Proceedings of the Subcommittee on Cities
Issue 3 - Evidence, May 28, 2009
OTTAWA, Thursday, May 28, 2009
The Subcommittee on Cities of the Standing Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology met this day at 10:51 a.m. to examine and report on current social issues pertaining to Canada's largest cities.
Senator Art Eggleton (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: Welcome to the Subcommittee on Cities which is currently examining the issues of poverty, housing and homelessness.
[English]
Today we are looking at local housing and homelessness strategies. We did a bit of work on that when we were on the road. For example, we were in Calgary last week, and we have looked at some other cities, as well.
Today, we will look particularly at Vancouver and Toronto and learn from their experiences and where they are going on these issues. We will also be getting some material from Montreal. We will not have anyone here from Montreal today, but we are getting some of their suggestions for us. We are looking to see how the federal government can work with the provinces to develop these programs and strategies.
Here to help us, by video conference, is Ms. Jill Davidson, Assistant Director of Housing Policy for the City of Vancouver, where she is responsible for housing policies and programs. She was the city's homeless policy coordinator and completed the city's Homeless Action Plan and Supportive Housing Strategy. She also chaired the Vancouver Agreement housing task force, an intergovernmental effort that initiated a pilot project to improve private sector rooming houses and funded low-income housing developments.
At the end of the table is Mr. Sean Gadon, Director, Affordable Housing Office, City of Toronto. He has been with us before. He is working with stakeholders to develop 1,000 new rental homes a year and revitalize large government- owned sites in Toronto. I think he is doing more than that, but that is what it says here.
Welcome to both of you. I will go to Ms. Davidson first, but I want to note we have two substitute senators here today. One of them is no stranger to us, Senator Munson, from Ontario and New Brunswick, as I always say. He used to be a member of this committee and he is here today replacing Senator Cordy. Senator Merchant is here replacing Senator Dyck. Both of them are from Saskatchewan. Everyone else here is a regular member.
With that, let me go to Ms. Davidson.
Jill Davidson, Assistant Director, Housing Policy, City of Vancouver: I will read some notes that I prepared this morning for you. The City of Vancouver thanks you for the opportunity to provide input to the Subcommittee on Cities. We welcome the recognition by the Senate of the importance of affordable housing and welcome what we hope will be the return of a long-term federal commitment to stable funding of affordable housing across Canada.
I will first talk about the City of Vancouver's role in housing and homelessness and then speak about the federal programs — how we are using them and how they could be changed to be of more assistance. Finally, I will provide some comments on a national housing strategy.
For decades, the city has had some of the highest house prices and rents in Canada and some of the lowest vacancy rates. We are currently experiencing a vacancy rate of 0.3 per cent. Twenty-one per cent of all Vancouver households and 31 per cent of our renters are in core housing need, and single parents and seniors living alone are experiencing even higher needs.
Homelessness, unfortunately, continues to increase in Vancouver. Our last count showed a 16 per cent increase over three years; we now have close to 1,600 people homeless on any one night. Obviously, there is a clear need to secure and add to the stock of affordable housing in Vancouver, particularly housing that is affordable to core-need households.
The City of Vancouver has a long history of working with the federal and provincial governments to develop affordable housing. Today we have about 22,000 non-market housing units in the city. The city has been a partner in the development of many of them, and about 8,300 of those are on land that is leased from the city.
The city's primary role has been to assist in the development of low-income housing by providing sites for affordable housing development. We would like to continue with this role, working with the federal government, the provincial government housing providers and the private sector.
Turning now to our experience with federal programs, we have been involved with many of the federal housing programs: the seed funding; the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, RRAP; the Homelessness Partnership Initiative, HPI; and the Affordable Housing Initiative, AHI. All of these programs have been helpful in building affordable housing and serving homeless people in Vancouver. We have quite a list of where those funds have generated projects in Vancouver. I will just highlight three of them.
The Woodward's building, which will open later this year, will contain 121 units for singles and 75 for families. It will be a development that will bring new life to the Downtown Eastside. There is an 87-unit building in Downtown South, which includes units for people in recovery from addictions. Another example is the provision of a shower service in one of our community centres through the HPI funding. That will provide services to homeless people outside the downtown core.
In terms of where we would suggest the federal government move in the future, we have two major points. First, we believe that the program should be better coordinated. Second, we believe there should be an ongoing, well-funded national housing program that provides block grants to the provinces. That would be contingent on matching grants from the provinces.
The crucial modules of any housing program are what the federal government is funding now, and that is research, proposal development, renovation, services and supportive housing for the homeless and affordable housing. As I mentioned, what we suggest is that the federal government programs need to be better coordinated, and there needs to be better collaboration among the partners.
For example, decisions that now are made about RRAP are in isolation from the city and the province. Similarly, capital funds for the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, HPS, have been allocated to projects that need ongoing operating funds, but sometimes these projects have not received that kind of funding from the provincial government so that priorities are not aligning.
We believe that a new program should serve the full range of core housing needs — families, singles, those at risk of homelessness — and should be flexible and responsive to local needs here in British Columbia and to situations across Canada.
We are suggesting that a comprehensive and coordinated housing program is required that pools the federal resources and resources from other partners. We suggest that there be a single proposal call every year that invites proposals to address the full range of housing need and opportunity — homeless services, renovation, capital projects, et cetera.
We suggest the federal government should commit at least $500 million a year over the next five years for affordable housing, which, when renovation and homelessness funding is added, would bring the total federal investment in new housing initiatives to at least $800 million a year. That does not include the on-reserve funding.
The model we would like to see would have the federal government contributing 50 per cent of the cost of new housing and the province contributing 40 per cent, as well as the ongoing housing services. The municipalities and the communities would contribute the remaining 10 per cent.
If the federal investment in housing was $800 million a year, B.C. might get $100 million of that. The province would provide $800 million a year, plus the costs of support services, and the municipalities and the community would provide $20 million per year.
This would not meet the full need for affordable housing, but it would have a real impact. We believe that in B.C., the province, through B.C. Housing, should take the lead in implementing a consolidated housing program. The City of Vancouver is willing and able to be a contributing partner, including providing 10 per cent of the developing for core housing.
Turning now to a national housing strategy, we support and participated in the development of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities' Sustaining the Momentum recommendations for a national housing plan on housing and homelessness. We strongly believe in the need for a comprehensive housing program that addresses homelessness, non- market housing, market rental housing and affordable home ownership.
In addition to the suggestions for federal funding I have just discussed, the city is particularly concerned about the private rental stock. We are actually just about ready to launch a new initiative that will provide incentives to developers of rental housing. It is a short-term program. The city is putting forward incentives that we can control, such as parking relaxation, density bonusing, and relaxations in development cost levies. We are hoping this will provide sufficient incentives for some developers to move into the rental market. However, we know that the involvement of senior levels of government is essential in order to encourage significant amounts of market rental housing development, and to address affordability.
We are also working on some policy changes for the long term, particularly in trying to identify how other levels of government need to be involved in the renewal of the rental housing market.
We support what the Federation of Canadian Municipalities, FCM, says in their document about the rental market. Also, for example, our council is on record supporting tax changes to address allowing rental investors to qualify for small business deductions, allowing capital gains tax to be deferred, reducing GST payments on rental housing and enabling equity investment funds for rental housing.
In conclusion, we believe partnerships are the key for developing affordable housing and services that respond to homelessness. A key to successful partnerships is for each partner to bring real resources, cash or in kind, to the partnership, and for the role of each partner to be well defined. The city has a well-defined role to play and we are willing and able to contribute.
Finally, there is no reason to reinvent the ``partnership wheel,'' at least here in B.C., where we actually have sound foundations for our partnership with the province, with the non-profit sector and, to some extent, with the federal government. Therefore, let us build on the successful partnerships already in place and get on with the task of solving homelessness and building core-need housing in Canada, B.C. and Vancouver. We look forward to working with the federal government and our partners to do just that.
The Chair: That is quite comprehensive. I and others will have questions, but we will get to those after we hear from Mr. Gadon.
Sean Gadon, Director, Affordable Housing Office, City of Toronto: Thank you for inviting me today, on behalf of the City of Toronto, to make what is a return visit before your committee. As you may recall, I appeared before you in March of last year when the committee was gathering information for its report, Poverty, Housing and Homelessness: Issues and Options, which you released in June 2008.
On behalf of Mayor David Miller and city council, I want to first congratulate you for your advocacy on the affordable housing and poverty reduction issue. It seems that your efforts, along with those of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities and municipalities like Toronto and Vancouver, have begun paying off.
Particularly, last September, the federal government announced the five-year renewal of the Affordable Housing Program, the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program and the Homelessness Partnering Strategy.
Additionally, you will know that earlier this year the federal, provincial and territorial governments across the country announced, as part of an economic stimulus package, new investments for the repair of social housing and the creation of new affordable homes. In Ontario over the next two years, that will contribute $1.2 billion of new investments within that short period of time, expiring in March 2011.
This is a good start in assisting the 1.4 million Canadian households that live in core-housing need, including some 250,000 in the City of Toronto alone. It will help single moms, disabled people, seniors, youth, Aboriginal people and those living on the streets to not only find but also keep affordable housing.
As I said last March, these national initiatives, the homeless programs and the positive results that they produce, are no less than housing life rafts for people and families who have been set adrift in a turbulent housing market they cannot compete in or afford.
However, the City of Toronto recognizes that it also has a central and key role to play in the creation and retention of affordable housing. That is why we have spent the last 18 months preparing a comprehensive affordable housing strategy, which we have just released. The strategy will be before city council in July. I am pleased to be able to come today having released the strategy and being in a position to talk to you about it.
Housing Opportunities Toronto — An Affordable Housing Action Plan 2010-2020 is the culmination of our own internal research as well as the views of some 1,800 organizations and individuals who were part of our consultations.
The plan recommends 67 actions to be undertaken by the City of Toronto and the federal and provincial governments. It calls for new investments of $484 million annually over the next 10 years to assist some 250,000 households struggling with high housing costs or inadequate accommodation. The plan would create 60,000 jobs through the preservation and the creation of housing.
We have also proposed in the plan something unique: the Toronto Housing Charter — Opportunity for All. This charter would be the first of its kind in Canada. The charter is designed to guide city council and staff in their efforts to assist those who often face challenges in finding affordable housing: newcomers, single parents, seniors and those with disabilities.
If you just forecast forward 10 years, we are looking at Toronto with over 100,000 young people who will be creating their first housing history because they will be moving into housing for the first time. It is extremely important that it be a positive experience because it has been demonstrated time and again that a young person who does not get a good start, whether it be in a job or a housing situation, often will end up in a cycle that will not be positive. Therefore, we are determined to ensure that the 100,000 young people in our city who will be forming households for the first time over the next 10 years have a positive experience when they go out and look for and find housing.
Similarly, another 80,000 seniors will be coming into the marketplace as seniors. They will have specific needs relative to their housing.
Perhaps most significant, we will have anywhere from 800,000 to a million immigrants who will land in Toronto and will be looking for housing. It is our job to ensure that their experience is also positive and that there are opportunities for them.
At the same time, though, it is recognized that the city, just as in Vancouver, has very limited financial resources. For that reason, we are calling on the federal and provincial partners to do their part over the long term. In the short term, yes, we have economic stimulus funding. However, we need certainty beyond March 2011.
The momentum I described earlier, in the short term, is encouraging, and we believe it will assist in implementing our action plan.
Let me conclude by reading a quote that we have actually used to introduce the Toronto plan. It may be familiar to some of the historians in the room, perhaps. It reads:
Your immediate problem is not so much the right of the soul to expand, but the necessity for everybody to have a decent dwelling; not to make all homes mansions, but to ensure that none of them will be hovels. It is only a very rare soul that can expand in a hovel.
This objective of decent housing simply has to be achieved in our democratic society.
Those words were spoken by Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson in a speech to the Ontario Association of Housing Authorities back in September 1965. They remain as true today as they were then. I look forward to working with you so that, in fact, we can achieve what was spoken about 40 years ago.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Gadon. We have been now joined by Senator Cordy. We now have two representatives. It is alright; we want you to stay, Senator Munson.
Senator Munson: I will stay for the duration of the time.
The Chair: Allow me to lead off the questions and comments from the members of the committee.
My focus is on federal mechanisms. You both said there needs to be more money, and we know that. As part of a national housing and homelessness strategy, we definitely need more funds, but what about the mechanisms that we have? Are the mechanisms at the federal level sufficient, or do they need some revision to accomplish what you need to accomplish in terms of transfers?
There is also the question of tax incentives, in particular for the private sector. Ms. Davidson, you mentioned two or three of them but touched on one that I thought was pretty close to one I intended to ask about, which I heard about out of Calgary: a Canadian version of the U.S. low-income housing tax credit. Does either of you think that it is appropriate for us to pursue a Canadian version of such a tax credit? How would you see that working? I would like to hear any other comments about expanding upon any of these tax measures that could be helpful.
I would also like to have your comments on rent supplements and the transfer payments. Is that possible to do at the federal level? The suggestion of rent supplements keeps arising as part of a possible solution, but I am not quite clear how they fit in with the federal transfers.
The questions are on federal mechanisms, either taxes or transfers. Ms. Davidson, would you care to respond?
Ms. Davidson: In terms of tax changes for rental housing, our council has gone on record as feeling quite strongly about. We are facing a very difficult rental housing market in Vancouver. We want to find ways to get the private sector back into investing in rental markets. The things we were talking about that I mentioned include the creation of what we have called an investment fund for rental housing.
I know that tax credits have been used in other countries; for example the U.S. has some experience. Our understanding is that it can be quite sticky because money is applied to different parts along the chain and does not end up as a significant amount in the actual investment in rental housing. I am not sure that we would recommend that for Canada.
We have suggested an investment fund using the existing Canadian vehicle, which, as we understood it previously, means adding affordable housing as a qualifying investment in a labour-sponsored investment fund.
We view rent supplements as needing to be part of the entire package. In terms of delivery, our experience in British Columbia is that the province can be the coordinating agency and it works very well with municipalities. We would like to see that role continue and be enhanced such that more of the programs are administered through one system of the provincial government. That speaks to things like RRAP and the homelessness funding.
The Chair: Mr. Gadon?
Mr. Gadon: Thank you for the question. Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any coherency in the way that we do housing policy or housing programs in Canada. Certainly, there is nothing within the last 10 years that I could point to and say that this is the federal government's view on housing and the investments they are making are strategic in this particular way. Instead, a collection of programs has erupted as a result of political decisions and election campaigns. Some programs, like the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program, go back 35 years and continue to chug along. The Homelessness Partnering Strategy was announced in 1999. The dollar amounts that we get for that today are the same as we got 10 years ago.
There does not seem to be any coherent policy approach. There is little strategic approach on the issue of housing, and there is certainly no long-term thinking, so we bump along from here to there and from there to here.
Clearly, the grants and the funding programs are extremely valuable. In the case of Toronto, we have very little rental market where new developers will build rental housing, although they will do it through a capital grant program, which we are doing now.
I held a session on April 7. We had 250 people from the development community that were keen to participate in the economic stimulus program that the government had announced. A large part of that is the fact that the housing market has collapsed, and there is no market for condominium development. Many of the developers of failed condominiums are looking at how they might turn those into rental housing developments and qualify for government grants.
It is a very important time for us to have those economic stimulus dollars to continue that construction and to create those jobs. It just so happens that it will also result in affordable housing. We are very pleased to see that happen.
On the issue of rent supplements or housing allowances, I will leave a copy of our strategy with the clerk of the committee. The first strategy that we propose in terms of dollar investments is for rent supplements. Over the next 10 years, the assistance of 70,000 households of seniors, families and young people, which is about half of the core need in the city of Toronto, would be satisfied. It is clear that we cannot build ourselves out of the core-need problems that exist for Canadians. It would take us close to 100 years if we were to try to build that volume of housing. However, if you consider that many people might be adequately housed already but are paying 40 per cent to 60 per cent of their income in rent, it would be a simple thing to introduce a program. They have programs in the United States; the Department of Housing and Urban Development, HUD, has a rental assistance program. We have no such animal in Canada. Some of the provinces tinker with that model, but it is certainly a big void in Canadian housing policy.
The Chair: Would you suggest that rent supplements go to individuals or to units?
Mr. Gadon: It varies. My preference, given the experience we have had in Toronto, is that they would go to individuals. A woman whom I heard about and received an email from the other day is 84 years old. She needs a rent supplement but her landlord will not sign up for the program, so she cannot get it. She is paying 70 per cent of her income in rent. If a person needs that kind of assistance, it should not be up to the landlord to determine whether the tenant receives help. If the person qualifies, they should be able to receive it.
The Chair: I have one more question. Ms. Davidson, you said that there needs to be better coordination. That surprised me a bit because you have a tri-level development agreement. Perhaps it is relevant only to the Downtown Eastside. Is that a good model? Would you be looking for that to help implement place-based programs of some sort?
Ms. Davidson: The Vancouver Agreement was never seen as a way of funnelling existing program dollars and making decisions collectively. It had limited funds and, to some extent, new dollars came in. It had some limited success in doing what it tried to do. For example, the 87-unit project I mentioned is for people recovering from addictions. Some of the money from the Vancouver Agreement was matched with federal money and provincial money. We do have some examples of success.
I am not sure that is really the model to move forward with in the future. The B.C. provincial government is the one with the main responsibility for housing delivery. The critical part of it is for the ongoing services needed, particularly when we were talking about housing for people who are homeless.
Our recommendation is to move to the model where funds are provided to the province, which has a history and understanding of how to work with communities, municipalities, and the federal government.
On the question of rent supplements, we have in British Columbia two programs. They are administered by the provincial government. They work quite well. One is targeted towards seniors. Another is targeted towards family. They are limited in the area in which they can operate.
We think that is a good mechanism. It also needs to be tied to building. The problem in Vancouver is that provision of rent supplements combined with low vacancy rates, while it helps some individuals, can also help to increase rents generally.
Mr. Gadon: If you look at the past 10 years and housing interventions that have occurred across the country, other than British Columbia and Quebec, the rest of the provinces and territories were not making new investments until after federal leadership was provided, including that in the economic stimulus funding that has recently come. Other governments have come in behind and cost-shared.
I cannot underline strongly enough that none of this would have happened without federal leadership, from both the Liberal government and also the Conservative government. Leadership shown at the federal level has resulted in significant investments from the provinces and territories.
It has also enabled cities to engage as well. The City of Vancouver has indicated a formula where they would contribute along with their partners. I can assure you that the City of Toronto is prepared to do its part. For example, the City of Toronto waives property taxes for 25 years in order to increase the affordability of every new rental housing unit built. We waive development charges that we would normally charge. We have made 15 to 20 different sites in Toronto available free for the development of affordable housing over the course of the last 10 years.
You have a willing partner in the municipalities — Vancouver, Toronto and right across the country. I think it is borne out by the work that the Federation of Canadian Municipalities has done. All of the cities and towns in this country are keen.
We see the issues and the problems at the ground level, as you would know. I spoke about that 84-year-old woman. People come to the municipality for the solution to their problems. They do not necessarily go to their federal MP because they do not see their MP necessarily dealing with that kind of a bread and butter issue. However, the only way we can solve this is in partnership with the federal government.
The Chair: Good points.
Senator Munson: Thank you for your presentations. I have a couple of brief questions.
We live in recessionary times. Money is tight. The call for the $500 million single proposal from Ms. Davidson is a large amount of money. We know what the issue is. We have all seen it and faced it in our committee work. We saw it recently when we were in Vancouver.
What is your timetable to put this money together? Should it be a one-shot deal or should it go into the next federal budget?
Ms. Davidson: I think the important point is that we need to have a long-term, sustainable program. All across Canada we have suffered from the stop-go programs. Mr. Gadon mentioned how we wait for programs to be announced. They go for a certain period of time and then we do not know what the next step will be. We have suffered from a development community in stop-go mode — gearing up and gearing down — which has been very dysfunctional.
In terms of a timetable, as soon as possible certainly. One of the key pieces is to ensure something that is embedded so that we have some sense of the future over at least a 10-year period.
Mr. Gadon: There is money coming into the housing system. It is critical that the federal, provincial, territorial and municipal governments have themselves organized so that those investments are made immediately. In the federal budget earlier this year, the government announced $7.8 billion in tax relief and funding to help stimulate the housing sector. That says to me that this is a critical part of how we do business in Canada. Recognizing that those investments have already been made, the issue becomes over the medium and the long term and continuing and sustaining investments like that.
Senator Munson: Ms. Davidson, I would like to know how important Insite is to any homelessness strategy in Vancouver.
Ms. Davidson: It is critical. Insite has been very helpful in stabilizing individuals. It also brings some civility to what is going on in the lanes and alleys of the Downtown Eastside. It is a positive health initiative, and we are hopeful that it will be able to continue.
Senator Martin: Ms. Davidson, it is nice to hear from a fellow Vancouverite. I know the sunshine. I miss that today on a cloudy day in Ottawa. Thank you for your presentation.
Some key things stand out for me from your comments. Successful partnerships are important and we should build on that success rather than reinventing the partnership wheel.
I am focusing on this wheel and the spokes in that wheel. We often look at the different levels of government naturally. Here we are in Ottawa and part of the important role that the federal government plays. In my short time on this committee and during recent travel to Calgary and Edmonton, I had the opportunity to see, as you said, some of the successes of the current model.
It is very important to have the federal presence and the funding in place, which you have confirmed we are doing. Then the provinces take a big role because it is regional. Every province has specific needs. We also have national needs for which we can all share best practices and understandings.
However, cities probably play the immediate role because these are residents of that city. Vancouver, New Westminster and Surrey, they are all different municipalities. How you address homelessness and housing issues would be specific to the city.
My question is in regard to a key partner, the developers in the corporate sector. Have there been adequate consultations with the developers, the investors, to ask what incentives they would like to see, and do we have those incentives in place? What consultations have been done with them?
Ms. Davidson: You may have heard of a new organization called Street to Home Vancouver, which is a private- sector-based organization bringing together private sector funders, including the development community. We are beginning to work together. They are beginning to understand how they can fit in and how we can work together.
That piece of it is in its infancy. I am hopeful that with the strong relationships we have, we will find ways of working together in a collaborative way. To be specific, where I think we can see that happening is on specific projects where the province can come to the table with some money. The city can come with some land or lease cost, and the private sector and the development community can come in with what they feel they can contribute financially or through building the project or whatever their role is.
In a broader sense, do we understand what the development community can do? We have had informal discussions over the years. We have not had the benefit of what Toronto has just done with developing their strategy, which I think is excellent and is something we would like to do to enable a more comprehensive approach. We are doing a longer- term rental housing strategy, and through that process we are consulting more closely with the development community to hear from them about how they feel they can contribute.
Regarding some of the tax incentives for private sector rental housing, we do know that that appeals to the development community. We are having some difficulty getting traction across Canada for some of those suggestions. FCM is behind them, but there needs to be a more national focus on what is needed to bring more incentives, or working with the private development community to revitalize the private market development of housing.
The Chair: That is one of the key things we need to know, because we are dealing here at the federal level. What are those tax measures that would make a difference? In talking to the development community, what do you think would make a difference to get them into doing more rental housing, for example?
Mr. Gadon: I could add a few points on this. We perhaps see the challenge as being more place-based, and our strategy over the next 10 years proposes to revitalize 13 of our public housing communities, in partnership with the private sector. Derek Ballantyne, when he appeared before the committee in November 2007, spoke of the work they were doing at Regent Park, where they are taking a community of 2,083 units of public housing, which had essentially ghettoized people and blocked them off from the local community, and are revitalizing it to a new community of 5,000 new homes, 3,000 of those built by the private sector and sold. We have identified 13 other communities in Toronto where we plan to proceed and do the same thing, but we need the federal and provincial support to help make that happen. The private development community has said to us that they want to be a partner with us on that. We have the opportunity, because we have the land. When you deal with the private sector, our experience has been that they want to know certainty. They want to know what they can actually participate in and have outcomes that are quite certain.
Tax issues, frankly, can frequently be changed. Sometimes, even though you may make a change to a tax measure, a change of government may bring something of a new change. The certainty that we are finding the development community in Toronto wants is certainty around where can they build and what the rules of the game are that the municipality can play with them.
I am happy to provide you at a later date a report that we prepared back in 2001, Unlocking the Opportunity for New Rental Housing: A Call to Action, that looked at some of the tax changes that might be brought forward, but there was no audience for it with the government at the time. The development community helped write it with us. We have not actually spent a lot of time following up on it because it is not what I would call the low-hanging fruit. We have spent more of our time working with the community, identifying the opportunities and bringing the development community to the table. They have said they are willing.
Senator Martin: Thank you for your response to that question. I do believe that that is an area that we need to continue to explore. As you say, it is an opportunity. I come from the non-profit sector, and often the community groups can be extremely resourceful, but it is about coordinating that and making sure that if you bring those partners to the table, you really see what they are looking for and how this partnership wheel can be more complete.
The other piece I wanted to ask you about is thinking out of that box, perhaps, for all the cities. We have seen some great examples of it in the cities we visited, in Calgary, in Edmonton and in Vancouver, where I work. For instance, I work with the Korean community quite closely, and there is a need for senior housing. We were looking at many churches that have land, and on that land, getting city partnerships with permits and licences and what not, and then allotting part of that land to building a housing structure for seniors, and then that church community taking care of the seniors who attend the church. That is short term and long term, but these kinds of partners could be part of that wheel.
The coordination piece is needed, and when we have a study looking at the community and the private sector, maybe doing that kind of meeting and exploring to see what they are looking for is more easily done by the federal government. The coordinating piece is something we definitely can play. We have heard that in other cities. How do you create the coordinated effort, when each city and each region has so many different pieces and partners and so many best practices as well? How do we communicate that effectively and benefit from one another's experiences and wisdom? In regards to the community component that I mentioned, what is your experience in both Toronto and Vancouver in working with such partners?
Mr. Gadon: To start from Toronto's perspective, there is a tremendous community will, whether it be with church groups, non-profits or co-operative housing organizations. Frequently, though, they lack the capacity, so that is why we have ended up with this partnership model. The non-profit or church group does not then have to learn how to become a developer, but they get partnered with a developer who will build on their behalf. It also avoids their making costly mistakes. Housing dollars are quite scarce, so we try to avoid situations where projects fail. Inevitably, they may, in some circumstances, but the recipe for success is to get all the right partners around the table and everyone playing their role. Someone recently showed me a list of the number of professionals and parties required to build a successful affordable housing project. I think the number was 88 individuals and organizations, just as an example. It is tough work as well. Ms. Davidson will attest to the fact that, yes, we have housing funding under the economic stimulus for two years, but the average housing development at the municipal level takes three to five years to execute. As a result of that and the number of partners involved, we require more certainty than what a two-year window would provide us.
Ms. Davidson: I agree that we have a huge amount of energy, expertise and enthusiasm from the community through church groups or non-profit societies. That makes Canada special in the way we have developed low-cost housing over the years. We have this strong third sector. We faced challenges in the last few years because of the stop-start nature of our programs. Non-profit groups develop expertise on how to develop housing, but then it is many years before they actually have another opportunity. I think that speaks to the need for a longer-term certainty around our delivery of housing programs.
The Chair: Long-term, stable funding is the theme we are getting.
Senator Merchant: Thank you, Ms. Davidson and Mr. Gadon. Builders will build if there is some certainty, as you have said. Could the government guarantee mortgage rates, for instance? Sometimes private enterprise can do things that are not quite so complicated, and maybe do them less expensively. I do not know what your feeling is about that.
Many years ago, there were programs like MURBS, multi-unit residential buildings. About 25 years ago — you were going back 10 years — people were building low-cost, affordable housing because there was some certainty in the market. Today, the government can borrow money inexpensively. If they could pass that on to private enterprise, that might be an incentive. If people could make some money, of course they would build.
You both live in larger cities. Have you had any problems with people resisting these kinds of building projects going into their own backyard? Are there people who say, ``I do not want that being built close to me?'' You talked about ghettoizing, which puts people in ghettos. What is your feeling about that?
The Chair: I remember MURBs.
Ms. Davidson: I will let Mr. Gadon start first on the mortgage issue.
Mr. Gadon: Fair enough. We are actually in an interesting marketplace now because interest rates are probably as low as we will see them. If anything, to return to what would be the medium term beyond 2011, when the funding is set under the economic stimulus, the concern would be that we would enter into a period of higher interest rates and inflation. That would be a problem for the building industry generally, as well as the home building industry.
Yes, it is very important that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, CMHC, pay attention to what is going on with respect to the availability of capital. The Ontario government, as an example, created a mortgage lending vehicle. A number of the affordable housing developers are borrowing from it as a result of the institutional lenders not being prepared to lend to affordable housing developers. The YWCA behind city hall, on Edward Street, right beside SickKids hospital, is developing 300 units of affordable housing for women and Aboriginal people. Construction has just begun. That is happening because the Ontario government has created a mortgage fund from which they were able to draw. Over $40 million of mortgage money is coming through that fund. These are important vehicles to have in place where the institutional market is not available for people.
The second point with respect to ``not in my backyard'' is that NIMBYism absolutely is an issue. In our housing strategy, we have proposed dealing with it in part by introducing a housing charter that makes it clear to city councillors as well as to local residents that people have a right to live in neighbourhoods and that you do not zone people out. While you may make land use decisions that relate to buildings, your land use and your decisions at the local level should not be based on who the people are.
I do not need to tell you the degree of mental illness that this country is facing; that is an issue in Toronto. We continue to move forward. At the beginning of my meetings, the chair of my committee expresses the view that he will not hear discriminatory remarks and that no ward in our city should be a zone in which affordable, transitional or supportive housing should not be built. Over the past 10 years, city council has a perfect traffic record of approving close to 100 new projects. I am quite proud to say that, despite some of the opposition that has come forward.
Oddly enough — and anyone who has been elected will know this experience — once the people move in, everything is fine. Once the people have moved in, the relations are even better in that community than they were prior to their being there.
The Chair: I have stories on that as well, but I will forgo those for the moment.
Ms. Davidson: I am sure we all have some experiences and scars to show from the introduction of supportive housing in various neighbourhoods.
Our experience is that it really requires political leadership, similar to what Mr. Gadon is saying, to make it clear that having housing for people in all neighbourhoods is important to us as Canadians and it creates the kind of city and the social mix that we want. Political leadership can come from all levels of government.
The other ingredient we found that really works for dealing with the NIMBY syndrome is time. We have had the experience of a supportive housing project in one of our west-side neighbourhoods. When we first purchased the land, a group started called NIABY, Not In Anyone's Backyard. Over time, we went through some very challenging conversations, but there was a lot of learning going on about the nature of mental illness and the nature of people who are recovering from addictions. That project is now close to being under construction and the neighbourhood is, for the most part, very welcoming. They are trying to find ways to interact with the people who will live in the housing. I think they have embraced it as part of their neighbourhood. We have also found that with another controversial project in central Vancouver; the people who were against the project initially are now speaking on the radio with us on open mic shows about how it really is a positive part of their community.
NIMBYism is an issue. It is one of those things where we need to provide leadership, take a deep breath and just know that we have to do a lot of talking and exchange of ideas to deal with our fears. As Mr. Gadon says, once the building is actually constructed, people understand that those fears are not founded on reality.
Senator Merchant: I want to thank you both very much. Whether you come from a large city or from a smaller one, we all face the same issues. It is good to hear from one end of the country to the other, because we have our own issues in Saskatchewan and we try to resolve them. You are very correct to say that once you get to know people, you are comfortable with them and it is good for nation building.
The Chair: Thank you very much. By the way, we are going to Saskatchewan. Part of our fact-finding work will involve Regina.
Senator Cordy: Thank you very much from the other coast. A few weeks ago a group of senators was in Vancouver for meetings. Senator Campbell took us to the Downtown Eastside and we had the opportunity to hear about Insite, which we had heard about before. Someone from there told us about the excellent work being done for those who are suffering from poor mental health because of addictions. It was terrific to hear about it and to hear the wonderful stories about successes that are happening there.
A week and a half ago we were in Regent Park. We met three of the most wonderful young high school students who were there to tell us about the mentoring program that they participate in at school. It was a pleasure. We happened to be leaving at about 3:40 p.m. The nicest part of the visit for me was when the children were coming home from school and we could see all the families and realize what a wonderful neighbourhood it is with such great potential.
Mr. Gadon, you said there is no coherency in the way we do things federally. You both made reference to it in different words. You said that we have programs that are chugging along. Should they still be there? Should they not be there? You also spoke about short-term housing agreements.
When we were in St. John's last summer we heard from Minister Skinner, who was the minister responsible for helping to alleviate poverty, about the housing agreements that were expiring in March 2009. He said that no one would get involved a year ahead of time in a program where there would never be anything in place to actually get some of the money.
You made reference to short-term housing agreements and both of you made reference to the stop-start program.
Ms. Davidson, you said that the long-term stable funding would be a solution, but what other solutions are there so that we can have a coherent plan so that the other partners, the municipalities and the provinces, know where we are going? The two of you and many of our other witnesses have stressed the need for federal leadership in the issue of housing.
Ms. Davidson: Part of the solution is the development of a national housing strategy, which we really are lacking. We have a patchwork of various programs, the stop-start, but there is not a clear articulation of our goals over the longer term and the various roles that the players can provide — the federal government, the provincial government and municipalities, as well as the private sector and the non-profit housing providers.
It would be a huge step forward if we were able to develop this comprehensive national strategy.
Mr. Gadon: It is a curious thing that in over 60 communities in Canada, through the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, we have homelessness plans, yet we do not have housing plans. No one at the federal level has asked us to develop a housing plan locally. The next step would be that we be asked to develop, as we have in Toronto and across the country, housing plans that the federal government could look at. The Federation of Canadian Municipalities has suggested that. In Toronto we have developed one but we do not know whether there are any buyers. We have a homelessness plan. It is terrific that across the country the federal government has funded and supported solutions to homelessness. You have all of those communities completely engaged. They are married to you. However, we do not have a similar situation relating to housing. You just need to look at other developed countries in the world. The U.K. has a 10-year plan with funding, targets and outcomes that are measured. We do not have anything that resembles that in Canada. It is essential that we take that next step.
Senator Cordy: That is an excellent point. If we do not know where we are going, we might end up somewhere else. I think it was Yogi Berra who said that. We must have a plan, targets and outcomes. I used to be a teacher. In September we always developed our outcomes for the year, and without them you do not really have a plan.
As you rightly said, there are some wonderful things happening across the country. We need cohesiveness for the partnerships to be really good.
I remember specifically that when we were at Stella Burry housing in St. John's, the challenge was actually getting the funding. There were reams of paperwork, and with the stopping and the starting they almost needed a full-time staff person to find out what programs were available from the federal government. Are there challenges in finding out what is going on, what the stop and start dates are, and the amount of paperwork that is involved?
Mr. Gadon: I know Jocelyn Green at Stella Burry, who would probably have told you that; indeed it is true. We have a complex web of funding. Consider, for instance, that federally there are rules attached to it; provincially there are rules attached to it; municipally there are potentially rules attached to it; and then you are down to the community level. When the Affordable Housing Program was initiated back in 2003, the federal grant that was available, cost- shared by the province, was $29,000 a unit to create an affordable rental home.
In 2005, it was recognized that that was not enough, so it was changed to $70,000. The new economic stimulus program in Ontario has upped it now to $120,000 from the province. Imagine how you would feel if you were one of the partners who got involved back in 2003 or 2004 and you only got $29,000 to create a rental housing unit and a person participating in the program today would get $120,000. You would feel a bit ripped off. You might also feel that perhaps you should have waited until they figured out how this program really should work. We are getting close to that now, but it has taken a long time and the rules have kept on changing.
We have to get ourselves in a position where there is some certainty. That is a word I cannot use enough today as it relates to the development of new affordable housing and the grant programs. People need certainty. They need certainty about what the rules are; they need flexibility to be responsive at the local level; and they need long-term commitments.
The Chair: Before Ms. Davidson responds to that, Senator Keon has to depart shortly and I want him to have a chance to question.
Senator Keon: It was truly interesting listening to the two of you coming at the same situation from slightly different directions, but agreeing mostly on everything.
Mr. Gadon, you have a city plan in Toronto, which is great, and Ms. Davidson, you emphasize that you think the coordination should be in the provincial office, as they work best. It is interesting that the critical mass of people in the province of British Columbia is about the same as Toronto. Toronto might be slightly bigger, I guess. Maybe that is the reason for it.
My question to both of you is this. You just about touched on it, Mr. Gadon. How do you coordinate the homelessness initiatives with the housing initiatives? As an outsider, it seems to me that the homeless people in Vancouver are in one place and in Toronto they also seem to be in one place. How successful are you in getting these people to be happy to move to one of your 13 developments in Toronto or to move to something on the west side in Vancouver?
Mr. Gadon: In 2003 we had 100 homeless people living down by Lake Ontario. It got called ``tent city'' and got national and international coverage. The average person there had been homeless for seven years. When they were evicted from that site, I met with them all and asked them what they wanted. The system in Toronto said you have to go to the shelters. They had all come out of the shelters previously. They wanted to live independently and the shelters do not provide independent living. They said they wanted a home. We created a special emergency rent supplement program to assist them in being able to afford a place to live.
Five years later, 90 per cent of them were still housed. We have since taken that example and have created a program called Streets to Homes. Over the course of the last three years, more than 2,000 people have come directly off the street into housing. When you ask a street homeless person in Toronto, nine out of ten of them will tell you they do not want a sandwich or a blanket; they want a place to live.
We are finding it quite successful. You will still find homeless people on the streets of Toronto, but you will not find them in the same numbers as you would have three to four years ago.
Ms. Davidson: We are developing, with the province, a centralized access system for trying to move homeless people into housing. We get the same message from people on the street: they do not want to move into shelters; they really want a home. We are finding, through this centralized system, that we are able to provide opportunities for people, not only in the Downtown Eastside but in other areas throughout the city.
A new council came in in December. One of their first initiatives was to deal with the fact that we have 800 people on the street every night. With the provincial government and some private money, we opened up five emergency shelters.
They were very successful in accommodating about 400 people. They are still open. We hope that we will be able to get funding to transition through the Olympic period when some housing that is currently under construction will be open so that people can move into those homes.
People to whom I talk in the shelters are very grateful to have a place to stay overnight. However, they would like the shelters to be open a little earlier. They want to hang out there during the day and they want to have more access to showers. They are really saying that they wish they had a self-contained home.
That is one of the challenges we were facing. We need to get people off the streets, but the long-term solution to homelessness is building people homes.
Senator Keon: Are you as successful as your friend Mr. Gadon is in Toronto, where they manage to keep 90 per cent of the people in the homes?
Ms. Davidson: We unfortunately face a slightly different situation than that in Toronto. We do not have the homes to move people into. In the past, Toronto has had a much higher vacancy rate than we have. We do not have the ability to move people into private sector housing as they can in Toronto.
We will be doing an experiment through the Mental Health Commission of Canada to see whether we can use that approach more. We will track 200 or 300 people as we try to move them into private sector apartments.
Our real focus is on developing new housing with funding from the provincial and federal governments to build apartment buildings. We have 14 sites that can be constructed, and we have recently had funding from the provincial government confirmed for six of those sites. We are looking for money from the federal government to assist us in getting those other eight buildings under construction.
The Chair: I have one more question for the two of you. This deals with a couple of programs we have come across that might come under the heading of promising practices. One of them is Calgary's 10-year plan. Calgary's 10-year plan seems similar to Edmonton's and those of a few other cities. It seems quite similar also to what has been developed in the United States, with which some of us are quite familiar.
How do you see your plans in comparison to that? How might Vancouver's and Toronto's plans vary from these 10- year plans that seem to be cropping up in a number of cities?
In Toronto we visited Options for Homes down by the Distillery District, and we heard from some of the residents in a number of their buildings. This is a low-cost home ownership plan that makes condominiums more available to lower-income people with a second mortgage that is payable only when they sell. I think you know the system I am talking about.
I would like your comment on either one of those as promising practices.
Ms. Davidson: We also have a 10-year plan to end homelessness. It is called the Homeless Action Plan. It is very similar to the plans of Calgary and Edmonton. Most homelessness plans across the country are pretty similar. Ours is called ``3 Ways to Home.'' It is similar to our regional homeless plan, which says that the way to solve homelessness is to provide people with decent income, to provide affordable housing for people to move into, and to provide the services that deal with some of the underlying reasons people are homeless in the first place.
It is interesting that the federal government has provided the leadership for us to develop our homeless action plans. That has been terrific. Here in Vancouver it has brought us together as a region. The City of Vancouver has been working with Surrey and Burnaby, and we have developed a regional plan as well as the city's own plan. That is very powerful.
However, we do not have something similar on the housing front. I applaud Toronto for what they have done. We could be encouraged nationally to develop our own housing action plans.
I am familiar with the Options for Home approach. We have explored that here in Vancouver. It has some limitations because of our very high land cost. However, some of our local credit unions are trying to work in some of the outlying municipalities where the land costs are not as challenging.
Affordable home ownership is one of those nuts we still want to crack, so we will continue to explore these types of options and others to see what we can do, because we recognize that affordable home ownership is part of the full continuum of what we need for housing people here in our area.
Mr. Gadon: This is the tenth anniversary of the Anne Golden task force of January of 1999 that began to put the issues of homelessness and housing together on the map. I have been to Vancouver and to Calgary. I see some of the symptoms there of what Toronto looked like 10 years ago, particularly in Calgary. Yes, they absolutely do need homelessness plans that are aggressive and attempt to deal with the visible signs of the housing crisis.
In the case of Toronto, though, we feel as well that it is time to take the next step. That is why, rather than concentrating only on a homelessness plan, we have come forward with the housing plan. Many of the people in need are one step away from being homeless or are using food banks or other things to survive. The housing plan deals with both their housing and their income issues.
There are promising practices all across the country. It is important to remember, though, that housing markets are local, builders are local, and real estate companies are local. All of this stuff is done locally. In addition to the government, all the players are local. That is all the more reason for flexible approaches. One community may be dealing with a crisis in homelessness or Aboriginal issues. Another may be dealing with a completely different issue related to the supply of affordable housing.
As a result, these plans are starting to come forward. What they do have in common is the 10 years. Nobody has a two-year plan, unless the government has asked for one.
In the case of homelessness, we have all been asked for two-year homelessness plans. I would love to have one that was 10 years. We did one 10 years ago. We now have a 10-year housing plan. I would like to be able to talk to somebody about how we implement years three, four, five, six, seven, eight, nine and ten.
There are models such as Habitat for Humanity and Options for Homes that encourage people to become first-time homebuyers. In the case of Toronto, where we were revitalizing and proposing over the next 10 years to revitalize 13 public housing communities, I do not want to see, nor do the city council and the mayor, a situation where you replace the public housing and you add the condos but nobody who lives in the public housing can afford to live in the condos. We have to bridge this gap for people who are consistently poor and cannot afford a home and find ways to get them in. Some of these models would be the way to do it.
The Chair: Thank you very much, both of you. We have come to the end of our meeting. We appreciate the input you have given us on local housing and homelessness programs and strategies. We do recognize that housing is first the responsibility of the province, but the federal government has obviously been in housing for a long period of time and still is. I think we all understand that all three orders of government need to work together with the communities to help bring about resolution of these issues.
From that perspective, we will be dealing further with the matter and hope to have some recommendations by the fall on the broad number of issues concerning poverty, housing and homelessness.
(The committee adjourned.)