On June 23, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) indicated that to ensure a reasonable level of housing prices in Canada by 2030, we should add 3.5 million units at the rate current production. For Quebec, this represents 620,000 additional units to be built.
Posted yesterday at 9:00 a.m.
The CMHC believes that drastic measures must be taken, in particular it invites developers to make full use of their land and the various governments to increase the efficiency of regulatory systems. She concludes: “To meet this challenge, we must work together and change current practices. »
Can we make a fresh start, together?
The difficulty of aligning programs
Federal and provincial housing programs are designed and adopted without consultation. Not surprising to note difficulties of stowage. Everyone defines what they understand to be affordable, sometimes the income of the occupants is taken into account, sometimes not. Sometimes the economic reality of a region is considered, sometimes not.
Cities, in turn, adopt policies. This adds new directions that are difficult to reconcile. Then, each of these three levels of government is free to change its program when it sees fit.
This is what Quebec did by abandoning the Accès-Logis program which supported the social component of the Regulation for a mixed metropolis of the City of Montreal.
There is no doubt that current practices must be changed.
Inadequate, insufficient and inadequate funding
In general, all housing support programs suffer from the same defect: their funding is not adapted to different environments. While construction costs are similar, land value varies from place to place; yet, too often, the programs do not take these variations into account. Every unit that is not built due to this mismatch adds to the shortage.
The portion of household income devoted to housing is on the rise, as CMHC has demonstrated. The Union of Municipalities of Quebec has documented the needs, yet, despite government announcements, funding remains insufficient.
Faced with the failure of Quebec and Ottawa to adopt suitable and sufficiently funded programs, certain cities, Montreal in particular, have recourse to ground royalties on new housing constructions with the aim of seeing certain units appear on the market at a better price. price. This tax grab is counterproductive since it raises prices and slows down the pace of new construction. More adequate funding should be considered.
Clearly, we need to change practices, but can we work together as CMHC asks?
A new start
Promoters, public decision-makers and major institutions can choose to make this new start “together”. For example, CMHC is calling on developers to take action. Agreed, but the labor shortage is dampening the momentum: more foreign workers wouldn’t hurt. We have to work “together”.
Our political authorities must design their programs together. Adopt the same definitions. Choose modalities that fit together. Of course, this new public partnership must continue beyond the initial adoption. So if a level of government changes its approach, it must take into account the effects on other decision-makers.
Let’s start with a simple idea: in February 2000, Quebec adopted a tax rebate program for new housing, but since then construction costs and land values have skyrocketed. The revision of the values and thresholds eligible for this program would be consistent with the common desire to aim for more reasonable rents.
Appropriate, sufficient and adequate funding
Quebec and Ottawa must come to an agreement and provide funding commensurate with needs and according to terms adapted to the various land realities. In this process, they could further open the door to the participation of tax-advantaged funds and pension funds. They should also set annual national and local targets for the production of new units with accountability allowing us, if necessary, to determine the causes of the delay and the corrective measures to be taken.
Local funding for inclusive housing relies on land charges, which drive up rental costs and prices. It’s counterproductive.
If cities want to add to the effort of higher levels of government, the use of charges must be limited.
For example, in the Regulation for a mixed metropolis, Montreal levies a fee on new units to enable it to promote social and affordable housing. Although it would be preferable not to resort to this method, we could agree to limit its perverse effect. The City could reduce its royalty by half and draw the other half from its revenue from transfer duties.
Regulatory flexibility and administrative simplification
CMHC calls for accelerated production of all types of housing. Municipal by-laws must be formulated accordingly and the permitting and analysis processes must be simplified. In this respect, Montreal has been working for more than a year on an administrative transformation by means of a facilitating unit; the first reforms are scheduled for September, which is encouraging. Let’s now hope that the next Urbanism and Mobility Plan will promote “happy density in every yard”.
CMHC calls for drastic measures. Obviously, it is undoubtedly the challenge of working together that will be the most demanding. The promoters want to launch the movement and today, we reach out to the cities so that together, we ask Quebec and Ottawa to take this new start with us.