HUMA#69: Discuss with Federal Housing Advocate on the call for a moratorium on the acquisition of affordable housing from the private corporate sector

“ Yesterday, in the committee of the whole, in the questioning of the minister about this, he seemed to think that the 1% tax on the value of vacant residential real estate not owned by Canadians or Canadian residents, as well as the two-year ban on foreign investment in Canadian residential properties, is sufficient to address the housing crisis, especially as it relates to the financialization of housing.
The press asked him whether he would support and call for a moratorium on the acquisition of affordable housing from the private corporate sector or for a non-profit fund to be put in place, but he didn't answer any of those questions.

Can you advise the committee whether those two measures the government has acted on are sufficient?”
Human Resources Committee on May 16th, 2023
Evidence of meeting #69 for Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session.
 


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Yesterday, in the committee of the whole, in the questioning of the minister about this, he seemed to think that the 1% tax on the value of vacant residential real estate not owned by Canadians or Canadian residents, as well as the two-year ban on foreign investment in Canadian residential properties, is sufficient to address the housing crisis, especially as it relates to the financialization of housing.

The press asked him whether he would support and call for a moratorium on the acquisition of affordable housing from the private corporate sector or for a non-profit fund to be put in place, but he didn't answer any of those questions.

Can you advise the committee whether those two measures the government has acted on are sufficient?


Marie-Josée Houle
Federal Housing Advocate, Office of the Federal Housing Advocate, Canadian Human Rights Commission


First off, the foreign investment in housing in Canada represents a very small percentage. It's not hard for a foreign investor to set up a shell corporation in Canada. To point fingers at international investment in Canada as the cause of financialization is one that is dangerous and short-sighted.

The vast majority of financialization happens here in Canada by companies in Canada. That is the first issue that I have with this. It's only addressing a small percentage and it's not going to stop the loss. The loss has continued since those changes have come into effect after they were announced in the budget last year.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

The minister also cited supply. As you've indicated, and I wholeheartedly agree, it's not just about supply; it's about the affordability of supply and accessibility of supply to those most in need. The national housing strategy has a target of removing 530,000 households from core housing need. They have not achieved that.

From that perspective, when we're talking about supply, can you say specifically what the government needs to do to address the supply question?


Marie-Josée Houle
Federal Housing Advocate, Office of the Federal Housing Advocate, Canadian Human Rights Commission


First of all, specifically, let's not look at it like a housing model and not assume that people are out to purposely spend 30% of their total household income on their home and will move on if they suddenly make more money. That's a fallacy and that's dangerous.

This is where we really need to focus and this is an important time to do it. We have an $80-billion strategy on the table right now—we're halfway into it—that can make a huge difference. It needs to be targeted correctly at the right kind of supply. The supply margins are directed at those who need it the most, because there's no building any housing supply that will trickle down to address those in poor housing need.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Would that be for people in core need?


Marie-Josée Houle
Federal Housing Advocate, Office of the Federal Housing Advocate, Canadian Human Rights Commission


That's right.
Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much.

We saw the financialized landlords come into the market after the national affordable housing program was cancelled in 1993. Subsequent Liberal and Conservative governments have allowed for financialized landlords to continue to flourish.

Dr. August, you mentioned that one key issue is also preventing the loss of stock.

Would you support the call for a moratorium to be put in place on the acquisition of housing stock by financialized landlords?


Dr. Martine August
Associate Professor, School of Planning, University of Waterloo, As an Individual


Yes, I would support that.

Unless financialized landlords can indicate that they plan to pursue affordable housing, to not raise rents, to not pursue evictions at higher rates than other types of landlords, to ensure security of tenure for people and to basically not work toward a violation of the right to adequate housing, there shouldn't be support for these firms to acquire and to consolidate ownership of our very important rental housing stock in Canada.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you.

On the issue around financialized landlords, we see that quite often, actually, in apartments and multi-unit complexes. Can you share with the committee how pervasive this is in single-family homes and in condos?


Dr. Martine August
Associate Professor, School of Planning, University of Waterloo, As an Individual


That's actually a very difficult question to answer.

We've tried to look into it just a little bit in the report. We've seen that early indication of some institutional firms that are investing in single-family rentals. For example, Core Development Group is a real estate investment trust, or REIT, that was launched in order to acquire single-family homes in Canada. There are some other small companies I'm aware of that are doing the same thing. However, it's hard to know the full scope of this. It's less advanced in Canada than in other countries where we're seeing a massive consolidation of single-family rentals. That's something that Dr. Lewis knows about from having done substantial research on it in the United States.



Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Thank you very much.

Perhaps, Mr. Chair, I could ask the witnesses to present any data they may have in that regard to the committee for the committee's information.

I'd like to turn to the question around evictions. We heard from ACORN, which has lived experience of how impactful and how significant it has been in terms of these financialized landlords going in and renovicting people, demovicting people and, in fact, letting the apartments fall apart to force people out. There's data that's been provided about the issue around evictions.

How much of that is related to the financialized landlords jacking up the rent and creating unaffordability for the tenants? As a result, they're faced with evictions.

I'm not sure who's best to answer that question.


The Chair Bobby Morrissey
Liberal

Do you want to direct it to Dr. Lewis?


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Maybe I'll direct it to Dr. Lewis. I saw him nodding.


Dr. Nemoy Lewis
Assistant Professor, School of Urban and Regional Planning, Toronto Metropolitan University, As an Individual


I definitely think there's a correlation. I provided an example of one particular property that is located in North Etobicoke, which was acquired by Starlight Investments in 2018. In 2019, Starlight filed approximately 480 evictions on this property, which has just over 740 units. Then, the year after, we saw that rents increased by just over a 25% year-on-year average. We've calculated the cumulative aggregate growth rate for rents at this particular property since 2012, and rents have increased at an annual basis of about 10%.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

How can we stop this practice from happening? Do you have any suggestions or recommendations for the committee?


Dr. Nemoy Lewis
Assistant Professor, School of Urban and Regional Planning, Toronto Metropolitan University, As an Individual


I think the member previous to you had suggested a moratorium in terms of putting a cap on the number of properties these particular entities can acquire. One big issue as well—I know there was a question posed—is that the private sector can play a role, but I think we have to keep in mind that these private sector corporations have a legal and fiduciary responsibility to maximize their returns. As such, that undermines the federal government's efforts with respect to realizing a right-to-housing approach for all Canadians.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

How about putting forward a no-displacement policy?


Dr. Nemoy Lewis
Assistant Professor, School of Urban and Regional Planning, Toronto Metropolitan University, As an Individual


I think putting in a no-displacement policy would certainly help, but the question that remains is whether these particular landlords would neglect the maintenance of the particular property and, in turn, pressure some of those folks to actually move out and to find new accommodations. Then they would come in and reinvest in and renovate these particular properties to attract more affluent and more high-income households.


Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

I wonder if ACORN has anything to add.


Tanya Burkart
Leader, ACORN Canada


I can add to what Nemoy has spoken about.

Absolutely, put a hard limit on the number of units REITs can purchase or own, and block any public funding or benefit that REITs receive. Those should be tied to a no-displacement guarantee. If a REIT wants CMHC funding, then it has to guarantee CMHC that it's not going to displace tenants.

Part of it should be making sure that REITs maintain their units. The tenant conditions we live in are just abysmal. Their profit model relies solely on, basically, putting us in conditions that are not livable.

Taxing REITs.... I think the best way to hit a financial corporation is the bottom line, so a tax of 38% is a great number.


The Chair Bobby Morrissey
Liberal

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

We don't have enough time to start another round, but we do have a few moments. Mr. Morrice has asked if he could get a question in. Do we have consent? If we have consent, we have enough time to give a few minutes to Mr. Morrice.


Some hon. members

Agreed.




Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
NDP

Mr. Chair, before we let the witnesses go, I wonder if they could provide the data that they may have available to indicate how pervasive the financialized landlord issue is, whether it be in corporations, in REITs or in asset management companies. Could it be broken down by provinces and cities, if they have that? I think it would be very telling to indicate how pervasive and problematic this situation is.



The Chair Bobby Morrissey
Liberal

Thank you, Ms. Kwan.

I would ask all the witnesses that if they have information that addresses the issue Ms. Kwan put to the committee, provide it to the committee clerk so it will frame part of this particular study.

With that, we have concluded the first hour.

Thank you, witnesses, for coming back again and giving testimony on this important topic.

We will suspend for five minutes while we go in camera to resume consideration of version one of the CMHC report.

Again, thank you, committee members.

[Proceedings continue in camera]
https://openparliament.ca/committees/human-resources/44-1/69/jenny-kwan-1/

Latest posts

CIMM#115: Pension Transferability and Access to Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF), and Delays in Permanent Residence and Visas for Hong Kongers Recent Reforms to the International Student Program

James McNamee, Director General, Family and Social Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I would say that's generally the case. If the work permit they obtained was originally connected to the public policy, that's correct. I don't know if that's the situation in all cases. In some cases, applicants may have had an LMIA-based work permit to begin with.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP
That's right. However, under the special immigration measure, the LMIA is not required.  I have a list of applicants in those circumstances. Their work permit renewal application was rejected. They were asked to submit an LMIA, which makes no sense. I want to flag that as a deep concern now emerging for people whose open work permits are being rejected as they wait for their permanent resident status. At this rate, given the immigration levels plan numbers and the processing delays happening, and with the number of applicants in place, you can imagine that it's going to take something like eight years to get through the backlog of people getting their PR status. This means that if they are trying to get their pension, they will not be able to do so for eight years, because they are required to provide proof of permanent residence.
I want to flag this as a major concern. I hope the department will take action to fix the error being applied to applicants whose open work permits are being rejected under this stream.  Can I get a confirmation from officials that this will be undertaken?

James McNamee, Director General, Family and Social Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
Yes, that issue has been raised with the department already, and we're looking into it to see what exactly happened in those situations.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC, NDP
Okay. Officials are aware of it, and yet it's still happening.  I have cases coming to me that are happening. I'm about to prepare a giant pile of this stuff for the minister, so I hope the officials will fix that.  The other thing related to the pension, of course, is lengthy delays for people to get their permanent status.  Based on the immigration levels plan and the number of applicants in place, is it the officials' anticipation that it will take about eight years to get those applications processed?

James McNamee, Director General, Family and Social Immigration Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
We have looked at that possibility. Certainly, it will take longer than we had previously indicated to the committee. I would note that the first year of the levels plan is the fixed year. The years that follow, in this case, 2026 and 2027, are flexible. There are opportunities to adjust those numbers in the future, and that could affect that timeline. It's hard to say whether eight years will be the timeline, but it will be longer than had been originally predicted because the numbers have gone down.

CIMM#114: Recent Reforms to the International Student Program

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
Aside from looking at patterns of potential violators—the groups and organizations taking advantage of students with these fraudulent letters of acceptance—will you be including in the analysis what types of institutions are being utilized for these fraudulent letters? In other words, is it private institutions versus public institutions, colleges versus universities and so on? Will that be part of the analysis?

Bronwyn MayDirector General, International Students Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
It's not always the case that a letter originates from an institution. We would need to look at various possible sources.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
Maybe I can reframe that.
Obviously, as these are fraudulent letters of acceptance, they wouldn't be issued by the institutions. However, regarding the list of institutions being used for the purpose of these fraudulent letters, I would be interested in obtaining information to determine what percentage are private institutions and public institutions, how many of them are colleges, how many of them are universities and so on. That will tell us very specific information that I think is important when trying to tackle fraudulent activities.

Bronwyn May, Director General, International Students Branch, Department of Citizenship and Immigration
I completely agree. That's a very important line of analysis.

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
I will make the further request to make sure you share this information with the committee. I'll argue that this information should not be kept secret. It should be public and transparent—shared with all Canadians—so that we're aware of what the landscape is and of how international students are being taken advantage of. With respect to that analysis, will there be information and data on what countries are being targeted?

Click to read the full discussion from the Committee meeting

CIMM#113: Pension Transferability and Access to Mandatory Provident Fund (MPF), and Delays in Permanent Residence and Visas for Hong Kongers

Jenny Kwan Vancouver East, BC
All right. Thank you.
Hence, we have this problem. You have the Canadian government, which created this lifeboat scheme for Hong Kongers who are fleeing persecution in Hong Kong as a result of the national security law. The government, in its wisdom or lack thereof, created this lifeboat scheme that only provides for temporary residence by way of a work permit or a study permit. Then these people have to go to the queue to make an application for permanent residence, and we know that there is a huge backlog and delay in processing.
In the beginning, there was swift action, but as time has passed, it's been lengthened by way of the delay, to the point where the former minister even made an announcement to further extend people's work permits and study permits for another three years. That is to say, a person could be here for six years—as long as six years—under this current scheme without getting permanent residence. This is because the minister anticipated that people would not be able to swiftly get their permanent resident status. That is the reality.
As a result of that, people are not able to provide proof of permanent residence, because the application is in process. To make it even worse, the government—the minister—just made an announcement about the levels plan, cutting levels to the tune of 105,000 permanent resident status applications.
You can imagine how long the wait-list is for Hong Kongers as they continue to wait. Now, these Hong Kongers have zero intention of returning to Hong Kong, because they know that they would be persecuted if they did. People know that. I think the Canadian government knows that.
This is my question, then, to you as the manager of their pension, which, because of this rule, they're unable to access: Would your organization be willing to write to the regulator to ask for consideration for these applicants who are in a prolonged period of waiting for permanent resident status, to ask that their declaration indicating that they do not intend to return to Hong Kong be accepted as proof that they intend to leave Hong Kong permanently so that they can access their pensions? Is that something that your organization would consider doing?

Maryscott GreenwoodGlobal Head, Government Relations, The Manufacturers Life Insurance Company
I think I understand the question.
The basic premise of your question has to do with the period of time it takes for the Government of Canada to determine and provide permanent residency or citizenship. It seems to me that this is a function of the Government of Canada, as opposed to a regulated entity. That's how I would answer that.

Laura HewittSenior Vice-President and Head, Global Government Affairs and Public Policy, Sun Life Financial Services of Canada Inc.
Yes. I would say that it's not within our authority to change the criteria.
However, our numbers show that once that permanent residency does come through, we're able to process the applications and approve Canadian permanent residents.

Are you ready to take action?

Constituent Resources
Mobile Offices
Contact Jenny

Sign up for updates