HUMA Committee Meeting

     Good afternoon, committee members.

     I would like to begin meeting number 43 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, the committee is meeting on homelessness in Canada.

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

     Before I begin, I have a couple of points. You have the option of participating in today's meeting in the official language of your choice. If you're in the room, please check the correct channel that will give you the proper interpretation. If you're appearing virtually, click on the globe icon at the bottom of your Surface and choose the official language of your choice.

    If there is an interruption in interpretation services, please get my attention, and we'll suspend while it is corrected. Please ensure all your devices are on silent mode before we begin. As well, please refrain from tapping the boom on the mic, for the protection of our interpreters. As well, those appearing virtually have been sound-tested, and the sound quality has been approved, to ensure proper interpretation.

    As you know, today we have one panel of witnesses for the full duration of the public part of today's meeting on homelessness.

     I would like to begin by introducing, from Alliance to End Homelessness Ottawa, Kaite Harris, executive director, who is in the room. From Auberge sous mon toit, Frédérick Bonner, director, is with us by video conference. From Oxford House Foundation of Canada, Earl Thiessen, executive director, appears by video conference. From Saskatoon West Business Association, Henry Chan, chairman of the board, and Karen Kobussen, chief executive officer, are appearing in the room.

    We'll begin with an opening statement from Monsieur Bonner.

    Mr. Bonner, you have the floor for five minutes.

    Good afternoon, Mr. Chair and committee members.

    Thank you for the opportunity to participate in your work on homelessness in Canada.

    My name is Frédéric Bonner. I'm the executive director of Auberge sous mon toit, an organization based in Granby, in the Eastern Townships.

    For over 55 years, our organization has welcomed homeless men or men at risk of homelessness. We provide accommodation, psychosocial support and post-shelter follow-up all year long. Auberge sous mon toit has 20 rooms and, for a few years now, they have been fully occupied. We now have a waiting list of about 50 people, which is kind of new to us. This mostly means that if a man in distress dares to call Auberge sous mon toit today, there's a good chance he'll have to wait three months to six months before we can help him.

    Unfortunately, it echoes what one of our former residents was telling us recently. He referred to the street as a waiting room without comfort, without a number. It's very difficult to look ahead.

    A waiting list is made up of people in great distress and to whom we have to say “no”, at the risk of causing more disruption. We're trying with all our hearts to temporarily protect these men at a time when they feel ready to work on their social integration and, a few days later, that window may close.

    Each year, 70 men come to us for stays that can last up to 12 months. I find this period is getting shorter and shorter, given the challenges our residents are facing. Each year, Auberge sous mon toit receives about 350 service requests. What we're seeing are men who have been in distress for a long time before asking for help, who no longer have a solution, who we weren't able to reach in our prevention work, and who now face a difficult road ahead.

    I'd like to share a few observations with you.

    The first observation is that the journey of men requesting our service is increasingly complex. Their reality is rarely linked to a single issue. It is filled with overlapping challenges: poor mental health, addiction, poverty and isolation. The more these issues add up, the more difficult it is for them to get out of their situation en their own. These men need services, support, time and help to re‑establish a safety net, yet access to specialized services is often difficult and takes a long time. Meanwhile, their needs aren't going away. In this context, I feel transitional housing is a minimum condition that must be met for someone to undertake a social integration journey. They need a safe environment and their essential needs have to be met for them to leave the survival mode they're in. That's when you start to look ahead.

    The second observation is that stability and time are our real intervention tools. Auberge sous mon toit is privileged to be able to welcome men and accompany them for up to 12 months. I think this type of resource is rare for homeless men or men at high risk of homelessness. It really does make a difference. It provides stability and it creates a sense of belonging. For someone who's experienced several months, sometimes even years, of instability, time is not a luxury, far from it. Time allows us to see these men in a different light than the one reflected by their situation and status. That's very important to me. Most importantly, it allows us to uncover their strengths and guide them based on their abilities and aspirations.

    The third observation is that there needs to be better support for the transition from accommodation and to housing. Getting out of transitional housing is a defining moment, but also one of the most fragile times in the journey of the men we welcome. Housing is going to bring all sorts of weaknesses back to the surface. That's why we believe better support is needed for the transition from accommodation to self-contained housing. We need to recognize that the transition to housing is an intervention phase in itself. For example, we set up our own small rooming house to add an additional step that was missing in our residents' path to housing. All that to say that community organizations must be allowed to innovate and implement small initiatives to meet the needs of their users every day.

    The fourth and final observation is that community organizations are essential, but they are weakened by resource instability. The investments made in recent years have enabled us to support tangible projects, strengthen local collaborations and develop new responses. These investments have enabled us to develop our expertise on the new challenges vulnerable people face.

    The obvious conclusion is that needs are growing and very quickly becoming more complex, and our collective capacity is having a hard time keeping up. Project-based funding gets valuable initiatives off the ground, but it also creates ongoing uncertainty. When a project ends or funding isn't renewed, it's not just activities that stop; expertise is also lost. When an experienced stakeholder leaves an organization, you lose the trust they built with vulnerable people. In homelessness, however, it's often that first link that leads to change. Predictability in funding is fundamental for an organization like ours.

    Finally—

    Thank you, Mr. Bonner.

     Mr. Thiessen, you have five minutes or less. I will advise the witness that I will thank you at the five-minute mark.

     Thank you.

     First off, I'm honoured to be here. I think this is a very important platform.

    Having been homeless for seven years and addicted for 25 years, I've given a life of service to helping people just like me. I'm here to provide my experience on homelessness and addiction and the effects on both [Technical difficulty—Editor].

    First, it's one thing speaking about it, but I fully believe people need to feel what it's like to be homeless [Technical difficulty—Editor]. Nineteen years ago, I was a resident, and now I'm the executive director.

     I'm going to read you something that happened a while back. [Technical difficulty—Editor] While out grabbing provisions and paying for my items, I noticed an intoxicated indigenous brother counting his change with a box of donuts in his hand. I said, “Are you okay?” He looked at me and said, “I don't have enough. I don't think I have enough.” I told him to hand them over. I scanned them with my stuff and handed them back. He didn't make eye contact once. He [Technical difficulty—Editor] and said, “God bless,” as he walked away.

    I loaded my stuff into my car and noticed an indigenous lady picking through the garbage for recyclables. I walked up to her, handed her five dollars and gave her my card. [Technical difficulty—Editor] I asked her to give me a call when she was ready, and I'd help guide her towards her own healing journey. I noticed her hands were pretty beaten up and calloused. [Technical difficulty—Editor] her hand, and I held it. I told her that her hands were meant for caring for others, baking and creating. She looked down and said, “I know.” I smiled at her and told her to stay out of trouble, one of my parting sayings.

    I went to leave, and I saw the gent I had bought the donuts for. I pulled over, put my hazards on, got out and asked him how the donuts were. He said, “Good, but I'm still hungry.” I shared my recovery story with him and handed him my card. I told him I had been homeless for seven years and moved into an Oxford House after treatment, and that now I was the executive director.

    He looked at the card, yelled, “Earl!” and grabbed my hand and held onto it. He told me how proud he was of me. I had been homeless with him and his brother. I had housed him earlier on in my career. He told me what had happened to his brother and that he was now paralyzed. We talked. I told him to call me when he was ready. I got in my car and started driving home, crying and praying to the creator that he would call me, or someone, to start his own healing journey. We can do better.

     One of the models I created [Technical difficulty—Editor] for Oxford House is one of the biggest gaps in the public serving sector and homelessness. It's called pre-treatment housing. I created this from my lived experience while waiting for treatment when I was [Technical difficulty—Editor]. Now Oxford House Foundation of Canada has North America's only licensed and accredited pre-treatment housing model.

    [Technical difficulty—Editor] and residential treatment. People are dying in this gap. So many people have missed their treatment date. Now we have housing fully funded by the Government of Alberta to support people during that gap. These homes have a live-in house lead [Technical difficulty—Editor] and to stay motivated. We also have the post-treatment transitional housing, peer-led. [Technical difficulty—Editor] The impact this has on people's lives is phenomenal. You have to live it. You have to see it to believe it. I've had many MPs, many MLAs [Technical difficulty—Editor] housing, and this model should be one across Canada.

     After my recent stay in Ottawa for the Global Leadership Exchange, it's evident the whole country needs this housing. It's crucial [Technical difficulty—Editor].

     Mr. Thiessen, we're having issues. You're cutting in and out, so the technical people will call you again, and I will move to the next witness.

     We want to get it cleared up before we go into the question session, because it's very important to hear from you. We will have technical reach back out to you, because I am unable to have your comments correctly translated.

    Thank you so much.

    Thank you.

    We'll move to Ms. Kobussen.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair and committee members.

    My name is Karen Kobussen. My colleague Henry Chan and I are here on behalf of the Saskatoon West Business Association.

    For the last 15 years, I've worked with municipalities, community organizations, businesses and governments on housing and homelessness policy, and now I have a strong focus on community safety for our community businesses, residents and the vulnerable people on the west side of Saskatoon.

    I've served on the board of directors for the community entity responsible for the Reaching Home strategy's funding in Saskatoon, and I was involved with that organization from the early days of the homelessness partnering strategy, a predecessor of the Reaching Home strategy.

    My perspective today is not only professional; it is also personal. I have an adult child living on the streets who is gang-involved and uses substances. I live in fear for her life every single day. As a mother, I know what this does to Canadian families who have loved ones in the same situation. It has led me here to this moment, with that happening in our family.

    Today I want to focus on what I believe is no longer working for Canada's homelessness strategy under the Reaching Home program. There is a lack of mandated accountability, inter-agency transparency and measurable outcomes. Billions of dollars being spent across Canada are not reducing homelessness. In fact, despite over $40 million received by Saskatoon CBOs between 2016 and 2025, homelessness has increased 296%.

    Since the introduction of the Reaching Home strategy in about 2018-19, agencies have merely been encouraged, but not mandated, to participate in the HIFIS—the homelessness information system—coordinated access and point-in-time counts. Years later, participation remains inconsistent, data sharing is fragmented, point-in-time counts are anecdotal at best, and funded organizations operate in silos without common performance metrics.

    The Reaching Home program funds homelessness-serving activities, and that is very important, but we measure this in meals served, shelter beds occupied and outreach contact made. We do not know how many people obtain permanent housing and maintain that housing for six months or a year later, even. We do not know which programs are delivering the greatest return on public investment, because homelessness continues to grow. The more money that has been put into the system, the higher the homelessness rates have become.

    Businesses, residents and communities are growing wary that the federal government does not cares about what is happening to our communities and to our most vulnerable citizens. We deserve a data-driven response and a profound policy shift, from serving to solving.

    Between 2018 and 2024, funded service capacity was much needed. However, it also created an economic ecosystem that is incentivized to keep this very problem alive. The more money that flows in, the more jobs it sustains and the more agencies get guaranteed funding year after year, but it fails to sustain the livelihood and the lives of people living on the street. This is a paradoxical feedback loop, and it needs to change. The system does not need more money; it needs smarter money.

    We have in front of us today a great opportunity. Canada needs to make ending homelessness the goal, not serving it and not being better at what we do. We are already good at what we do. We need to end it, full stop.

    We don't have a funding problem; we have a data void. We have no requirement for accountability. We have inconsistent measurement mechanisms and a verifiable outcomes problem.

    I have three recommendations for this committee today.

    First, homelessness is not a mystery. It is solvable. Implement the proven methodology of functional zero as an operational target, and mandate the use of quality, by-name data. That needs to be firmly established in policy.

    Second, I believe funding should be directed to provincial governments, not organizations individually. Provincial governments are responsible for education, health care, housing, addiction services, community safety and policing. These all intersect. The provincial governments need to not work in silos against the federal government, municipalities and those communities receiving funding and those not receiving funding. This is a widespread problem. Provincial governments are in the best possible position to allocate this funding.

    Third, let the leaders lead. You have heard through these proceedings from organizations and community leaders about their great work and their most pressing needs, but what is needed in St. Catharines or Montreal is not going to be the same as what is needed in Red Deer, Victoria or North Battleford.

     We are looking to run a pilot project in Prince Albert right now. If we are successful, I hope to be able to report back to you

     Thank you very much, Mr. Chair and committee members.

     Thank you, Madam Kobussen. You gave a very interesting presentation.

    We will now conclude with Ms. Harris, for five minutes or less.

    Thank you, Chair and members of committee, and thank you, Ms. Kobussen. I want to say many of the same things.

    My name is Kaite Burkholder-Harris. I'm the executive director of the Alliance to End Homelessness Ottawa. We represent about 80 agencies that do frontline work here in the city.

    Homelessness is solvable. While the long-term solution is scaling non-market housing in Canada, there are a number of strategic system-level changes that can reduce homelessness right now, but each requires a rethink of how our system operates.

    First, we need to return to Housing First.

    Canada was once a global leader in Housing First research and implementation, yet over the past decade we have drifted away from the model that the evidence supports. Housing First does work, but we just stopped doing it right. Housing First means that a person experiencing homelessness gets immediate access to a permanent form of housing—not transitional, not bridge housing, not a program that expects people to become housing-ready. Housing is not the reward for stability. It is the foundation of stability.

    Housing First is also not housing only. It is housing with the support that a person needs. That support will look different for everyone. For some, it's 24-7 supportive housing. For others, it's a rent subsidy and a caseworker. For an increasing number of homeless people, it's literally just rent in a housing market that a growing number of people can't afford.

    When we do Housing First properly, we see results. Medicine Hat, Alberta, is the first Canadian city to reach functional zero. The U.K. government reduced rough sleeping by nearly half. Edmonton reduced homelessness by 43% in 2016.

    The second key change we need to make is emergency shelter transformation.

    The second you step in the door of a shelter, you will be exposed to trauma. Every day you spend there, the more likely you are to be assaulted, exposed to substances, at risk of trafficking and more. Despite staff and agencies doing everything they can to provide the right services, the environment of a shelter is crisis. None of us can live in crisis for long without experiencing harm. There will always be a need for emergency accommodation, but shelters should be organized around one goal: helping people to find permanent housing as quickly as possible.

    The Calgary Drop-In Centre transformed its approach by focusing on housing solutions from the moment someone entered the shelter. Since 2018, the Calgary Drop-In Centre has reduced homelessness by 85%, and fewer than 4% of people have returned to the shelter.

    A key part of shelter transformation is diversion—helping people find safe alternatives before they enter the shelter system. The Raft in Niagara, which I know you've heard from recently, saw first-time youth shelter use drop by 90% after implementing diversion. Working further upstream, they reduced overall youth homelessness by 75% in just two years. In Ottawa, we did a diversion project with the Shepherds of Good Hope. We achieved positive housing outcomes and reduced stay-day lengths from 90 days to 11. Prevention works, diversion works, the results are immediate and it is dirt cheap.

    Third, we need coordinated systems planning, supported by real-time data. Homelessness cannot be solved agency by agency. Communities need coordinated systems, shared outcomes and real-time data that allows resources to be targeted where they will have the greatest impact. Waterloo reduced family homelessness by 40%. Calgary reduced overall homelessness by 40%. Milwaukee reduced homelessness by 40%. There's a pattern. Houston, Texas, also reduced homelessness by 60%. Each of these cities has done the same thing. They show the effectiveness of a coordinated, data-driven system built around Housing First.

    These strategies can reduce, and have reduced, homelessness in Canada, but I would be remiss if I didn't name the reality we all know: the lack of affordable housing. Today, 40% of Canadians can afford a maximum of about $1,700 a month for housing. I have yet to meet a private developer who can consistently build housing at that price point. That's why we need both immediate and long-term solutions.

    In the short term, the federal government should establish a Canada housing benefit, available to all households below a defined income threshold. Housing insecurity often begins with a gap between what people earn and what housing costs. A portable benefit would immediately reduce housing precarity, prevent evictions and help thousands of households avoid homelessness.

    Over the long term, non-market housing is the foundation of getting out of the housing crisis. A Deloitte report in 2023 found that if Canada doubled its non-market stock, we would see a GDP increase of 5% to 9%. More importantly, we would create a housing system that works for people across the income spectrum.

    When the private sector can't deliver a basic human need at the scale required, it is the responsibility of government to step up. Canada did this successfully in the postwar era, building the kind of housing that still houses hundreds of thousands of Canadians. We can do it again.

    Thank you.

     You were right on time, Ms. Harris. Thank you for that.

    I would remind the witnesses appearing virtually to please keep their cameras on. Thank you.

    We'll now begin the first round with Mr. Aitchison for six minutes.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here and testifying today.

    We've heard from a lot of folks now. Ms. Harris, you mentioned Raft, and you mentioned the Drop-In Centre. I think all of us were particularly interested to hear what they were talking about in terms of diversion, particularly with Raft, where their mission was to make sure a young person didn't become homeless in the first place. Obviously, it's probably a bit easier to divert younger people than people who have experienced homelessness for many years and have multiple other issues that they need to address as well.

    I'm not really interested in assigning blame here, because I think that everybody in the homelessness space means well, but as my mom has said to me before, “You can be so heavenly minded that you're no earthly good.”

     I wonder if you can help us understand, and I'll start with you on this, what happens in this space where emergency shelter becomes more long-term. What's the gap? What's missing between funds that have been dedicated federally—through Reaching Home, for example, or the national housing strategy—filtering down into communities, provinces and municipalities? Where's the gap there? What's missing?

     Between 2016 and, I think, 2022, Ontario invested about 34% in congregate beds. We increased homelessness by 32%. When you invest in crisis, you will get more crisis. Especially since COVID, we've been like deer in the headlights when we look at the crisis on the ground and what's happening to people. I think the level of distress is higher. The toxic drug supply, the level of crisis—all of that is more visible now. Ultimately, in the face of that, I think we've reverted to thinking, “Okay, just plug the hole. Just go over and plug the hole.”

    I think what's required right now—and Housing First did this when it was first started—is a paradigm shift, but I think the shift is in.... We have to acknowledge that the system we've created is actually harmful. Despite best intentions, despite a lot of compassion, it is actively harmful. We need to recognize that and rethink it. If we keep people out of this system and move the supports upstream, that's actually going to be the better thing.

    However, our funding doesn't follow that right now, and I don't think that philosophy is yet something that is widely understood or accepted.

     Thank you for that.

    Again, this is an issue that I think all governments are engaged in to one degree or another, and the federal government has gotten back into this issue, starting with the Harper government and the Housing First program.

    What would you do differently at the federal level to effect the change that we need to effect to end homelessness?

    The first would be the Canada housing benefit. I think that could immediately pull people out of poverty and housing precarity and stop the pipeline into homelessness.

    We know that in Finland they have lots and lots of non-market housing, but they also did an immediate benefit for everybody below a certain threshold, and that just got everybody to a point of.... Also, just in reducing poverty writ large, it's pretty effective. That would be the first thing.

    Can I stop you right there? I'm going to run out of time here, but I think this is really, crucially important. I take at face value what you're saying about this benefit, but if you automatically make that benefit available, does that actually exacerbate the supply challenge that we have in this country?

     It is ever the question, and it is a frustration. It's the fast thing that we can do now to stabilize people.

    I'm going to make the case that federal rent enforcement is something that has been done in the past, and I think at some point you have to face the reality that rent will keep going up until we have better tenant protections, so yes, it could exacerbate that. There's limited evidence showing that that happens, but I think in the current housing market, you're spot-on. That's going to be a challenge, so we have to increase non-market supply as well.

    Okay. Are you suggesting that there be federal regulation of rent?

     It happened in the 1960s and 1970s, yes.

    That's interesting. I might need to learn more about that. Okay. I'm sorry, and please continue. I'm running out of time too, I guess.

     Also, there is prevention and diversion.

    You can elaborate on that. There is a bit of time.

     Having metrics that measure that effectively, and making sure that the coordination is actually happening across communities—that's a really big thing. Coordinated access is a really good start, but it needs to be amplified, and it needs to be consistent across the country.

     Quickly, then, in terms of coordinating across communities, I'm assuming that it really is more of a provincial role. However, would you suggest that the federal government has some role to play, in working with provinces, to ensure that we're all working from the same page of the hymn book here?

     Yes, I think that the feds have to lead this, even cross-province. I think the feds have to take that leadership role, as in, “This is what we expect. This is what needs to get built. These are the outcomes we're looking for. This is where we want to see money invested.” I think provincial funding should be tied to those outcomes.

    Is there resistance, at the provincial levels, to this kind of thinking?

    Yes.

    Okay. Thanks.

    I'm sure you don't want to name names, but I'd be curious to know more about it. I'm assuming the resistance is, maybe, a lack of understanding of what we really need to try to do here. Is that fair?

    I think there's a lack of understanding, in general, around homelessness, but, yes, that is part of it: seeking control and seeking to control the operations on the ground. Ontario's model is weird because of the service manager role, so we're different from everywhere else.

    However, when you do see a local community take the reins and take the leadership.... Again, Alberta is the strongest for this, but, in my opinion, they're about to backtrack, because they're changing the funding structure with Reaching Home. Those communities ganged up, got together and said, “We're going to have common outcomes across the seven major cities,” and they've seen the greatest success in Canada.

    Mr. Villeneuve, you have the floor for six minutes.

     Thanks very much.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I'd like to welcome all the witnesses and thank them for joining us. They really help us do our work.

    Mr. Bonner, you're from my riding, Brome‑Missisquoi, which is next to Ms. Chouinard's riding. Our ridings overlap and Highway 10 isn't going to fix the issues we're dealing with.

    What's the main barrier to finding a sustainable way out of homelessness?

    I think the work we're doing on transition is yielding fantastic results. This period can vary in length depending on the complexity of the person's situation. There's a phase where someone settles in at the Auberge and finds safety there.

    The challenge in a person's journey is housing affordability and accessibility. That's really the challenge we have as an organization when we start looking for housing for one of our residents. It's not simple, and our residents tend to use different methods to find a place to live. More and more are working on flat-sharing projects, for example.

    Early on in your opening remarks, you talked about complex journeys.

    Could you give us a little more detail on that?

    Being new to the Auberge, I took the time to talk with my colleagues about the previous reality.

    Our residents face multiple issues, which means their situation won't be simple to resolve. We have to take it one step at a time. For us, it's about successively building on small successes to allow someone to redefine themselves. You can't solve issues like substance abuse, addiction and debt in a short period of time.

    I'll give you an example. An average stay at the Auberge is about 110 days. Administrative challenges are very complex for someone who's been homeless. It's going to require a lot of adjustments, for example. We therefore spend a lot of time with the person to guide them to the services they'll be able to get, even if it means going with them to the various resources to maintain a relationship of trust.

    Brome-Missisquoi and Memphrémagog are mainly rural or semi-urban areas. When we talk about homelessness, we often talk about big cities. I think the challenges experienced in Magog, Cowansville, Farnham and Granby are different from those in big cities.

    How can the federal government better adapt programs to the realities of the regions?

    Program flexibility is very important for us, because it allows us to innovate based on the needs of our residents. Program consistency is also an important factor.

    Earlier in my opening remarks I talked about know-how. One of the challenges in a region like ours is labour shortage, so it's very difficult to recruit. Our stakeholders are slowly developing extremely valuable expertise we would never want to lose. It can take up to three years for someone to master their role, so I would say maintaining skills is essential for us.

    How do you think homelessness has changed in the region in recent years? That intrigues me.

    We talk about rapid growth, not including hidden homelessness.

    I won't hide the fact that we had to develop new tools. It's kind of a new thing. We're all learning, and the key is to maintain a continuum of services. In recent years, particularly thanks to the funding we got, our goal has been to partner with emergency resources, which gives each player an optimal position.

    There was an adjustment phase, but now the steps for each of our organizations are increasingly clear, which enables the person to see a simpler path.

    I only have a few seconds left.

    Quickly, do you think federal investments in affordable housing have a tangible impact on your clientele?

    I heard earlier about non-market housing. Like it or not, affordable housing is the solution, yes. Most of our residents rely on last-resort assistance, so housing affordability is essential to the rest of their journey.

    Thank you very much.

     Thank you, Mr. Villeneuve.

    Ms. Larouche, you have the floor for six minutes.

    Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Thank you to all the witnesses for joining us today.

    Ladies and gentlemen, every day, you're trying to change the lives of those who don't have what is considered an essential need, which is housing and being able to get off the street.

    Ms. Kobussen, Mr. Chan and Ms. Burkholder Harris, thank you very much for your remarks. I don't know if Mr. Thiessen is still here, but I also thank him for his remarks and for sharing his experience on the street. It was very moving.

    I'm going to turn to Mr. Bonner from Auberge sous mon toit.

    Mr. Bonner, I don't think you had time to finish your opening remarks.

    Is there anything, a conclusion or anything, you prepared and didn't have time to deliver?

    Thank you, honourable member.

    What I could say is we've noticed that the journeys are less and less linear. I think that's a strong trend. Almost 33% of our residents come back to Auberge sous mon toit at some point in their life.

    I would simply say that it's important for us to welcome them, but above all to give them another opportunity to take a few steps forward.

    In your third observation, you talked about better support for the transition. I think that's when you talked about the waiting room idea. I read about this idea in a Granby Express December article entitled “Tribune libre: quand la rue devient une salle d'attente”.

    Can you explain what that means?

    As you say, sometimes people have to come back to your organization. They need support during the transition; they need support as they move forward.

    Could you come back to the continuum of services that absolutely must be provided to successfully reduce homelessness?

    In this article, we tried to transform the words of someone who's come a long way here, at the Auberge. They referred to the street as a waiting room, and I found that very, very difficult and very moving. I think the fact that there's no number is very telling. You don't know when your turn will come.

    We've seen it since we've had a waiting list. That's what makes the process difficult, particularly for our stakeholders who have to say no or ask someone in a vulnerable situation to wait.

    Without a number, it's very difficult to look ahead.

    It's very difficult to look ahead. These people need help, and you're working very hard to provide them with beds.

    We met in January because there was some uncertainty about renewing a program for encampments. In the end, the program was renewed. I know it's appreciated, but I'd like to know what this program represents in terms of the number of beds and people you can support in your organization.

    Also, what consequences could this kind of uncertainty have had on a resource like yours?

    We're proud to say that in 2025-26, the 20 rooms we have were open all year. We're all very proud of that. It's taken a lot of work, but it's a huge success for us.

    Thanks to the Reaching Home program, for example, we were able to keep four rooms open. Basically, when we got a positive answer, it was as if we'd been given a bit of breathing room. Otherwise, the wait time would have gone from three to six months to five or eight months. That would've been unbearable for our team. That represents four bedrooms for us. There are funding uncertainties, and we can't close these rooms overnight. It's never easy for the team.

    Thanks to these rooms, we've had many small successes in recent years. I think we need to slightly redefine what constitutes a success. Over the past few weeks, we were very proud to go and visit someone at her home. She's now living in low-income housing after spending some time with us. We're always very proud of those cases.

    I also visited the rooming house, and I can say your project is still part of that continuum of services perspective. It's really impressive.

    You talked about your needs. In one of the solutions you propose, you talk about the uncertainty of project-based funding and the need for predictable funding. When the minister appeared before the committee, we talked about the future of the Reaching Home program after 2028.

    You also need resources. In Shefford, in the Haute‑Yamaska region, organizations talk about the fact that Granby is not a designated community, which means it can't access all the resources.

    Based on your discussions with the other resources helping the homeless, who benefits from the Reaching Home program? What issues do you raise regarding designated communities?

    This is a crucial point. We want our reality acknowledged. All the stakeholders involved in the continuum of services are still learning how to cope with the growing demand. Things are always moving quite quickly.

    There are also key moments, such as the onset of winter. That time is always a bit more challenging for us. Our main challenges arise during the period before and after the shelter stay. At the Auberge, we consider these two aspects essential. In terms of the period leading up to the shelter stay, we need to be able to support people who run the risk of losing their housing or the place where they live. We often hear about strained ties with friends and family because of a breakdown in the relationship.

     Thank you, Mr. Bonner.

    Thank you, Ms. Larouche.

     Next is Ms. Goodridge for five minutes.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to all the witnesses for being here.

    It's been a lot of learning. I'm going to open up and hope that Mr. Thiessen has been able to resolve some of his technical issues.

    Earl, thanks for being here and for sharing your success story. It's pretty remarkable to think about the fact that you were homeless yourself, and now you are the executive director of an organization that is providing innovative solutions to help people find recovery from addiction.

    I've had the opportunity to get to know you and your organization, and I've toured your facilities. I'm just wondering if you could expand a little on your pre-treatment housing model. I think a lot of places around the world would benefit from this, particularly here in Canada. We aren't doing that very well. Can you give a bit of description there?

     Yes, I can, a hundred per cent. Thank you for those comments, Ms. Goodridge. I really appreciate it.

     I created this model. For me, the major piece of homelessness is the addiction piece. There's a lineup of people waiting for healing. That's what I say. The medical detoxes have lineups outside of them. [Technical difficulty—Editor] and I recognize [Technical difficulty—Editor] experience. I went in, after being homeless, on November 13 [Technical difficulty—Editor] January. I had no idea where I was going, and that's where this concept came from.

    The purpose of pre-treatment housing is to, I'd say [Technical difficulty—Editor] some light psychoed, some relapse—

     Earl, we're still having some technical difficulties on our end. Perhaps you could send your remarks about that space in writing to the committee, so that we can consider it as part of our study, because I do believe that this is one of the huge gaps.

    Homelessness and addiction aren't necessarily one and the same, but there are many people who are homeless because they struggle with addiction, and if those people who are struggling with addiction are trying to find a path out, there are often very few paths available to them.

     I'm going to give a space to explain some of what Earl does, because it truly is remarkable. They allow people who are trying to seek treatment an ability, after they've gone through detox, to have a place to live until they have a space to go to treatment. I truly believe that this is something that we could do better, because it goes after some of the low-hanging fruit. I've had the opportunity to meet many of the success stories and people who have had to go through their houses one, two or three times, because relapse is often a part of the addiction story.

    Thank you, from the bottom of my heart, for all that you do, and I look forward to having a written brief, so that we can get more information on this.

    Kaite, I saw you shaking your head and nodding in agreement. I was wondering if you have anything to add to that.

     When I say Housing First, I mean just moving to immediate access to permanency. The pre-treatment piece and the journey towards healing is that ability to access. You can stay as long as you need to. We're going to be the next piece, which is getting permanent housing, but without a date, without a deadline for when that has to be completed.

    I work with lots of providers. Our members are all service providers. None of our transitional housing folks really want to be doing transitional housing. They want to be doing permanent housing. There isn't enough affordable housing and there aren't enough real long-term treatment options, so they're functionally doing permanent housing, because they just can't help people move into the kinds of spaces.... I guess I would say that.

    Also, how do we build a system that is so flexible and so oriented towards the person in front of us that it fits their need now for 24-7 support with community, while maybe in two months, four months or four years, they want to move into an apartment with a roommate? How do we design that system?

    None of it is backtracking or failure. It's moving, but every option along the way is a permanent option. We're not expecting people to fix something before they have access to that permanent option.

     That's such a key piece that's missing. Governments seem to be so keen on a permanent solution for fixing it, not realizing that, especially in the space of addiction, it's not linear. It doesn't follow a calendar. Realistically, every individual is going to be a bit different. Everyone's going to come at this with a different set of tools in their tool kit. How each one brings that forward is going to look a little different. If everything is so rigid that they are stuck in a rigid system, why can't the system be more flexible to meet people where they are?

    How can policy do that? I think that's a big question. How can you design policy so that people can use resources on the ground in a nimble way?

    Thank you—

    If you have an idea on how we could do the policy and you could put it in writing to the committee, that would be spectacular.

    I will do that.

     It was a good question. You got it out, Ms. Goodridge. Good.

    Mr. Joseph, you have the floor for five minutes.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I would also like to thank all the witnesses for joining us.

    Through you, Mr. Chair, I would like to speak to Mr. Bonner.

    Mr. Bonner, you emphasized the need to fund transitional housing. The 2025 budget includes historic investments in housing, particularly transitional housing. The government is investing over $10 billion in affordable housing, as well as $1 billion in supportive and transitional housing through Build Canada Homes.

    What do you think of these investments? How could they help your community?

    Our main challenge lies in the accessibility and affordability of housing. Of course, if I paint a picture of the people who use our services at the Auberge, it's last‑resort assistance. It's difficult to imagine a typical housing situation for a person who receives $800 or $1,000 a month.

    I believe that every journey requires tailored solutions. Every person's journey is unique. I think that community shelters such as ours primarily focus on helping people stay in their homes. I would say that this is a key point.

    Housing retention is key. Our job is to limit the loss of housing, because securing housing is a major victory for our former residents.

    Through you, Mr. Chair, I would like to speak to Ms. Kobussen.

    Ms. Kobussen, in your opening remarks, you said that one major challenge lies in the fact that data sharing among the various stakeholders remains limited.

    What recommendations would you make to improve information and data sharing in order to strengthen our collective response to homelessness?

     Thank you.

     Currently, Reaching Home and designated communities that are distributing the Reaching Home and other streams....

    We do have HIFIS, which is the homeless individuals and families information system. We also have coordinated access, but the problem is that it is not mandated. It's almost voluntary, if you will.

     Whether it's that particular platform that's already in existence or a new platform—it's 2026—that technology has come a very long way. Whatever that looks like, it can be done. There are data visualization tools whereby, once we obtain that quality, by-name data, we understand what the reasons are for people to be unhoused and what the barriers are, whether it's employment, income or substance use. There are many reasons. Once we start to understand that better and have that quality, by-name data, then we see which programs work and which don't, what houses people faster and what takes more time. Do you know what I mean?

    There are tools currently in place. I think we need to mandate them or allow the communities themselves, through the provinces, to build those systems, so that nobody's working in silos anymore.

     Thank you.

    Ms. Harris, you spoke about the Finnish model and the role of housing benefits in your remarks.

    Can you explain to the committee how these models work and what concrete results have been observed in terms of reducing homelessness?

     Thank you for the question.

     Finland has functionally ended homelessness. They've been at that level for a number of years. When they first started this, probably 20 years ago, they saw in a three-year period the end of street homelessness. It was a very short period of time to achieve those kinds of results.

     With the income threshold, they knew they wanted to build a lot of non-market housing, but having everybody immediately stabilized with a rent subsidy was saying, “First, we can do this now.” Immediately, they saw people not flowing into homelessness as easily.

     In terms of what actually moves anything in the shelter system right now, it's only rent subsidies. If we're not focusing on prevention, and we're just trying to get people housed, the only thing in our shelter system is subsidies. We are desperate for it. You see a direct link when a community has less. In Ottawa we ran out of ours by June of this year.

    You see an immediate stop, basically, in terms of shelter flow and people getting out. In terms of a broader income strategy, it's really effective. It can be quite potent in terms of truly lifting people out of poverty. Then, in terms of the overall system, being able to prevent that falling into homelessness is key.

     Thank you, Mr. Joseph.

    Ms. Larouche, you have the floor for two and a half minutes.

     Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    Once again, I would like to thank the witnesses for joining us.

    I may come back to them a bit later. For this second turn, I'll continue with Mr. Bonner.

    Mr. Bonner, in your opening remarks and in your response to Mr. Villeneuve, you clearly explained that the cases are increasing.

    However, I would like to talk about the profiles of people.

    Are there any profiles of people that you rarely used to see but are now seeing a bit more often?

    Basically, we're now working with people who have both mental health and addiction issues. I would say that this is part of our new reality. A significant proportion of our service users come from treatment centres, for example.

    Recently, a resident asked me whether I thought that, after a few months in therapy, it was reasonable for him to find housing and a job. As you can imagine, this shook me up a bit. This is our new reality when it comes to a transition. After therapy, it's often essential to relearn the basic skills needed to live in the community. I would say that this is the main difference observed at this time.

     Are you also seeing older people, or workers who are unable to keep their homes?

    You spoke about addiction. You spoke about mental health issues. There are people who work but who can no longer make ends meet. There are also older people who can no longer make ends meet.

    Have you noticed this as well in the profile trends?

    You're absolutely right.

    The average age here at Auberge sous mon toit has risen to 45, 46 or 47. One segment of our service users—people aged 50 to 55—end up in quite a grey area. They're a bit too young to qualify for resources and a bit too old to find a job again. This puts them in a really awkward position when it comes to the next stage of their careers.

    We do indeed need to find solutions for this particular age group here at the Auberge.

    So we need resources for employability and second stage housing. When we talk about the continuum, that's all part of it as well.

    Isn't that right?

     Exactly.

    There are few services specifically for men. There are even fewer services for somewhat older men. The resources are quite limited.

    That's basically what drove us to launch a new project this year. It involves actively guiding our service users to outside resources in order to understand the barriers to access, both real and perceived. This is currently making a big difference in our residents' journeys. It's something quite different. We're maintaining that relationship of trust.

    Thank you, Mr. Bonner.

    Thank you, Ms. Larouche.

     That will conclude this part of the meeting.

     I want to thank the witnesses for coming today, and I apologize for the shortened meeting because of the voting procedure in the House.

     Mr. Thiessen, we will reach out to you again—the committee has another meeting on homelessness—when we can determine what the communication issue was. It's very important that you get to fully participate on this issue, so the clerk will reach out to you, and we'll reschedule you again.

     With that, committee members, we'll suspend while we transition to the business portion of the meeting.

     Thank you again.

    The committee is suspended for a few minutes.

    [Proceedings continue in camera]