinces do what they do best. Quebec has had continuity, it's had a clear financing stream and it's had the wonderful partnership with Desjardins. There are a lot of things that the rest of Canada should learn from Quebec. By no means should Canada say, “This is the one way to do it.” Alberta has had incredibly good homelessness prevention programs. B.C. has had a wonderful acquisition program. Let provinces do what they know how to do.

    We'll go to Mr. McKenzie for five minutes.

    We'll get the last two rounds in.

     Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

     Dr. Whitzman, I'm coming in your direction. I've now looked at three programs. The rental construction financing initiative created in 2017 became the apartment construction loan program, with a budget of $55 billion. The national housing co-investment fund of May 2018 became the affordable housing fund, with $15 billion. The rapid housing initiative from October 2020 had a $4-billion budget.

     I add that up to $74 billion and just over 59,000 housing units created. That's an average of $1,250,000 expended by the federal government, or at least budgeted, per unit.

    Now we're moving into Build Canada Homes with an extremely aggressive target of 500,000 housing units a year with a $13-billion budget.

     We're not really getting this done.

     What is the greatest single problem with what the federal government has done over the last 11 years to try to build homes?

     With all due respect, Mr. McKenzie, I think you need to have a talk with your colleague, Ms. Goodridge. What we've been doing hasn't been working terribly well. It's time for a reset, absolutely. It can't just be what the CMHC or what the Canada Lands Company was doing in the past.

     Having said that, I would 100% agree with you that a reset is needed. I would suggest, as I did in my deputation, that the reset start with very clear goals: We will end homelessness by X date. We will have adequate housing for everyone by X date. That's followed up with a very clear sense of what our definitions are moving forward. It includes assisting non-market housing, with the recognition that even at the highest possible rate I could imagine, which is 20%—it's now 4%—you'd still have 80% to 96% being provided by the private market. Also, it needs to be a lot more comprehensive in terms of its agreements.

    There isn't a magic wand. There isn't one simple thing. When you look at what's worked in other countries, it starts with clear goals, clear definitions, clear financing pathways and clear targets for the sublevels of government.

     Thank you, Dr. Whitzman. You've been very clear in the advice you've provided to the national housing advocate. What I'm trying to understand is why more of it hasn't been accepted. I'm sure that's the frustration of your existence.

     I'm also trying to get at what we have to do differently.

     I'm not sure I can sum it up in 10 words or less, other than to say, treat the housing crisis seriously. Canada is worse off than other similar countries right now, and I don't feel we're giving this the seriousness it deserves.

     Some of the testimony from both you and Mr. Irwin, and from the prior panel, is that we do this best when we do it closest to the people who need the housing. Why, then, do we have yet another federal government program writ large—big numbers and big election promises—that fails to get it done?

    Before I give you an opportunity to answer that, I want to move to Mr. Irwin and talk about specifics.

    Build Canada Homes is a tremendously ambitious target that is not in any way, shape or form going to be realized. I think we all know that by this point. Instead of having a new program—as you indicated, we've been between programs for a year, and that's not helpful in getting houses built—wouldn't it have been a better strategy to just increase funding through the rapid housing initiative, an existing program administered by CMHC?

    I think that's a difficult question, and I don't believe I have all the knowledge and capacity to fully answer it.

    What I can—

    Those whom you represent build rental homes. You at least know how that program works.

    Sure, we do, and I can talk about CMHC all day long.

    Regarding Build Canada Homes, I think it's fair to say that my members are not the primary audience for that program. We are trying to figure out how we can engage with it, and I think there are opportunities. I'm just being forthright by saying that it is meant to be supporting and building non-market housing. That's not, primarily, what my members do. We support its goals, and I want to work with them to see if....

    I have always said that we should be building. The government shouldn't be building. It should be the ones who do what they do best, and that's what we do best.

     Thank you, Mr. McKenzie.

    We'll conclude with Mr. Saini for five minutes.

     Thank you, witnesses, for your time.

    I want to talk about something different.

    In listening to both of you, the three things that I see as the biggest problems are the amount of time permitting at the city level takes, the development cost charges, which are compounding at $80,000 or $90,000 per unit, and the financing of these projects. In the mid-1970s, the interest rate was 10%, 12% or 13% for years and years.

    Why are those issues a problem? Do we need to find a different way of doing development cost charges so municipalities are not burdened with this?

    I just want to see a solution where housing affordability becomes a reality.

     I think long-term secured financing, which was, frankly, the secret sauce or baguette magique from the mid-1960s to, let's say, the mid-1980s, is terribly important. If I were to answer with one thing that needs to change, it's long-term financing for as low a rate as possible.

    Why didn't that work? Well, it was in the early 1980s when interest rates started going up and the federal government freaked out because it was locked into a lot of long-term, low-rate financing for non-market housing. That's when the wheels fell off.

    Even if it's five-year renewable, etc.—I'm sorry, but I'm a wonk, so I start getting into the details of finance—there needs to be a clear financing stream and federal leadership for that kind of capital cost. There needs to be assistance with operating costs and rent assistance from provinces. There needs to be assistance with rapid approvals from municipalities. They each have their roles.

    I completely agree that local leadership and local coordination are key, but there needs to be national leadership as well. Since I'm speaking to a national group today, I'm calling for national leadership.

     Mr. Irwin, should development cost charges be the responsibility of municipal governments or should the federal and provincial governments be the ones building infrastructure?

     Based on where we are today, the current structure around how development charges are addressed isn't working, so we need to think about how we address paying for development-related infrastructure and housing-related infrastructure differently. Municipalities only have so many revenue tools. They are feeling very overwhelmed with it.

    You talked about how, decades ago, there were different interest rates. Of course, development charges weren't nearly as impactful or they didn't even exist many decades ago. It wasn't the same impact on the cost to build. When it's $900,000 to build an apartment in Toronto or $700,000 to build an apartment in Ottawa, we have a problem. That's not the sole problem, but I think it's a big one.

    On amortizing the cost over the life of the infrastructure, you're putting pipe in the ground, and that pipe is going to be useful for 30, 40 or 50 years. Right now, development charges mean that's paid all up front. We have to look at how we can better amortize the cost, how we can better finance the cost and who is responsible, ultimately. We don't have enough time today to get into that.

    I do think it's fair to say that it can't be the municipality alone. Developers are going to do their part. We're not looking to get out of our obligation. If we want to build more housing, and we want it to be more affordable, then we can't keep doing things the way we've been doing it. We have to do things differently, period.

    I represent one of the ridings in British Columbia, and the permitting process in the City of Surrey takes up to a year from the beginning until they're ready. On top of that, you have $80,000 to $90,000 per unit on the development. How can we survive?

     Did you say it takes up to a year for the permit process? Can I come shake your hand?

    Exactly. That's lucky.

    Can I hold a parade in your town? I don't mean to be glib. We want to do better than that, but that's a lot better than a lot of other places, just so you know.

     What can the federal government do to bring down approval times and bring down development charges? Again, someone has to put the thumb down on that.

     Thank you, Mr. Saini.

    Thank you to the witnesses. This concludes the second round of today's committee hearing. The witnesses can go.

    Before we suspend, the bells are ringing, so there are votes. I had scheduled an additional 30 minutes to deal with two items, the Centennial Flame and drafting instructions on this report. Is it the will of committee to return after the vote to see if we can do that, or would you choose the option of my scheduling it on Monday?

    Could we do this in the next five minutes?

    Can we do drafting instructions?

    We cannot. I have to suspend to go in camera, and that would take the five minutes.

    What about the Centennial Flame? Does that have to be done in camera? My understanding is that it might just be a secret ballot. If that's the case, could we vote?

    There could be discussions. I'll seek direction.

    Ms. Larouche, you have the floor.

    Mr. Chair, I would like us to reconvene for 15 minutes after the vote in the House. If we reconvene quickly after the vote, I think we'll be able to vote on the Centennial Flame Research Award and provide some guidance on drafting the report. It never takes very long. I think that, after the vote, we could come back here and wrap up the meeting before 11:00 a.m.

    Thank you.

    If we do the ballot right now for that, then it gives time to tally up while we're voting.

    We're going to suspend for the vote and then we will follow.... We do have problems, and I have to chair a committee at 11. Do you want to do it on Monday?

    Was it for drafting instructions?

     Yes, it was, and for the Centennial Flame.

     How is that going to affect what's already planned?

     It would take just 20 minutes.

     Sure. Let's do that.

    Okay. I seem to be getting consensus that we will adjourn the meeting, and we'll schedule the two items that we're doing for committee business on Monday.

    The committee is adjourned.