Transcript - Committee Tackles Overdose Sites Closure - Housing Rights Advisory Committee

Committee Tackles Overdose Sites Closure - Housing Rights Advisory Committee - April 8, 2026

Okay. Okay. Okay. Good morning everyone. My name is Elizabeth McKisac. I'm the chair of the housing rights advisory committee here at the city of Toronto. The clerk has confirmed that we have quorum. So, I'd like to call meeting 10 of the Housing Rights Advisory Committee to order. Welcome everyone. This meeting is being held with committee members and staff participating both by video conference and in person at city hall in committee room 2. Members of the public may also attend in person or observe the meeting on YouTube. Because we are meeting in person today and remotely, I ask for your patience with any delays and technical issues we may have. If you are registered to speak at today's meeting, please listen for me to call your name. I will call speakers in the order that they appear on the list. The list of speakers can be viewed online by visiting the housing rights advisory committee at toronto.ca/counsel and clicking the speakers box for today's meeting. I request that staff and invited participants as well as all observers joining remotely keep their video turned off unless they need to speak or answer questions. This will make it easier for me as chair to see the members as we debate and vote on the agenda items. Members, for quorum purposes and participation in the meeting, it is important for you to keep your cameras on. I also ask that your microphones are muted unless you wish to question staff or speak to an item. If members wish to speak to an item, please raise your hand or unmute your microphone and indicate your intention to speak. When voting on an item or a motion, I ask members to raise your hand to indicate your vote vote. I also remind members that if you have any motions on any of the agenda items, they must be submitted in writing and can be emailed to staff at hac toronto.ca. Although we may be meeting in different locations today, the housing rights advisory committee would like to acknowledge the land we are meeting on is the traditional territory of many nations including the Missagas of the Credit, the Anesnabek, the Chipawa, the Hodnosi, and the Wendat peoples and is now home to many diverse First Nations, Inuit and Matei peoples. We also acknowledge that Toronto is covered by Treaty 13 with the Missagas of the Credit. So to begin the business of today, may I have a motion to confirm the minutes from our meeting on February 20th, 2026? Thank you, Diana. All those in favor, may I see your hands? Carried. The first item for today is the chair's update. And as committee chair, I will provide an update to the committee. Um, I do believe I have an update. Here we go. Since our last meeting on February 20th, 2026, I'm pleased to share that our supportive supporting unhoused rights holders working group and maintaining housing working group have had the opportunity to convene and consult with staff on items related to their respective key priorities. Updates on these meetings are provided later in today's agenda. I would also like to highlight a key public policy decision decisions which impact access to critical health care services for people experiencing homelessness and addiction. Since the passing of the Community Care and Recovery Act 2024 by the province of Ontario, 10 supervised consumption sites have been forced to close. The province has recently announced that it will terminate funding to the remaining seven supervised consumption sites that exist in communities that are supported by an existing homelessness and addiction recovery treatment or heart hub effective June 13, 2026. While the province has announced the creation of 28 heart hubs to provide people with critical health care, housing, and support services, it explicitly excludes supervised consumption services. This means that the immediate and acute needs of people at high risk of overdose will not be met through the heart hubs. Canadian and international evidence overwhelmingly demonstrates that supervised consumption services save lives, connect people to critical social services, and are pathways to treatment. From the opening of supervised consumption sites in 2017 to 2025, over 50,000 overdoses have been reversed in Canada. The toxic drug supply has disproportionate impacts on people experiencing homelessness. Since 2021, one in five opioid related deaths in Ontario occurred among people experiencing homelessness. The closures will further endanger indigenous people who face higher rates of overdose deaths and are over represented among those experiencing sheltered and unsheltered homelessness. The number of non-fatal opioid overdose calls attended by Toronto Paramedic Services in February 2026 was more than double compared to the previous year. The decision to criminalize addiction and homelessness through Bill Six and Bill 10 while simultaneously defunding supervised consumption services threatens the right to life for people who are suffering from addiction. Defunding this critical pathway to treatment and housing stability is a retrogressive measure which undermines Canada's commitment to progressively realize the right to adequate housing. While the housing rights advisory committee is not mandated to provide advice on provincial matters as a human rights body, it is critical that we are aware of the systemic issues that impact the city of Toronto's ability to progressively realize the right to adequate housing for people in Toronto experiencing homelessness and addiction. And with that, that is my report or update. Um, I would ask uh if the members have any questions or comment on this item. Would is there a hand? Joy, please go ahead. Yes. I don't This is really a question for staff from the city. Um, I wanted to know if the city was um pushing back on this issue and and and and sort of where that was coming from too. Like is that coming from uh you know housing? Is it coming from um uh health, police and so on. So I just wondered if there is action um from the city on this. Um I will ch please. Hi Joy, it's Jen here from the Housing Secretariat. Um we are I I think public health is really um managing the the messaging around the city's position on this. Uh and we can definitely uh forward to this group some of the messaging that's been put out if that's helpful. Uh thank you. I guess my second question is as a committee uh it's true we we are here to uh advise the city um but is there anything that can that can be done that would support the city in its work. It may not be our it might not be our mandate to do it, but I'm just wondering what would be helpful. I I'm looking at my colleague on the committee, councelor Perks, do you want to weigh in? Probably the most useful thing to do would be to forward a copy of your report uh the chair's report to the medical officer of health. Okay. Or the chair or the board of health, whichever. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you, Jen. Thank you, Gourd. Diana, did you want to add? I'm always compelled to to speak on the subject. Um, I'm somebody who worked front line before we had supervised consumption sites. And so, I'm very aware that the problem doesn't go away. It simply gets transferred into other spaces. So, we are currently seeing this on the TTC. Uh we're seeing this in drop-in centers, libraries, community centers, union station uh but also more people in supportive housing uh and in TCHC for example um using with friends in those spaces. So this does impact our work in a number of different ways in a number of different city services that we'll see again uh an increase in people who are using drugs in these kinds of spaces. So um all I know is that this will absolutely lead to death. Um I've been in the situation before. We've all been in the situation before. will see it. But I also want to flag that the heart hubs that have been um uh created somewhat created uh to replace uh supervised consumption sites do not offer the same kinds of services. Uh and in fact they offer very little services. What they're not doing is actually increasing the number of treatment beds that are available to people. They are simply referring people out to extent treatment services. So people in the situation who are accessing the hubs are not even accessing treatment as per the government's statements. And we've even seen and we've heard a statement from Chris Moyes who's a city councelor that a lot of the hubs haven't even received their provincial funding to operate. So we're in a position where we're actually not um replacing any services at all. Uh in fact, we don't have services uh of any real kind. Certainly ones that are novel or new. So um I just want to flag this with the committee that there's a lot of kind of subtrauge happening at the provincial level and so we're not seeing either supervised consumption services or treatment. Thank you for that and obviously this leads to a threat to the right to life um for all of those individuals who are in that situation. And so I think following councelor Perk's advice, I will forward the update uh from today um and and encourage uh Toronto Public Health and the medical officer of health to continue advocacy around um advancing supports and and and services and pressuring the provincial government to uh deliver on at least what was uh promised. Um, but I would also add decriminalizing the context. Um, yes, Annie. Okay. I just wanted to add um support for for that myself. Um, in terms of the work that I do, I'm, you know, as a human rights body, um, the idea of mental health and addiction and the neglect that that that area receives, uh, quite often is something I think is really worth our attention. And, um, you know, many of the people that are using these supervised consumption sites may be um, homeless or housing insecure. And so I just want to want to uh really strongly support uh the advocacy around this area because it is a critical you know when we talk about focusing on those in greatest need it definitely is falls into that and uh also the discrimination I think that that often is at play. Um a misunderstanding of addiction as not being part of a mental health uh you know framework which which it very much is. So I just wanted to kind of add that um strong support Thank you, Annie. So, with that then I will move to receive the item. May I see a show of hands for those in favor? And carried. Thank you. So, that brings us to item 10.2, the role of property standards on maintaining adequate housing. Joining us today is the federal housing advocate Marie Jose to deliver a presentation on the role of property standards on maintaining adequate housing. Uh it's my pleasure to welcome Marie Jose um to our committee. This is her second time joining us. Um and I'm looking to see is she available online and then I will turn the mic over to Marie Jose. Hi. Um, are you there, Marie? Marie Jose, we have her online. She's Oh, we have a note. I can't turn my camera and the mic. So, let's just take a pause while tech gets sorted on your end and our on our end as well. So, we'll just pause. There we go. I think I've got it. Thank you very much. Sorry about that. And thank you for your patience. Um I'm going to just ensure that my u colleague Ian is uh sharing the presentation and yes. Okay, great. So, thank you so much for the invitation to appear before you today. I'm here in my role as Canada's federal housing advocate, which is a position that was established under the National Housing Strategy Act. And my mandate is to advance the accountability on systemic housing rights issues and to ensure that lived experience, particularly the experiences of those most affected by housing procarity is heard at every level of decision-making. So today's remarks um respond directly to Toronto City Council's request to assess the tenant rights impact of the property standards appeal process and I will situate that process within a broader human rights framework and I'll offer some observations on where reform is most urgently needed. But before I begin, I I would like to take the uh opportunity to acknowledge that I am joining you today from the unseated and unsurdered territory of the Algangquan Anesnav people. Uh can I get the second slide, please? So, housing is recognized as a human right in Canada across multi- uh multiple levels and legal and policy frameworks. It's recognized in international human rights law, in federal law, through the National Housing Strategy Act, and right here in Toronto through the Toronto Housing Charter. Importantly, the right to adequate housing. It's not limited to affordability or access. It explicitly includes habitability. Adequate housing must be safe and healthy. It must be structurally sound. It must be maintained in good repair. It must be equipped with essential services such as heat, clean water, sanitation, and be free from conditions such as serious mold or pest infestations. So, Toronto is formally committed to the standard, and the housing charter affirms that housing is essential to dignity and well-being, that all residents have the right to safe and well-maintained home, and that all housing should be kept in a good state of repair. And from a human rights perspective, you know, these standards, they're not just aspirational. They are obligations. And critically, the right to adequate housing cannot be protected without timely and effective enforcement of habitability standards. So being forced to live for months or years in unsafe or unhealthy conditions is itself a form of housing insecurity and it undermines health, dignity and security of tenure even when the tendency you know technically continues. Can I get the next slide please? So across Canada we see persistent and systemic gaps in how tenant rights are protected. Habitability standards. They exist in every province and territory. But enforcement is often slow, remedies are inconsistent, and power imbalances consistently disadvantaged tenants. You know, particularly those living in poverty, newcomers, racialized communities, persons with disabilities, and single parent households. So when responses to serious disrepair are delayed, this can amount to a failure by governments to protect the right to adequate housing. So too often the burden of harm is shifted onto tenants. You know, tenants must tolerate unsafe conditions, gather evidence, you know, navigate complex systems and sometimes even risk retaliation or eviction simply to have basic standards enforced. And you know, as an aside, I do want to say that, you know, there are other mechanisms and um or even just direct contact with a landlord and they're often told, well, you know, you can move. But again, you know, this burden of work, you know, the work of packing up and the financial cost still fall on the tenants shoulders. And it's often not even a real option because the vacancy rates in most municipalities are often very low, never mind housing. that's more, you know, affordable. So, some rental rates, you know, they're protected by rent control regulations. However, this level of affordability is forever lost once the tenant moves out. So, sometimes habitable standards, they're weaponized against tenants, you know, forcing them to choose to move elsewhere. So, you know, basically the landlord can significantly raise the rent after finally conducting the necessary repairs if at all before the next um tenant moves in. So, from a human rights standpoint, you know, these outcomes, they're not neutral. Very important to understand that. And they reflect structural failures. Can I get the next slide, please? So, in the fall of 2024, the federal government released a blueprint for a renters's bill of rights, which articulated minimum principles for protecting tenants across the country. And these include the right to safe, decent, and habitable housing, protection from unfair treatment and retaliation, and the right to clear information, meaningful participation, and effective enforcement. Uh this blueprint is an important step, but principles alone do not protect tenants unless they're matched by enforcement mechanisms that are accessible, timely, and responsive to power imbalances. And unfortunately, the federal blueprint hasn't yet translated into meaningful changes in legislation or tenant protections. Next slide, please. So at the municipal level, property standards are a critical tool for giving effect to housing rights. Uh chapter 629 of the Toronto Municipal Code establishes minimum habitability standards that directly operationalize the right to adequate housing. And the fact that most enforcement activity stems from tenant complaints, it reflects how heavily tenants rely on the system to protect their rights. However, the appeals process presents several significant challenges. You know, the property standards appeal process as determined by the province of Ontario's building code act. And the property standards appeal committee, the PAC, is an independent body whose decisions can be opaque to councilors and members of the public. And landlords can file appeals that can delay compliance for months. Extensions are frequently granted even where serious conditions persist and tenants are not always automatically notified of appeals or even given meaningful opportunities to participate. So the existing legal framework undermines a tenants's access to justice for property standards violations and ultimately their right to adequate housing. So from a from a human rights perspective, prolonged non-compliance with habitability standards is not a neutral administrative delay. You know, rights delays are rights denied. So it is an ongoing rights harm. Every additional month without heat, clean water or safe living conditions deepens that harm and compounds its effect on physical health, mental well-being and housing stability. Uh, next slide, please. So, I want to acknowledge and welcome current efforts to strengthen the property standards appeal committee reports obligations. I also understand that changes are in the works to reinforce the uh the appointment process for the property standards appeal committee to ensure representation of lived experience or professional experience related to housing access and tenant protections. And I also welcome the executive committee's recent recommendations aimed at cracking down on landlords who are bad faith and repeat offender uh repeat offenders. You know these these are important steps but uh rightsbased approach requires more. So tenant protections uh requires coordination across municipal uh enforcement, provincial legislation frameworks and federal housing rights accountability. Appeals and enforcement systems must reflect the urgency of habitability violations. Health and safety related breaches should trigger ex expedited appeal timelines, stricter limits on extensions and stronger interim protections for tenants while appeals are underway. The harm caused by unsafe housing conditions does not pause, you know, simply because an appeal has been filed. So, I understand that the committee has recommended that training on housing as a human right be provided by uh to city staff working in housing related areas and it's important that uh human rights considerations be included in the property standards appeal process and I encourage the city to consider extending this training to include members of the property standards appeals committee. you know, tenants are the rights holders. You know, they're not merely complainants and um a rightsbased system requires an automatic notification of appeals, you know, clear opportunities for tenants to be heard and explicit recognition that lived experience is a form of expertise. You know, particularly when assessing the real world impacts of delayed compliance. So participation must be designed so that tenants do not need legal representation simply to protect their basic rights. Yes. And you know this brings me to a critical issue in around justice and restitution and in Ontario you know tenants may theoretically seek rent abatements through the landlord and tenant board when habil um habilibid uh standards they're not met but in practice you know this process it's costly it's time consuming and procedurally complex habitability you know cases they're not prioritized by the landlord tenant board And you know during this time you know the tenants must continue paying full rent while their cases proceed sometimes even for many months you know and this creates a profound rights gap. You know tenants are expected to pay full price for housing that lacks adequate plumbing, clean water, functional heating or appliances or that pose risks to physical safety and mental health. And at the same time, failure to pay full rent even when uh habitability is severely compromised, you know, can result in eviction for rears. So from a human rights perspective, this is deeply problematic. And a rights-based approach would recognize that effective remedies be timely, accessible, protective against retaliation or eviction. And this could include stronger interim rent abatement mechanisms tied to verified property standards violations, better coordination between municipal enforcement and provincial tribunals, and safeguards to ensure that tenants are not punished for asserting their rights. So without meaningful restitution, enforcement alone can't fully repair the harm caused by prolonged periods of uninhabitable housing. Uh last slide please. So property standard enforcements it is foundational to the right to adequate housing and when enforcement is delayed when extensions are routine and when tenant voices are marginalized both habitability and security of tenure are undermined. You know, from a human rights perspective, the right to adequate housing is violated not only when people lose their homes, but when they're forced to live for extended periods in housing that fails to meet their basic standards of safety, health, and dignity. And so, I appreciate the committee's leadership on these issues and invite continued dialogue on how Toronto systems can more fully reflect the human rights commitments that the city has already made. So, thank you very much. Thank you very much, Maria Jose. Um, that was a really helpful overview and and contextualizing um how this fits into the broader landscape of of housing rights protection um in the Canadian context and particularly as we think about what the city can do. Um before we move into questions uh on the item, we do have two speakers registered. Um, and so I would turn first to Arnold Margulus and remind you you have 5 minutes. So, uh, over to you Arnold. Yeah. Uh, good morning. uh the uh first I appreciate the presentation and it's really important and valuable and um the what is missing in this presentation I think is uh the role of who is responsible for improving the um property standards and uh like at the city level it looks like MLS is responsible and they the enforcer also and this is inappropriate. So the they can make it convenient for them and this is the main criteria. So MLS uh the uh the city committee maybe your committee or uh some someone else in the city should be responsible for improvement of uh property standards. I'm living in Toronto seniors housing corporation and uh in uh response to my complaints to MLS and issued orders to the landlord. What happened? The landlord retaliated as uh the previous speaker said frequently happens and basically the superintendent drilled holes through the floor of the upper unit and started fumigating my unit with toxic chemicals every night and sometime during the daytime. And this is going for a while and the city council uh or the board of directors of the corporation was unresponsive to my request for independent investigation. So uh the as a result the landlord continues and the uh leadership of the landlord uh simply provided cover up instead of properly investigate. It's totally inappropriate to ask leadership of the landlord to investigate such such outrageous matters and the superintendent start also formigating the adjacent hallways aiming to speed up elderly tenants turnaround to receive more renovation funds which are illegally laundered them. So uh what I'm suggesting with regards to property standard there should be definitely a committee responsible for improvements and uh in particular with regards to toxic fumes. Uh I wanted to bring your attention to section 6 uh 2927 walls and sailings and subsection A and D uh that deals with toxic fumes but it is assumed that they are coming like it's uh assumed that uh the MLS would issue an order to seal like for example the holes around the vertical pipes in the building section but they are hidden by the drywalls and what is happening And uh the current uh addition of the property standards says that dry walls are walls and uh the property standards officers only make sure that the walls are looking nice. They don't look inside the pipe compartments and as a result they cannot seal the walls around the pipes that actually allow to pump the toxic fumes into adjacent units. So this is a significant weakness of the uh current addition of the property Toronto property standard. The other scene is plumbing water and sanitary facilities against section A2 and B. They say that uh the water should come from the source approved by the medical officer of health. But in reality like how would you enforce it? There should be a protocol of joint inspections of the property standards and the front of water inspectors that would ensure that there is no illegal modification of the uh uh drinking water pipes that allow to purposely contaminate water in the adjacent unit. That's exactly what happens in my unit. And uh the third scene is section 6 to9 ventilation noxious fumes subsection E. It only refers to the um uh housing with joint purpose when part of the housing is some production facility with noxious fumes. This is not appropriate. And in addition, as I said, the landlord may purposely pump noxious fumes into adjacent unit for variety of purposes. So the section must be edited to allow like a more uh soft language for the inspectors to enforce not only in case when the building is used as a joint industrial and housing facility. So those are very very significant improvements that must have uh given I'm ACORN member. This is a tenant uh rights uh uh union and I hear more and more complaints from the tenants that uh basically the landlords abuse namely they purposely contaminate indoor air in the building because public health is extremely weak. They only have date day shift and they have inadequate treatment. I just recently brought it to the board of health attention. So yes. Okay. Uh I'm uh let me finish a little bit if possible. Okay. So very briefly please. Okay. Thank you. the public health should should play like a uh like a more important role and coordinate their efforts jointly with MLS to ensure indoor air quality enforcement according to current indoor air quality standards and they are failing miserably right now to do it. Okay, thank you very much. Uh thank you for for sharing that. I mean it was very detailed and I think um helps paint the picture um of how acute the issue is felt. Uh so thank you very much for for bringing that forward and the recommendations. Um we have a second speaker on the list uh Nicole Curado. Um Nicole you're there. You have five minutes. Can you hear me? Yes. Hey. Yes. Um I would echo what the previous deputent has said. Um my concern is also with use of pesticides. I presume the previous deputy tip was talking about about uh sprays for insects. You know the the real issue you know mentioned in the slides about you know the right right to a pestfree environment. Unfortunately most of the beauty housing corporation that they don't actually do anything to actually manage insects or mice or rats humanely or safely. They they just used things like, you know what, like uh you know, I've seen blue traps. I've seen poison bait. And last year there were two bear complaints at Toronto Community Housing Corporation because bears are attracted to the bait boxes that were anticolagically poisoned food. So that that attracts all type of animals including bears. It it causes the rodents to to die very slowly and you know causes and you know so it makes the blood thin any animals blood. So it makes animals it makes fleas and ticks easier to bite the animal. So it actually makes things worse. and the glue traps. That's very disturbing because the animals are are screaming and injuring themselves trying to get out of the glue traps. And that's really damaging to both people's physical health and mental health to be, you know, witnessing animals being be poisoned and and stuck to boards and and being told you can't do anything about it. I would suggest that Toronto Community Housing Corporation contact dentisticidefree.ca. It's a website that has lists for humane companies that do not use poisons or food traps or anything harmful to the animals. They only use exclusion methods. They they clean the area, use exclusion methods, and remove attractants. That's another reason bears would, you know, and other animals are getting into Toronto Community Housing Corporation is because waste management is clearly not good. As previous deputies had mentioned, there's a lot of holes that are clearly access points for for uh for insects and and robots. And I think he was just referring to insects, but it's but you know there are certainly if you look up for insects you can look up the peta house lists for termites, cockroaches and ants things that do not harm them. And yeah, cleaning the place exclusion to fixing the bowls, putting oneway doors for the the mice and rocks and uh cleaning of the you know waste management. It's it's much healthier people's mental and physical health because it's a real harm to my mental and physical health to have to experience seeing animals being harmed by by uh harmful pest control methods. that that affects my mental health and it will affect my physical health too because if I find an animal in one of those things, I'm going to want to try to get the animal off the boot trap or something which exposes me to the animal and but that those those are health issues that you definitely need to be looking at humane ways of of managing soal Yes. So that everybody has a right to have a safe environment that's both physically and mentally safe for them that does not involve harm any kind of cruelty. Everybody has a right to a crueltyfree environment. And I would also mention that in terms of the sprays for insects, um, when my parents were pregnant, when my mother was pregnant with me, she was exposed to to diaon is what they used to use. That's no longer allowed for home use, but you can still buy it at online for like $20 and, you know, for a big bottle. And and dazon unfortunately is still used. that caused the brain damage to me as a as a before I was four because it was exposed to that I believe for termites and it it did cause this damage to so it does it does affect health the right to a pestree environment should be the right to a pesticidefree environment and the right to a an environment that's safe for everybody okay thank you Nicole um so thank you to our speakers. Um at this point then I would like to turn to the members of the committee. Um if you have any questions um on this item um is Marie Jose still here with us. Good. So if there are questions from the committee uh to Marie Jose, this is your opportunity. Yes, Annie. Thank you for the uh presentation. and it was a really good overview of the the issue. Um I worked with uh renters facing eviction and housing instability directly for 6 years and so saw the trends and the arcs of some of these cases and uh definitely uh you know lack of repairs drives people from their homes. Um, I've seen it happen and also it can be used as a u method for landlords to drive people from their homes when they ignore um persistent issues in buildings. So something to keep an eye on um in terms of trends. Just um wondering if you you may not have ideas on this, but worked a little bit as well on the renters bill of rights and are there any um avenues available right now to uh get the get the provinces or others to to look at some of the teeth that could help those recommendations um come into play. Not sure if you if you've been sort of turning in turning your mind to that at all, but just curious on that front if if you do have any any thoughts. Thanks. Well, thanks so much for that question. It's a really good one and it's one that's really tricky, but it doesn't need to be. Uh I think right now as the national housing strategy is being renegotiated with the bilateral and trilateral agreements between the provinces and the federal government. You know we know that the government has put a lot of money towards the national housing strategy where the first uh round of negotiations uh way you know before 2017 uh the government hadn't had a history of putting money forth towards housing. So um you know I think the the point is to put pressure on the federal government and those um any kind of um consultations around the national the continuation of the national housing strategy should include you know better tenency protections but I I would say even consistent tenency protections um across all provinces and territories because we know that it significantly changes the minute someone crosses over an invisible line. I think it's commendable that the city of Toronto has the charter um because that's something that no other municipality has um but it's to use these um but you know you have an opportunity today to look at um the mechanisms you do have in place but ultimately I would love to see uh consistent uh teny rights across the country um teny um you know just even a a point of access or a point of conflict resolution that is better funded. um that issues can be resolved right away without having to include very punitive skewed um legislation, you know, and and that power imbalance that's just so so evident uh in across the country in all the provincial and territorial uh landlord or landlord tenant uh boards or residential tenency boards um if they have any at all. So, I mean, this is very broad, but I think I think today is a good opportunity. I really think you're um I think if you're able to make some recommendations and be able to move on them, uh my presentation was pretty um pretty pointed on on what what can be done today and send them some recommendations. I hope that's helpful. Thank you. Um, are there other questions from the committee to Marie Jose? Um, does anyone on the committee want to speak to this issue? Maybe we have an update of what's happening on this issue at council or the executive. I so the there was it's G scored there was some description of what council's already decided uh coming this month at the planning and housing committee there's also an update on our rent safe project which overlaps with a lot of this and also discusses um some of the strategies we're as trying to use as a city to overcome the limits that the province has imposed on us legally. One of the very difficult things we face as a city is that uh all of our abilities to enforce this uh are constrained by the building code act which gives uh property owners the right to an appeal and once something is under appeal we can't take action. Uh and secondly, uh and you know the commissioner discussed this the the problems with the rental tenencies act which I've always thought of as the landlord act because it gives tremendous u uh ability for landlords to go and assert their rights but gives almost nothing to tenants. So within those two constraints um we're quite limited in what we can do and the concern I have is that uh the more we keep insisting that the municipal government solve this without the correct legislative framework the more we set up false expectations and further uh distract people from where the legal problem is. So, you know, it I I think it's great that we're doing advocacy work. I really appreciate the framework that was just given and I love the suggestion of uh advocating that the federal government take a leadership role in trying to standardize rights across provincial jurisdictions. That's a new one for me and I'm going to ponder that. Um, I was hoping when we got this presentation that there might be some shining example in some province, but it doesn't sound like that's the case. Marie Jose is is shaking her head. No, there is no such shining example. Um, go ahead. I was just going to say if I may I, you know, and it's is there's a lot of work to be done in this space and uh the National Right to Housing Network might be a group to connect with to get an update on the renters's bill of rights. Uh that was being worked on. Um maybe some contact with even the Justice Department um with the federal government. Uh, and I'm really sad to say that Ontario probably had some of the best um, resolution or conflict resolution points uh, before the Ford government, but it's been so grossly underfunded and there's been changes in uh, legislation that have been so deeply or that have been deeply eroding uh, tenency rights. So, you know, we're we're regressing really in this space. Um and um you know another place maybe to do some advocacy or to get more information on the the tenant bill of rights would be the Canadian center for housing rights. So no we've got a lot of work to do all of us do I would say in this space really. Thank you. I think Gourd has a follow-up question. A question did occur to me. One of the one of the things that really bedevils us um is after we've uh after uh our staff have issued an order and gone through the appeals process and and exhausted all of that. uh we then uh issue a uh a violation, but the the property owner uh then goes to court and opposes it. Right. And and one of the things that's always struck me is the complete absence of any rights for tenants in that process. It's just a a a dispute, a legal dispute between a municipality and a property owner about whether the municipality can impose this order on the property owner. I was wondering if any anyone's turned their mind to that gap as we're trying to build a rights framework for housing. I think that's a question for you, Marie Jose. Well, my silence I think speaks volumes. Pardon me. Um, no, the hy yeah yeah. Well, I I think one thing is very clear is that buildings are not static, right? They are there to house people. And again, um, we really really need to reenter the conversation around human rights and what what these buildings function really is. It's a is it a vehicle for making money or is it really comes down to these buildings are exist to um to to house um people, but you make an incredible argument of why we need a human rights based approach. um too long, you know, that we're looking at buildings and using people thinking of them as little playing pieces on a board game, you know. Um the impacts are huge and I would even use a language as strong as profit on on the misery of others. Uh we've seen some strategies by some financial actors. I mean the most extreme ones and they're not all this way and it's not always purposely done but I think of her gate that was a strategy you know keep extracting rents from people while they lived in gross subpar subhuman conditions with no options um to move until they were eventually evicted when these buildings were ready to be um torn down and have other buildings move And and what I saw with the Harrengate um situation uh when I was working with Exial Lesma previous to this role was uh that people could apply for internal moves within the property, but they the application itself for an internal move was $400, which again was completely illegal. But they um you know, they used every mechanism really to trap people into continuing to pay real money. to live in subpar conditions with absolutely no recourse until they could, you know, just evict them and then build new housing that none of these people could ever afford. So, you know, there there's the extreme cases and then there's the gentle cases. The gentle cases is that someone doesn't have a stove to cook on for months. you know, the gentle cases are complex where the landlord doesn't have the money to make the repair, uh, or it's not the right season, but there needs to be transparency and consistency and that people need to be able to take part in this process and that all people on the committee are trained around the human right to housing. Thank you. Um, not seeing any other comments or questions. I would I would just point out I think the elephant in this room is that um the majority of of renters's rights are in fact guarded or are are structured around provincial legislation and in our province and in any province or territory at this point. We don't have legislative uh legislated uh right to adequate housing. We have it nationally. We have it federally rather um and but we do not have that um as a guard rail for some of the legislative pieces that are coming proincially. And so this committee in particular uh looks at the city and the municipality which has recognized the right to adequate housing. This issue I think highlights the complexities of uh a key element of the right to housing which is habitability and there are limitations uh to what the city is able to do not complete uh I mean there are things that can be done and so I think some of what uh council has has moved forward executive committee and council in the last month um around increasing uh resources to rent safe uh in terms of I believe increasing ing data collection horizontally across the city around properties. That is a step forward. That is about building transparency, making that publicly available. Um, and so I think these are steps in the right direction and within the purview of what the municipality can do. Critically, it is going to be about advocacy to the province and Marie Jose to your point, the extent to which the renters bills bill of rights can be brought forward into the bilateral agreements that are in front of us uh as the national housing strategy 2.0 goes forward and it becomes conditions within the transfer of monies uh from the federal government to the province. Um in any case, I'm extremely grateful and we are grateful Marie Jose for you taking the time. I think you did an excellent really helped us in understanding the scope of this and thank you for taking the time for walking through this with us. Um with that I would move for us to receive this item. Seeing a show of hands. I need to see everyone's hands and carried. Thank you very much. Um Marie Jose, thank you. Uh and I hope we stay in touch and you continue to to watch what we're doing and help us on our way. Okay. Thanks so much for having me. All right, thank you. Um, that moves us on then to item 10.3, addressing barriers to adequate housing for women and gender diverse people. Joining us today is Z Jingpang and Maya Braz from Nelly's to deliver a presentation on addressing barriers to adequate housing for women and gender diverse people. they have recent released a significant research uh report uh which represents a significant amount of work and grateful for that and that their willingness to come and share that with us. So welcome to both of you. I know you're getting teed up and there we have it. The technology is working. So over to you Good morning members of the committee and thank you so much for the opportunity to present today. My name is Senpan Michelle Toronto women in action housing advocacy coordinator and I'm presenting together with my colleague Maya Brass project support worker from NIS. So today we are going to share key findings and recommendations from the breaking barriers position P paper right here. We would like to highlight the barriers of women and gender diverse people when they are assessing the affordable housing in Toronto and identify areas where m municipal actions could help to address some of these barriers. So we all know that Toronto is facing a deepening housing affordability crisis with average rents exceeding um 1,700 for a onebedroom and many people are now spending more than 30% of their income on housing. The rate list of LGI reaching up to 15 years right now for women and gender diverse people they face higher risk of homelessness and unsafe living conditions. So we urgently need more equitable and inclusive housing solutions for them. So this position paper explores housing barriers faced by women experiencing gender- based violence with disabilities, indigenous women and also gender diverse people. Between May and August last year, we conducted six trauma informed focus groups across different community agencies and also obtaining insights from housing lawyer. This approach ensure the position paper reflects on life experiences, front nine service realities and also evident based research. So now it comes to the finding parts. For women who are experiencing gender-based violence are not just feeling harm. They are trying to rebuild their lives in a system that often fails them. One mother told us that I just want somewhere stable where where my kids can feel safe. But stability is always out of reach. Even with special priority status, many survivors wait over a year for housing. In the meantime, they move between shelters, rely on unsafe temporary arrangements, or return to the abusive environments. And other women describe the process as frustrating, awful, and unbelievable. To qualify for priority housing, they must provide proof of cohabitation within a strict threemonth window. Documents many cannot access due to financial control from their partner or risk of getting into the abusive home. Requirements also vary across different regions and decision letters often fail to explain to them what is missing leaving them without a clear path to go forward. And also the short resubmission timelines and repeated administrative delays only makes this very worse for children. Fe frequent moves between shelters repeatedly also disrupt their routines and stability especially who has just compressed causing lasting emotional and develmental harm. Women also spoke about gaps in supports like limited access to legal and immigration help lack of cultural appropriate services and no clear up-to-ate system to navigate housing and supports. and they have been very clear about what needs to be changed. First, we must extend the SP application and resubmission timelines and ensure clear transparent communication about required documents. They also need to be informed of SP early through police, healthcare, and shelters so they do not miss the critical timelines. A centralized provincewide SP system with standardized requirements is essential to reduce the confusion and also inequality. We must also expand the transitional and affordable housing for women and children including the family size units in accessible communities. In addition, funding for on-site on-site mental health, legal and specialized supports, especially for children and newcomers, is critical. Services must be trauma informed, culturally responsive and grant in the in the life experience. As one participant said that we are trying to rebuild our lives, we just need a home where we can finally breathe. And for the women with disabilities group, they are not just facing the housing barriers. They are navigating the systems that were never designed for them. One woman who uses a power wheelchair shared in her affordable so-cal access accessible units. The doorways are too narrow and the basic repairs are being ignored. She said that I feel invisible in my own home. Another woman with a visual disability could not complete her housing application because the system was not accessible and years later she still doesn't know her status of their housing application. These experiences show a large issue. Many accessible units are not truly accessible and there is no priority access right now for the people with disabilities in the housing system. To address this, we must create a priority category. Ensure accessible accessible application process and expand truly accessible housing with priority account with proper accountability. Services must be inclusive, accessible and grounded in dignity. And now I will pass the time to Maya. Good morning chair and members of the committee. Thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I would like to begin with a brief example from our research. One indigenous woman shared that she was ready to apply for housing. Apologies for housing but could not proceed because she did not have the required identification. In many cases, this is not simply an administr administrative issue. It can be connected to displacement, a loss of documents or challenges navigating systems to replace identification. At the same time, she did not have reliable access to a phone or internet to complete the application process. As a result, she was unable to even enter the housing system. We also heard about the limited availability of indigenousled housing that provides culturally safe and supportive environments. This highlights that access to housing is not only about availability but also about whether individuals can realistically enter and navigate the system. From a municipal perspective, this points to the importance of supporting indigenous le housing, improving access to identification, and ensuring application supports are accessible and culturally appropriate. Gender gender diverse participants shared that when they were looking for housing they they felt they had to hide their identity in not in order to be considered by landlords. Others described feeling unsafe in shelters and housing environments. These experiences reflect ongoing concerns related to discrimination and lack of inclusive spaces over time. This can lead individuals to avoid services or remain in unsafe situations. This is not due to lack of effort, but rather a response to environments that do not feel safe or welcoming. From a municipal perspective, this highlights the need for inclusive service standards, gender affirming training for staff and clear accountability mechanisms to address discrimination. Access to housing should not depend on someone's identity. In addition to these challenges, we consistently heard about the limited supply of affordable housing. Wait time for gear to income housing remain very long. Limited supply of affordable housing. Wait, sorry, my bad. Um what? So the waiting time for rent gear to income is very very long and in the meantime the market trend continues to rise. However, our findings also show that even when housing is available, people may still face difficulties accessing it. For this reason, increasing supply is essential, but it must be combined with improvement in how the system operates. Municipal approaches such as partnership with nonprofit providers, use of public land, and more efficient approval processes can play an important role. The key message from this research is that the housing crisis is not only about how much housing is available, but also about how the system functions. We heard from individuals who were ready and allegible to access housing, but were unable to move forward due to processes and requirements that did not reflect their realities. When programs are not designed with equity in mind, they can unintentionally exclude. Addressing these gaps is essential to improve access and supporting the rights to adequate housing in Toronto. These examples reflect the lived experiences of woman and gender diverse people navigating housing insecurity in Toronto. We are grateful to all the participants who trusted us with their experiences and to women and gender equality Canada for supporting this work through the Toronto woman in action project. We hope this insights can support the city ongoing efforts. Thank you for your time. We welcome any questions. Thank you both very much. This is um obviously a critically important issue facing women and gender diverse people across the city and I thank you for your research and presentation today. Um we do have a speaker to this issue before we move forward. Um and that is Nicole Curado. Uh Nicole, you have five minutes. Hi, I I agree with everything you're saying, you know, about accessibility and the trouble finding homes. Um, as a woman on the autism spectrum, I what really struck me was you mentioned that there was a in the report that there was a woman whose child uh is autistic and and really has a lot of trouble with it, you know, having to move from shelter to shelter and really needs stable housing that is sensory accessible and not really noisy. As an autistic woman, I recognize that there's a need for for that for adults too because these autistic children, they grow up and I presume that if the child is autistic, odds are the mother is too. Go to the pathways you're saying to them. So, are what I was trying what I was going to say is that I'm sorry about the echo. What I was going to say is, you know, as an autistic woman, I think it's really important that housing be made available. And we need to be thinking beyond just the group homes or the, you know, the special housing or that learn to live on your own, you know, temporary housing. That's not what we autistic women need. We autistic women need that safe housing that is permanent housing of our own choosing. You know, autistic women are far more likely than the general population to be and gender diverse people too for that matter. And there's a wide uh overlap between gender diverse people and and autism are autistic people are more likely to be prone to intimate partner violence for a number of reasons. For one, it's harder to find an intimate partner. So, a lot of people will set me. The other thing is we're we're more naive and and don't always pick up social cues. And another issue is, and a lot of people don't realize this, but the applied behavioral analysis for children, I mean, it's gotten better now, but older models applied behavioral analysis that would have been the same for women in their 30s who would be the ones who would be the moms with the kids. the women in their 30s who would have grown up in the 1990s, they would have had um the old ABA, the old applied behavioral analysis that would have been force compliance training. So people would have learned the opposite of consent. And that's the other thing a lot of people are not being a lot of people if they're higher support autism particular are being exempt from sex education and consent training. So people are not learning about the you know what's a healthy relationship and what's not. So the all these things need to be taken into account and of course the sensory issues it it thankfully I've never been in you know in an abusive situation but I'm vulnerable woman and could be more prone to that and it's very hard to find housing that is both sensory accessible and affordable. You know, you know, most housing, you know, when you look up autism, you know, housing for autism and you come up with, you know, group homes and stuff, it's very hard to find something independent living that is accessible and affordable and sensory friendly where, you know, where I get along with the other people and, you know, I have a place right now, but you know, things things have changed there. So, it's not as sensory friendly as it as it used to be and I'm looking for somewhere else and it's very hard to find something. That's something to to keep in mind. The other the other thing I was going to point out that is a huge barrier for a lot of women is is uh pet friendliness. A lot of women will not leave an abusive situation if they have animals because they do because men will control women by and children by abusing or threatening to abuse animals. So if a woman cannot bring her animals to the shelter, she's not going to want to go to that shelter. So the shelters do need to be made animal friendly. And yes, there is a balance between sensory friendliness and animal friendliness because some people have issues with with dogs barking. But I think you could I think you could manage that by having a pet friendly section of the shelter that could have some sound barriers. You could balance boat leads quite quite well with the right kind of design that they're absolutely every shelter. I think Toronto should actually put that into a bylaw that that lemon shelter should We're at time, Nicole. I'm afraid. Thank you very much. Thank you for your for your for your input on that. Thank you. Um so with that, um I want to thank uh the the team from Nelly's. I know that there are members of our committee who are going to have questions for you. Um so I will turn to the members at this time uh if there are any questions for uh Maya and Xiing. Uh Harmy. Yes. Thank you. Um first uh just to thank uh Nelly's for uh undertaking this research and sharing uh their finding with us. And I know also by experience that they've done a really good job uh in terms of sharing it within other uh groups and networks and so thank you so much for that. uh I don't have questions for them directly but rather a few uh points I'd like to ask fellow committee members um in terms of the findings and madame chair as I have uh certainly expressed before one of the challenges I deal with personally and individually is keeping within jur the jurisdiction and mandates of the committee and this is normal in my life because I know how uh polic legislations informs policies and how policies informs programs and it's certainly important in terms of systems works to ensure we work always to improve those but it's also almost as important to ensure that those who are service users and recipients and or clients are aware of those changes and are a are able to ensure that they can enforce and they can be well notified and know very well the process to ensure those legislations and programs meet not only uh the needs of uh their population but also that we continuously be improved. Having said all of that, I struggle as I said earlier um in terms of how pragmatic I would like to be and after reading Nell's report and after thinking a lot about this topic, I worry about um the challenges that continue to happen, including um the uh transparency or uh lack of transparency in terms of SBP decisions letters. If I understood correctly and I welcome our presenters to correct me if I understood wrong. Uh but it sounded as though uh service users and those supporting them would beneficiate from having a clear um information and even itemized list of any missing documents at each stage of the review of the special priority program. that's very concrete, very pragmatic, and it's very specific to the service manager, in this case, the city. Um, I also know that uh in order to do something about this, we would likely need to um ask executive uh the executive committee to review a potential request we as the HR track committee ask in order to have some level of change to this very concrete pres pragmatic ask. So that's number one. Uh, number two, um, I also noticed that there is still training that, um, housing staff at the city would probably need to take in order to respond better to the different concerning findings. uh NI's report share shared with us um trauma informed survivor center approaches uh to SP application processing seems to be key. Last but not least on that particular area and this again we talk about advocacy and how do we advocate with the provincial government is the um limited initial application window. Um so specialary programs and we heard from Nelly's directly through the reports and just now is how complex it is to gather documents when all those documents are in the abuser's home. 3 months may not be enough. So could we do something in terms of advocating with the province of Ontario? Um I am afraid of taking way too much space into this important topic. I know there might be some other uh committee members who may need to ask questions and uh I will um continue to remind uh our committee to maybe be or uh talk about some level of strategic steps as we come near to our end. This group is going to end. Our periods are end. We only have really two more meetings and I understand executive committee at the city will not really meet before or we may not be able to advance any of this on time. So there will be hopefully another cohort of people like us who will take over and I just um concerned that uh we may not be able to pass the baton as we said. That's it for me. Thank you, Nellies. And uh hopefully we can move something forward more concretely on this item. Thank you, Harmony. I want to give an opportunity to our guests from from Nelly's to respond to some of that. Uh thank you Hami for um appreciating our efforts and also we uh totally agree with you that um maybe this committee um if um we can uh bring something to the provinial government it will be very ideal especially right now the um 3 months window is extremely difficult for the survivors because they need time to settle themselves. Also um some of them they not may not be notified at the very beginning like um when they call the police or the police um at that time um investigating the um the stuff and also when they came to the shelter they also need some time to settle but by the time um they have been notified that there is special priority. it is already three months and then it is also very difficult for them to get back all the documents they require especially for the cohabitation and then for the cohabitation requirements different um area also has has different standard about that like in city of Toronto they used it to accept the driving license as the cohabitation documents but now they are not accepting it and somehow they are not really clear about what documents are they looking for And then the survivors are very um confused about what can they provide especially uh remember at that time they are traumatized and then they may not be thinking and their functional very well about how to rationally get the documents. So you remains are really difficult stuff for us and also for the survivors and so that's why we are hoping that if the provincial government can set up a citywide like a system that is for all region that is somehow helping us to coordinate all the information all the documents and for us as the housing worker we don't have to submit different packages to different regions which is also um helping us to um um to reducing our workload and more efficiency in this point. Thank you. Um turning to other members of the committee that would uh like to raise a question at this time. Diana printing it right now. Lovely. Uh thank you so much for that presentation. So it's very lovely to see you too. So thank you for coming to our committee. Um it occurs to me that one of your uh recommendations as a potential municipal response is to improve the accessibility of housing application systems. As someone who's done frontline housing work, I know there is a lot there are a lot of barriers that people face in actually accessing these systems and ensuring that they have the proper documentation uh and can even understand uh where they are necessarily on the list uh the priority order. Um, and so it occurs to me that this committee has already undertaken some work uh to begin mapping out all of the pathways into housing um in the city of Toronto uh to improve accessibility of those pathways. Um, I'm hoping to recommend that that uh work is actually being be reviewed uh by the Toronto uh accessibility advisory committee in which I'm hoping that a motion can be just Okay. Okay. We can just take a minute there. Um the motion will be ready momentarily. Can you walk us through what you're thinking about for the motion while we get the actual wording? Just what the recommendation will be? Yeah. Again, if we are undertaking this mapping exercise so that people, especially people who are looking for housing, can actually better understand what the potential routes are into that housing, uh we need to have an accessibility lens at all of the different steps to understand where the barriers may be so that we can identify those gaps and again uh lessen those barriers as best possible. So again, I think that work is best undertaken by the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee uh in conjunction with our committee uh in order to do that. It may not solve all the problems, but at least it'll give us some sort of oversight at some of the accessibility gaps. So, it's a nice tangible next step on bringing this forward and and having it uh looked at. We can't technically actually refer something to another community advisory committee. However, uh councelor Gourd Perks can do so. And so, the motion therefore, it's amazing what councelor Gourd Perks can do. Uh so, therefore, we do have a motion. um that will help move this issue in front of that committee. So Diana, I'll just read the motion. So the housing rights advisory committee recommends that councelor Gord Perks write a letter to the chair of the Toronto Accessibility Advisory Committee suggesting representatives from Nelly's present at the May 4th, 2026 meeting on accessibility concerns in relation to item HS10.3 addressing barriers to adequate housing for women and gender diverse people. So giving you more work there and giving you some work too. You have to write the letter. I'll write the letter. Um, are there any questions on the motion? Then I would ask uh that having been moved by Diana, can I please see all in favor? Are there any other cameras that need to be turned on so I can see your hand looking at my the committee members? Is that who's here? Okay, then carried. Thank you very much. Um, Lindsay also has a letter to read. So, um, thank you for that. Um, I'm going to ask to our committee, are there other speakers to the item? And I believe, uh, Lindsay, um, you may have prepared something that you would like to share with us to speak to this item. Yes. Hi. Um, just let me know if my computer freezes or anything. Um, so my name is Lindsay. I'm a member of this committee and I just want to read a summary of my letter. So part of our mandate is to provide city council with advice to ensure that the interests and needs of those living with are those with lived or sorry I'm really nervous. Let me take a breath. Those with those with living or lived experiences of housing procarity, discrimination, and homelessness are reflected in city programs and service delivery. And as a trauma survivor and person with lived experience of homelessness, addiction, and gender-based violence, I believe that there is currently a service gap for women and gender diverse people, including survivors of gender- based violence, who are exiting homelessness. To ensure long-term housing stability, people who have experienced homelessness, violence, and addiction need culturally cult culturally responsive and trauma-informed services once they once they are connected to housing. Um, promising program models exist within Canada. For example, Dair's Place, funded primarily by the province of British Columbia, offers supportive second stage housing program for women and children who have experienced gender-based violence or at risk of violence. The three-story modular buildings offer mix a mix of studio and multi-bedroom units coupled with crisis counseling and poverty reduction services. Um, obviously, it's trauma-informed as well. The city of Toronto should consider program models within its city funding and city-led city-led supportive housing developments which serve the unique needs of women, gender diverse people and survivors of gender-based violence exiting homelessness. This helps ensure housing and supportive services are culturally adequate and trauma-informed, which is a core element of the city of Toronto's housing charter commitment to progressively realize the right to adequate housing. The city currently facilitates a housing pathways for women and gender diverse people working group with community advocates within Toronto's gender and violence against women sector while recognizing that provincial and federal funding is essential to advance and sustain new supportive housing projects. This working group can be a starting point for discussions on how to better support this critical and underserved priority population. Um so the housing rights advising committee. So, my motion is for um um the housing rights advisory committee recommends that we confirm its support for the work currently planned by the executive director housing secretariat in their role as co-chair of the housing pathways for women and gender diverse people working group to explore models of supportive housing programming that support women and gender diverse people including survivors of gender-based violence at a future meeting of this working group. Thank you very much, Lindsay. Um, are there any questions to Lindsay on the motion? Then let's have the motion stand and see all those in favor. If I could please see a show of hands on this. Um, please turn your cameras on so I can see. Joy, I need to There we go. Great. And carried. Um Lindsay, you have highlighted an incredibly important gap and I appreciate the work that you have done in preparation for this and also the courage and your leadership in doing um this work and bringing this motion forward. So thank you uh very much on behalf of the committee. I also want to thank Nelly's um you reached out to us and said we have an important report that you need to hear. Um and I appreciate uh the proactive um approach and and it has been an important um catalyst I think for our committee to to move some of these uh recommendations forward in the city. So thank you very much. Um with that um we will move on to do what do I need to do? We've changed they changed it. All in favor of the amendments um just which amendment the two amendments are acceptable. Okay. Um, we will have um where's there is a motion to move. All in favor of what amendment? The two that we just did. Okay, we've had two motions and so I need to have a vote in favor of the amendment. So, if I could please see a show of hands carried. Thank you. Uh, so the next item, thank you very much to Nelly's. The next item will be a presentation from the Cooperative Housing Federation of Toronto. Um and so we are pleased to welcome um members of the cooperative housing federation to deliver a presentation on how households access cooperative housing and how the supply of cooperative housing can be increased to address the growing demand for safe, affordable and adequate housing. Uh welcome Celia Chandler. Thank you. Was that it works? It all works. That was my first worry. Really my only worry. Can you hear me okay now? Good. Uh, thank you so much for inviting uh, CHFT, the Cooperative Housing Federation of Toronto to come and talk a bit about what co-op housing is and how it can be part of the solution and how, frankly, it can solve some of the problems we've already heard about this morning. Uh, so what am I going to do today? Well, I'm going to talk a little bit about CHFT just so you have a sense of what we are and what we aren't. I'm going to talk about the advantages of co-ops and then I'm going to go into four ways that we can increase co-op supply in Toronto and then I'm going to round it out by talking a bit about the already great relationship we have with the city of Toronto and some of the things we've been able to do and some of the things we hope to do. So, uh hopefully that meets your expectations. So, what exactly is CHFT? Well, first of all, I want to be clear. We are not a housing provider. So I know that some of you might have thought that we were uh and I think there's a general feeling maybe in the general public that we are a housing provider but in fact we are a membership organization of housing providers and those co-ops manage their own weight lists. So we are also not the path to housing. Uh we do publish when weight lists are open on our bi-weekly e-ostings. Uh but I got to tell you, it's really rare when the weight lists are open. And that's just a sign of how when people want to uh when people are in co-op housing, they don't want to leave co-op housing. And you know, you'll see from the advantages why that's the case. Uh the exception to that issue of weight lists, there are two exceptions. If there are vacant RGI units that are uh part of the uh relationship we have with the city of Toronto or those co-ops have rather with the city of Toronto as service manager, then those are filled through the centralized weight list. And if we have new developments, and I'm going to talk a bit about those in a moment, then we typically work out an access plan with our our friends at the housing secretariat that uh allows those units to be filled in a in a fair and open way. And I'm going to talk a bit about that in a moment. So, a bit more about CHFT. Uh we are in fact a membership organization of housing co-ops and there are 185 of them that belong to CHFT. Many of them are in Toronto but we also cover Durham and York Region. We figure we have about 50,000 people living in our member co-ops. So a reasonably big constituency. We're an organization that's been in existence now for 52 years. So we're not New Kids on the Block. Um, we may have been a bit silent for the last, oh, 35 years, and that's because there haven't been a lot of new co-ops developed, as I'm sure you're all aware. But we've been busy serving our housing co-op members with a list of things on on the screen now, governance, uh, education. Uh we run programs like the diversity scholarship program which allows folks who are uh living in housing co-ops to pursue who are planning to pursue post-secary education. We offer them scholarships to help a little bit with that process. We have something we're very proud of called the Century of Cooperation Award, which uh is given to folks in co-ops whose years on the planet plus their years in a co-op equal 100 or more. And there are, I think, 1,900 people in that uh group now. So, that's pretty exciting. And then we also have committees like the aging and place committee which deal with the kinds of issues that uh that many people are facing as they stay in the communities that they've chosen to to have as homes. And of course um many people are in fact aging in place because uh why would you leave your co-op? And so let's talk about why you might want to be in a co-op. So there are four I think principal reasons why co-op living is the way to go. The first one is sort of um not maybe an obvious advantage but co-ops are uh they operate within the structure of a set of internationally recognized principles that govern all kinds of co-ops. Co-op cabs in Toronto for example is governed within that same framework. And what it really means is there's open membership, democratic control, there's a strong um uh uh need for education within the co-op sector. Uh there's cooperation among cooperatives which leads to organizations like ours coming into being. There's a real focus on community. These are all the principles that overarch the whole co-op sector including the co-op housing movement. But for your purposes, probably the mo one of the most significant advantages is and addressing many of the things that the housing advocate was talking about earlier. There's no landlord in a co-op. So co-ops are self-governed in a way that condos are self-governed, but the difference being, of course, co-op members are not purchasing anything to move in there. They're paying rent or we call it housing charge in the same way that a tenant would, but they're not paying it to a landlord. They're paying it to a a nonprofit corporation that of for which they are a member of which they are a member and for which they have a right to elect a board of directors from among themselves. So, as a co-op member, you can run to be on the board and then you get a chance to have it have a go at making decisions uh that are in the best interest of your community and within the legal framework. Of course, that board hires staff typically um to to carry out the day-to-day operations. Might have committees like a social committee or an audit committee, what have you. might hire professionals to uh support their work and then the members have an auditor that that takes a look at the finances annually to make sure everything's in order. So that's the fact that there's no landlord then leads to a bunch of other benefits. Long-term affordability being a a pretty key one. So, while it may still be expensive to build new co-ops, and it is, and I'm going to talk about that in a minute, over time, and and so the result of that is sometimes new housing charges on new developments can can look a little high over time. That becomes much more affordable because there's no profit margin built in every year. So now co-ops that were built 30 years ago look very affordable relative to similar rental situations in the city of Toronto. There's also no risk of being sold because there's no landlord who might want to flip it or do something else with that land. And there's no renovation possibility. And these are this kind of security of tenure is pretty critical especially in a time like right now when we have such a significant shortage of affordable housing. Not to say there isn't any eviction from co-ops. There is eviction and some of you may know I built a career uh for 17 years worked uh on behalf of co-ops often evicting people as a lawyer but they're for very limited reasons and the renoviction thing is not you know that's not going to happen in a co-op. So, let's talk about how we get more co-ops because I know that's really what you're keen to know. I've come up with kind of four ways to talk about this. So, first of all, we can start by building new buildings. And this we did this um you know through the the late '7s all through the 80s and into the mid 90s. We were building new co-ops like crazy in Toronto. and and those are the communities that are now the vibrant parts of the city that we think of as co-ops of as as as as mixed income co-op communities like St. Lawrence, like South Atobbico, really important parts of the city fabric. And unfortunately, because the federal and provincial government got out of the business of funding this in the early to mid '9s, uh we haven't done a lot of that since. But in 20 in June of 2024, the per or the federal government rather announced the co-op housing development program through CHC and uh it's a significant sum of money. There have been two uh application windows open and I believe a third is pending. And uh we were the lucky uh because we were ready for this. We had uh started a second corporation called the CHFT Development Society a couple of years before that in anticipation of this new funding program. We were ready to roll and we uh I'll show you in a moment the exciting development that we have that's funded through that program. But we also got to work working with the city and with developers to find co-op development opportunities. And that's something that this CHFT development society is working very hard at. So this and you may have seen this um artist rendering of this great new project that broke ground last fall. Uh this is our project in in partnership with a couple of private sector developers, the city and create. Uh this is at the Kennedy subway stop, so where Kennedy and Eglinton meet. Uh, and this was a private a parking lot rather, city- owned. And so through the create bidding process, we were part of the partnership that that got the successful bid. And this will end up being, as you can see, three towers. The two on the left will be a co-op, which will comprise 612 units, which is very exciting. And the building on the right, um, a little bit up in the air as yet, but that will likely be purpose-built rental or possibly condos. That's the the developer partners. Uh, I have that one to figure out still. And it's obviously very accessible by transit, even more so since the cross town opened. Very, very exciting uh project. And we're grateful to the city for giving us some startup funding uh to tide us over until the CMHC funding started to flow. Uh and that the slide says target completion 2028, but yeah, let's maybe think 2029 and then be pleasantly surprised. Um but it will happen. And no, we are not taking names for the wait list yet. But uh we will one day be opening that weight list and that will be with much fanfare. I know. And then some other things that might happen um that are yet to get their funding in order. Uh something that we're calling the Ruth and Terry Greer Co-op, which will be if if it materializes, when it materializes, uh that'll be in South Atobico, uh and on a piece of property with another nonprofit and I believe some uh private sector uh development as well. Uh we do have um city council support on that. We just don't have money. So that's a bit of a hurdle. But there are other ways we can get more co-ops. And the second one I want to talk about is we can get units in other developments. And we kind of we we did this for the first time a decade ago at a condo at 10 York with 12 units that we received and put into what we call the Naymith co-op because we we knew that there would be others coming down the track. And sure enough this year we've acquired another 32 units into our Naymith Co-op uh at the Dawn Somerville site which is um at Queen and Coxwell. Uh you may know about that site. it was a it's also got a TCH building and some other uh mixed income housing there. So that's another way of proceeding with more and given the condo market is not great. Uh developers are looking to us with interest as a way to kind of unload some units frankly. Uh and nothing's crystallized yet but we have we live in hope. Um there's the Don Somerville site by the way. Uh and people are moving into our units now. Uh there are 32 units and they've been set aside for arts and cultural workers. Some of which are RGI and some are uh affordable. And you can see there uh just as the uh Kennedy Green site is going to look snazzy, these are very snazzy looking units. Um here's an example of one. Uh these are places um that I think we can h we can proudly uh include in the non-market housing world. We can also expand existing co-ops though. These sites they dot the city all you know all over the city really. Uh and so some of these expansions have been city-led and some we anticipate will be land trustled. And I'm going to talk about what the CHFT land trust is in a minute. So Riverdale Cooperative Houses, which is a scattered co-op in the Riverdale part of Toronto, um it decided to expand one of its unit uh one of its buildings to from I think 17 to 26. Um something like that. 26 was the end number anyway. and that opened last uh so almost 18 months ago now. The process for filling those 26 units was done by way of lottery with an access plan um that that we worked out with the city. We had 6,000 names in the lottery for 26 units. So if anyone thinks no one's interested in co-ops, they'd surely be surprised by that figure. Uh we were a little shocked by it. I'm not going to lie, but we've now got those people living or 26 units filled with with people from that list and we've actually use that list then uh to fill the units at Donald Somerville as well. Some of the features of that uh expansion, a number of those units are barrier free. A number were set aside for qualified artists as well. And of course, it's in a great location for transit. uh and and folks have been living in those units now for a year. I mentioned the CHFT land trust as another opportunity for us to think about expanding existing co-ops. CHFT has uh 31 different properties that it owns, many of which are in Toronto, although in other municipalities as well. Uh and we they're owned through six different corporations. Don't ask me. It's a bit complicated. Uh and there those corporations are governed by PE folks who've who have either currently or previously lived in housing co-ops and uh have sat on the CHFT board. And why do you care? Well, those 31 different sites, uh, as long as their mortgages, their original mortgages, uh, were being paid off, as long as they were paying off their mortgages, they didn't have a any opportunity or they didn't have any requirement to pay CHFT ongoing rents. Now that they're exiting their mortgages, we get what's called postmortgage rents. And a couple of things we can use that money for. We can obviously put money back into the buildings on those sites because that they they in many cases need some capital upgrades given their age. But we can also think about expanding the co-ops there in putting in infill uh on those those sites because often these were you know in more suburban areas with uh large amounts of land around the buildings. So there's huge potential. Uh, no, it all costs money and um we're trying to figure out what the best options are now. Uh, but this is this is an exciting time at CHFT because of this land trust potential. The fourth way we can get new co-op units is we can acquire them. Uh, we've done this a couple of times in the past. One uh was the Atkinson co-op which is uh uh near Alexandra Park. It was originally a Toronto community housing building and it was converted to a co-op about 25 years ago. Another one uh which is not on the slide but the city park co-op which is at Young and uh college three towers just on the other on the north side of Maple Leaf Gardens and that was a conversion from private rental uh also about 25 years ago. So, there are ways we can take existing buildings um and get them into the non-market world. Uh and one of the principal ways we'd like to do that is through the multi-unit residential acquisition program that the city runs, Mura. um because that program provides uh nonprofits and co-ops a chance to purchase existing rental buildings and the city provides uh $200,000 per unit uh to do that. And so that gets units. I mean, you know, the the the cheapest way to get housing is to use this existing stuff we have. Um we've seen the Kennedy Green thing is occupancy is many years away. If we could buy things that are already uh you know livable then then we can add that to the non-market co-op world. I'll say a couple of words about the relationship we have with the city which is a very good one. Um, back in the fall of 23, city council allocated half a million dollars to CHFT. Hund of 100,000 of that was to use for capacity building for existing communities and the the remaining 400,000 was to help our CHFT development society uh with a lot of pre-development work that uh that that has to be done before these projects get funded. So that was uh a very um we're very grateful for that. The other way we work with the city is to work out access plans for these new developments. So these access plans um they determine income limits uh on uh filling new units. Certainly, we want our communities to be mixed income, but we uh also don't want the the the very wealthy to be moving in. So, in the example that I've put on the screen, assuming a housing charge in in this particular unit of $1,200, which is um sort of a normal co-op housing charge, uh the income limit would be four times the annualized amount of that. So the we wouldn't accept anyone into that unit who made more than $57,600. And that's just an example of the kind of work we do with the secretariat to determine who's going to get access to these units. Other things like age, citizenship, residency, and then of course all of the documentation necessary to prove these things. So that's another way we work with the city. We also um work with individual counselors and I'm giving you a couple of pardon me examples here. Uh councelor Fletcher has been a strong advocate of co-op housing and both the Dawn Somerville and the Riverdale developments that I've talked about. Uh we're we're certainly um supported if not driven by councelor Fletcher's advocacy on on this. uh councelor Nunziata in York Southwestern has also uh tried to bring together developers with our organization to try to imbue a little co-op uh flavor into the many many development applications that are slated for um for the west and Mount Dennis area of the city. I've given you a few links to other resources you might want to look at. One is the Mura program if you don't know it. Um, the next one is the the CHC program I talked about. And the third one is our sister federation, CHF Canada, uh, has more information on building new co-ops. And there's some contact information. And I look forward to your questions. Thank you very much, Celia, and thank you for accepting our invitation to come and share all of this with us. Um, a great overview. Before we move into questions from the committee on this item, we do have a speaker registered. So, I would invite Miguel Aila Valard uh who I believe is online to um Miguel, are you there? I'm here. Can you see me? Can you hear me? I can hear you and I can see you. So, you have five minutes. Please go ahead. Yeah. I would like to request um to share uh my screen, please. Okay. So, um my name is Miguel. Uh thank you for the presentation of the CHFT wonderful opportunity to learn about co-ops um as a as the solution to our current housing crisis in Toronto. Um I want to share with you why is the reason I'm here to talk to you. Um my my building is the one in on the screen is 220 Oak Street. In the year 2019, we were consulted and due to the uh age of the building, it requires a retrofit program especially in the area of energy conservation program which will in which included the replacement of the windows. Um added on more insulation to the walls of the units. uh uh cladding outside of the building, replacing the boilers, replacing the heating the um elements, replacing uh the electricals. So, the bridge newspaper, which is the article that I'm showing you on the screen, made a story about 220 Oxbridge, but in particular the whole TCSE portfolio. I'm I'm going to ask a question to the presenter with regards to Alexander Park. Um as as you have said it was previously at actually Miguel just a a point of order. I'm not I'm not sure you're able to point questions to the presenter and we are talking about co-ops not TCH. Yes. But this is about the the the information that the presenters show us about how former TCS buildings have become uh co-ops. Is that correct? Okay. Go ahead. But but just provide your comments here, not to provide qu questions to the to the presentation. Oh, you someone in the in the audience can ask that question. Maybe my good friend Diana. No, actually that's out of order, but please continue with your comments. Speak, will you let me speak? Yes, that's what I'm doing. I I Can you reset my time because you have interrupt me several times? Please continue. Can you reset my time, please? No. Sorry. No. Okay. So, how many minutes I have left? Uh, you have two and a half minutes of what? Three minutes of five. Oh, I I am very offended by that this attitude of yours, uh, dear chair, because I'm talking about how I can tell my community because we have a problem. We have a state of good repair that's that that that we we don't have an agreement in 2027 with the pets or the or governments who 41 properties are a risk of closing down. Mine is one of those uh buildings that is could potentially close down because we don't have funds. Forget about going to the province. Forget going um to the city right now that are more interesting in investing in police and prisons. There is no money left for us who is who are aging in place. So, I want to ask well, let me let me say I want to dream about converting my building into a co-op. That's what I want to have the same governance structure to to have access to funding because currently we have been put in the back burner. In 2019, we were promised to renovate my building at the cost of $30 million. It's 2026. This project has not yet been addressed. It's it's taking forever. Mainly due mainly due to the pandemic. Here is a re a rendition of the 220 Oak Street community housing building, but we don't have the money. Currently, we have only invested $10 million on on on on addressing um the landscape, benching, um adding on a doggy park, uh ebike, ebike enclosure, etc., etc. These are little cosmetic in my opinion solutions, but we're not tackling the big problem which is the building waste of energy. Thank you, Miguel. We're at time. We need energy retrofit and I don't appreciate that you have cut me off. Uh Mr. Madame Chair, that's very impolite. I'm I'm polite of you. Thank you. I took my time to come here. You know, you know what I'm saying? Thank you very much, Miguel. And I'm going to return. Thank you. Um I will then turn to the committee. Uh members, do you have uh questions on this item? Um and to the co-op federation. Yes, Diana. Yeah, I'm I'm interested because a couple of the projects that you showed um they're specifically for artists and culture workers. And so this is not considered an equity seeeking group under section 15 of the charter. Um, and it's it's just kind of a curious category. And I say this actually as someone who does actively work in the arts. So, I'm I'm wondering about how these eligibility categories are determined and what the potential limits are. And I do wonder because outside of determined equity seeeking groups under the law, um, I wonder if we might actually be ignoring real equity concerns. Um, for example, I've heard of a housing application. And I don't believe it was for co-op, but it was specific to uh retired hockey coaches. Um it seems like it could be a skewing of equity priorities. And I worry a bit about public money going into initiatives like this understanding that um these niche categories don't necessarily reflect real equity concerns. Um just before I may interrupt for just a moment and ask members of the committee to please turn your camera on. Apparently, we need you to have your camera on in order to have quorum. So, uh, if you could please make sure that's done. Sorry for the interruption. Please go ahead. Thank you for the question. Um, the the genesis of the uh focus on arts and cultural workers uh was not a decision of CHFT. Um, that was I believe a council decision, although perhaps councelor Perks can clarify that for me. Uh but uh I take your point um that they while there may be uh some disadvantages among arts and cultural workers um they are not u you know it's not a protected characteristic under human rights legislation. Um your hockey coach uh that's very interesting. I've never heard of anything quite that specific. um blue-eyed or browneyed or was there a Yeah, exactly. Um I I think you know it it might be an interesting uh it might be interesting input from this committee in fact to help guide future uh ways of filling um this kind of housing and other kinds of housing um in a in a perhaps more targeted way to address some of the concerns that I know uh you have and and many of us have. Yeah. Thank thank you for that. I I also have another question. So, can you tell me more about the board governance structures? Um, are they specific to each individual co-op or are they determined? Okay. Yes. So, each co-op from its own membership elects a board. Uh, and that board, you know, that there are a sets of bylaws that each co-op has also adopted. They all reflect the legislative requirements. Um but there may be some variation among how each each community operates. Uh and the boards in some cases have term limits, in some cases they don't. I mean those kinds of things are all very specific to the individual communities. Um so you might have a co-op uh of 20 units. Um I think that might be the smallest in Toronto. Uh with a board of, you know, three or four. Um and then you might have a co-op uh as we do the city park co-op have 770 units also electing its own single board uh to handle the governance pardon me and oversee the the staff and so on. Are there any formal oversight mechanisms beyond the board itself and then the membership? Uh no. Uh well, I mean the Cooperative Corporations Act has within it uh the the general framework and then there are legal recourses within that legislation to challenge decisions if if they stray beyond the bounds of the legislative authority. Uh but obviously that's a superior court application and it it doesn't happen very much. Let's just say I I I bring this up just because of a situation that I encountered while working front line um of two women seniors uh who are living in a co-op in Regent Park uh who weren't being renovicted per se, but there there was a deliberate push um to get them out of the co-op and the co-op itself only had a board of about three members. Um so didn't feel particularly democratic. Um unfortunately one woman uh ended up taking her own life uh and the other is still uh trying to seek recourse um for the ongoing push to move her out of co-op housing. So um it's where these questions come from. Well, I mean co-op communities are like any other community, right? Uh and they they have self-governing uh as their advantage and we all know democracy is is the best we've got, right? It's not perfect. Um, so there will be stories like that and I'm very sorry to hear that. But there are also very um engaged successful communities where people uh live long and and uh fruitful lives uh and and are active parts of that community. So not denigrating co-ops. Just curious about that particular situation. Thank you for your answers. You're welcome. Thank you. Uh Annie and then Anmarie. Yeah, thank you for the presentation, Celia. Um, Celia and I know each other from a former life where we used to work on co-op matters um uh together and uh so it's really great to hear that the federal government is back in the business of funding co-op. So, just wanted to say thank you for the presentation and um just uh to the to the point Diana raised in case people aren't aware um when it comes to eviction um there's now that double layer I believe where where uh co-ops used to be able to evict people without any sort of oversight and then that got corrected I believe with the landlord and ten they have to then take an application to the landlord and tenant board. Is that still correct? That is correct Annie. Um but but your the first part was not correct. Uh it's not that the so in 2014 uh co-ops got uh put uh the the eviction process was inserted into the landlord and tenant board along with all other tenant relationships. Prior to that eviction was only achieved by going to superior court. Okay. So there was a previous process. it was a little more expensive for co-ops and obviously you know it it's not the best use of judicial time to deal with that kind of issue uh especially when there are experts out there on housing uh at the landlord and tenant board. So great thanks thanks for that. Um and so my question was just about sort of scale and maybe you're not maybe you don't have this information but just curious um are there more projects in the pipeline than the ones that you are able to share with us and sort of is there a trajectory for the next five or 10 years because I do believe co-op housing is a really stable affordable option especially as it um becomes more affordable over time as the mortgages get paid down. So just just curious about that. So yeah, there's a lot more in the pipeline that I'm not talking about because these are things that haven't crystallized. They haven't been made public. Um it is a very exciting time for co-ops. We're cool again and we are riding the wave as long as it lasts. Um because you know things go in waves, right? Uh we hope this one will be as long as the last one. Um which was a good 20 20 year run really. Uh so we uh and and and hopefully even longer than that because hopefully this time we all recognize that leaving things to the market doesn't actually work and we need to use public money to to try to, you know, fill in gaps that that the market doesn't um doesn't adequately address. So uh stay tuned. Thanks. Thank you. Uh, Anmarie, thank you. Uh, I I just want to say thank you on the behalf of the housing access working group. We've been having robust um discussions around um particular particular around co-op um for the last little while. And so I'm so grateful that it ended up in an invitation and that you guys came today. It's been very informative to hear what um the the the system is about. Um but what I wanted to do um in in in the interest of the group, but just um for the sake of the presentation and in just um quining a little bit more about um the co-op federation is um and of course you're right, democracy is um not perfect. So we we we want to make sure that we we situate that in its right place. But what I wanted to ask is um what is CHFD? What what what are you guys doing to help um with the housing crisis in our city as it relates to marginalized population groups? Um this is very important to us as a working group. Very important to me. Um a question um for you then would be what are you doing to support marginalized groups? And when I say marginalized groups, I'm specifically um speaking to indigenous households. I'm speaking to single parents. I'm also speaking to seniors, people with disability living with disabilities, um people experiencing um homelessness because this is what this um working group is about, but also what this larger HR um committee is about and survivors of domestic violence. I'm asking questions about that too for them and newcomers and refugees and um last but not least, racialized communities um who are disproportionately affected by housing discrimination. I'll just like to hear a little bit more around that. Sure. Yeah. You know, I'm happy to answer that. Uh I I think what you've just described is is the demographic um of of of the folks who live in housing co-ops. Um we because we are more affordable than other forms of housing. We uh not only attract but we keep people who who can't afford to live in other forms of housing. And as we all know, they are more likely to be people of uh in the demographic groups you've just described. Uh we uh and and we also because we uh many of our housing co-op the members of CHFT the housing co-ops that are members of CHFT are under the housing services act and the their RGI units are filled uh through the centralized weight list as I mentioned. So, uh, all of the special priorities that that are applied at that point are applied to the folks who move off that weight list into our our housing. Um, are we doing anything specific to target uh uh groups? I know our national organization, our sister federation, which is more the advocacy body. We are more the the community uh grassroots type body, but our advocacy organization CHF Canada uh are working hard on a uh strategy around indigenous co-ops um coast to coast to coast. Uh and there are in fact many indigenous co-ops across the country. Um, we currently do not have one specifically for uh targeting indigenous people in in Toronto. Uh, and we would obviously love to be able to do that. Um, so I hope that uh somewhat answers your question. Uh I think probably um the moment in the annual CHFT calendar when I realized the diversity of our uh of the population who live in housing co-ops is our annual diversity scholarship event. Remember I mentioned we give scholarships to folks living in co-ops who are pursuing post-secary education. We do this in person. Um we'd love to have you come. uh you could see the 30 or so people who cross the stage to receive their diversity scholarship and they come from they come from every possible group you can imagine uh including a diversity of age. There are many people who choose to change career or or uh enter the deferred career they weren't in they didn't get a chance to do in their 20s. Uh it's it's a very exciting time and it shows what we're about in a way that I can't describe. It's why I joined CHFT to be honest. Thank you so much. I really appreciate that. I think one last question I have for you is um thank you again for um your commitment to equity and inclusion. I think that is very important as well. And one last and thank you for the invitation to really appreciate that. One last question I'd like to ask is um could you um talk to us a little bit more about the actual application process? Like how does that work? Uh process to get into co-op housing. Right. So, I I think I mentioned um the co-ops themselves manage their weight lists. So, uh I don't I I can't tell you what each co-op uh what that process looks like for each co-op. What I can tell you is that 95% of the time those weight lists are closed because they're already long enough and those co-ops don't want to give false hope to people on lists for a very long time. When those weight lists open, they let us know and we let our uh email distribution group know and we help them advertise that fact and then it closes again like that because that weight list gets filled up again. The exception is uh that the two exceptions I noted, one the those units that are covered by the housing services act and that are RGI units, those are filled through the centralized weight list that the city runs. And when we have uh as we have recently these new developments or units to fill, we work on an access plan and process with the housing secretariat. So each one will look a bit different. So I can't really speak to uh what those requirements would be. Fair enough. Thank you. Appreciate it. Okay. Thanks again. Um Lindsay, I just had um a quick question kind of um piggybacking on that last answer. Um so anyone when a a unit comes up for rent geared to income is the requirements based on uh for teny based on the rent geared to income or based on the um uh co-op uh management or membership. So if if if there are RGI units in a co-op that's governed by the Housing Services Act, then we take names off the central weight list. Um I it to be honest, it's not an area that I know a lot about because we're not filling units in housing co-ops, but we have housing secretary staff here who may want to comment on that if if that makes sense. Yeah. Well, I'm specifically asking because um I recall reading on and again you were saying that there's a board of directors for each uh co-op. Um so that could get convoluted in my questioning, but what I had read that there was a specific set of requirements for application and one of the requirements was that you cannot have uh claimed bankruptcy. And in advocating for um women who have experienced gender-based violence, sometimes that can happen due to the uh gender-based violence where they would have to um have claimed bankruptcy of no fault of their own. And I'm just wondering kind of two parts. Is that standard across, you know, co-op housing or is that an individual um uh co-op building requirement? And then the second part of that is if it's from the rent gear to income, would there then be a secondary requirement within the um building? um just ensuring that um human rights needs are at the forefront of you know everything I ask really. Uh I'm not aware of that being a requirement. Um and so I can't really answer that question. Uh and I I'm pretty sure it's not a requirement through the centralized weight list either. But Jen, do you can you help me out here? Yeah, thanks Silia and thanks Lindsay. Um, for RGI applicants, uh, there's a basic eligibility that gets you onto the list and and so those are the eligibility criteria that you would need to meet. Um, and co-ops and nonprofit housing providers aren't allowed to put additional kind of, you know, requirements on top of that. So, there are things like having status in Canada, um, being able to live independently, some of the things that Celia had listed on that slide. Um, the one caveat in the Housing Services Act for co-ops is that if um if an applicant basically flat out states that they will not participate in the co-op, the co-op does have the ability to um to deny that application for RGI. However, it it just really doesn't happen very often at all. Like I don't know of any case. And as well, because it's a city overseen process, there's always the option for an appeal if that were to happen. Okay, thank you. Thank you, Jen. Thank you, Lindsay. Um, if there's no other questions, I have one I have one question. I want to first of all, thank you. This has been a really helpful overview of how the federation operates with the individual co-ops across the city, and it's an important, I would say, institution within the housing spectrum that we have in the city. So, this has been really helpful um institutionally. Um, and I I think about the city of Toronto and this committee. We're here because the city has put in place recognition of the right to housing. And so that has driven a number of things. It has driven the existence of this committee. It has driven the existence of a deputy ombbudsman for housing. It has driven policy frameworks and and things that are happening. But it begins with a recognition of the right to housing. So, I'm I'm curious and would would like to hear if that has been a consideration on the part of the federation to explicitly recognize the right to adequate housing. Um and would that then become a driver for the individual the autonomous co-ops uh to have elements of the right to housing in some of like acting as guard rails and how they do decision-m because I understand and appreciate the democratic nature and the autonomy of the individual co-ops but sometimes those kinds of principled guard rails can actually produce interesting outcomes or important outcomes rather uh in terms of the right to housing. So, I don't know if that's ever even been tabled. Uh, it it has not been discussed at CHFT. Um, I think it may have been with our national our sister federation, CHF Canada. Uh, and they may even have passed a resolution on that. I'm just I'm trying to remember as you're asking the question. Um, but but I can't nothing's crystallizing in my brain. Um, you know, I I think in some ways it's implicit in the co-op principles, but I get your point. Explicit sometimes has gets better traction. Uh, and and results in more change. Uh, so I I will take this back as a gentle suggestion on your part. It's thinking out loud. Exactly. I mean part of the some of the challenge of social and economic rights is how they get taken up, how they get fulfilled and recognition, explicit recognition drives implementation which drives accountability. And so that's the way that we begin to breathe life into this and begin to see it actually manifest in the DNA of organizations. And then questions like Diana raised, questions like Lindsay raised kind of become a default of how the system thinks. Yeah. Great. Thank you. Thank you so much for taking the time. A really helpful presentation. Um I would therefore move um that we receive the item. And may I see a show of hands from our members? All in favor? Thank you very much. Um and so that allows us to move to our next item. Uh 10.5. These are now we're going to move into the reports from our working groups. Uh and so 10.5 is supporting unhoused rights holders working group. chair update and I turn to Diana Chan McN for that. Thank you so much. I'll try and keep this as brief as possible. So on March 10th, our working group requested an update from TSS on the service user advisory group, also known as SUAG, uh including its proposed government structure and recruitment strategy. Um we know at the moment who the third party operator will be, but we have further questions about how this will actually be operationalized. Um, from a personal note, I'll say that I'm very pleased that this group is moving forward. It's been something that I've personally been advocating for as an accountability mechanism similar or uh since 2021. Uh, however, at the time and subsequently, I have advised that it be actually embedded at the city of Toronto and specifically within TSS, not as a third party or arms length mechanism. So, um, again, I have many questions about how this will function. My interest, our interest is in ensuring that this advisory group does have meaningful input and the ability to ensure policy and implementation that meets the needs and upholds the rights of people who are currently unhoused. So, lot of interest there and we'll get an update um at our next working group which is fantastic. We also received an update from TSS staff around the city of Toronto's enhanced outreach model or EOM. Uh in September, I had asked for specific data points from staff to better understand the human rights outcomes of how the city currently engages with encampment residents whenever the enhanced outreach model is actually deployed. Um for clarity for those who are asking what the EOM is, uh it's deployed to large scale encampments bringing additional resources and supports to those encampments. Um it is predicated on work that people like myself and many others had previously advocated for in which we argued for a support first human rights approach to encampments. Um bringing in not just resources but allowing people time and ability to actually choose supports that best meet their needs. However, we found in the working group that information shared by TSS on the OM didn't really fulsomely paint a picture of the EOM's benefits or its shortcomings for that matter. Um and in part this is because frankly I did not explicitly ask for context or qualitative data from TSS. Our group didn't uh which is crucial for understanding the information that was actually presented. So because of this I've actually drafted a letter which is attached to this agenda item and I will read it now. Um the enhanced outreach model EOM uh is embedded in the interdivisional protocol and encampments or IDP. It sets a standard that is a marked improvement over previous approaches to encampments by the city of Toronto. Specifically, the EOM enshrines support, not enforcement, as its deacto response and codifies human rights principles in how the city engages encampments. It is modeled after best practices espoused by experts and advocates, including the federal housing advocate who we heard from earlier today, and I supported it when it became policy in 2024. However, aspirations, policy, and implementation are not always aligned. In large part, this is because the city of Toronto continues to contend with the homelessness crisis that is largely driven by policies at upper levels of government, particularly the province. The city is being put in a position of having to continually scale programs and services while lacking the resources and powers to stop the unfettered flow of people into homelessness. Whatever our aspirations are at the municipal level, they are not supported by the provincial or federal governments. I fully empathize with this predicament. However, I am also greatly concerned about a backsliding of municipal protocol away from a human rights approach and toward policeled responses and enforcement. This was the approach in 2021 when encampment residents in Trinity Bellwoods Park, Alexander Park, and Lampport Stadium were forcibly removed and I was present at all three of those. Right now, the EOM and the IDP more generally are at risk because of growing public frustrations with homelessness. We've already seen a motion from Councelor Bradford that erodess the IDP by estab establishing bubble zones around schools, playgrounds, and daycarees. Premier Ford has also passed the safer municipalities act, which punishes people living in encampments with potential fines, jail time, or both. These are dangerous enforcement-based policies that undermine the support first human rights principles established in the EOM and the IDP. As a chair of the supporting unhoused rights holders working group with the housing rights advisory committee, it is of the utmost important to us, excuse me, utmost importance to me and to our committee that we both preserve and expand a human rights approach to encampments in Toronto. Our goal is that there be no encampment evictions in our city, understanding that they are a gross violation of encampment residents human rights. However, in order to begin meeting this goal, the city of Toronto must demonstrate that the EOM and the IDP are an improvement over its previous enforcement-based approaches, i.e. policeled encampment evictions. Given the upcoming end to the council term, it would be a good idea for the encampment office, led by Toronto Shelter and Support Services, again, TSS, to compile quantitative and qualitative data, comparing and contrasting outcomes, including housing and health outcomes, as well as cost versus benefit analyses from encampments supported through the enhanced outreach model, again, the EOM, and encampments cleared before the adoption of the interdivisional protocol on encampments or IDP. Thank you. That's the letter. Hopefully, we will we'll see some movement on that to establish that narrative framework. I think it would be incredibly important as we move into an election. Uh and finally, our group also expressed an interest in inviting the Toronto underhoused and homeless union or to a future working group meeting and potentially a future meeting of ATRA on their work and what issues that they feel require advocacy and attention. And so on that we do have a motion. I go to questions before the motion. Before we move to the motion, I just want to open it to uh questions or speakers to the item. So, open to the committee if anyone has a question for Diana. You are amply clear it seems. Anyone want to speak to the item before we move toward the motion? Then with that, uh can we put the motion up, please? Thank you. And then back to you to Diana. Okay. Thank you. Uh so this is the motion. The housing rights advisory committee recommends that the executive director housing secretary invite the Toronto underhoused and homeless union to who to provide a presentation at the next meeting of the supporting unhoused rights holders working group and subsequently at a future meeting of the housing rights advisory committee in 2026 on current issues that they see impacting unhoused and precariously housed people. All in favor? May I see your hands? Carried. Thank you very much. Um I would move or ask someone to move to adopt the amendment. Oh, we've done that, so that's good. Sorry, this amendment is getting me today. Excellent. Uh thank you very much, Diana. Um I just want to say that this is really important um work that that you're driving forward with our with that committee um with that working group rather and really appreciate the um the dialogue that we've had with TSS to understand better what the outcomes are because this is vital to us being able to move forward um and see the effects of a human rights based approach. So thank you. That leads us to our last item which is uh 10.6 6 maintaining housing working group chair update. Uh this is an update provided by the chair on outcomes of the group's engagement with city staff on its proposed approach to monitor the impacts of bill 60 fighting delays building faster act 2025. Over to you Annie. Thank you. Um yeah good good afternoon everyone. Um so the maintaining housing working group u met on March 11th and we discussed a few different items. Um, so opportunities to increase eviction prevention supports, programs, and mechanisms, strengthening how frontline insights are shared with city staff to inform those policies. um imp and then the implementation of the newish multi-tenant housing framework um and opportunities for intergovernmental advocacy and coordination which also reflects sort of some of the challenges that Diana has already mentioned where the city holds so many levers for maybe filling gaps and improving policies but not all of the uh financial and other supports uh and levers that that are required to be able to do so effectively. So, um, we also talked about reflecting on the lessons learned from this, uh, term of HRA, the first inaugural term, and and hopefully some lessons learned we can pass on when we hope, uh, the the the committee's restruct in the new council term. So, um, we're dedicated to ensuring tenants can maintain adequate housing, which includes being in good repair, preventing housing loss through a human rights based approach. And when it comes to preventing evictions in particular, it's important to remember that this is a site of great greatest risk and need, and that it has long been understood that people facing eviction don't always receive the services and supports they need. And that increases the population of people who are living um, unhoused and in encampments. uh among other places. So, one of the main items of the working group uh was a presentation from staff on the proposed monitoring strategy to try to assess the impacts of Bill 60 on evictions and housing instability across the city. Um staff provided a comprehensive re review of the gaps and weakening of legal protections that tenants will be subject to as a result of bill 60. Um and it's it's not good um as as we all know. um and then walked us through a number of potential data sources including the Toronto tenant support program, Rent Bank, EPIC, the landlord and tenant board data and CHC data um and the approach the city's considering to better understand impacts on tenants over time of the the weakening of uh protections. Um so we really appreciated that presentation. um our discussion that followed um talked about a clear our cleared shared understanding that demand for eviction prevention supports already exceeds what's currently available and bill 60 will only make a already challenging situation worse. Um so we we talked about how the services play a critical role in stabilizing tenencies and preventing homelessness. Um, and just from where I sit, I worked with people facing eviction for six years and just wanted to emphasize eviction really is a key intervention point. And so from a human rightsbased perspective, where supports are available, um, we should make sure that the maximum available resources are directed at that site where people become homeless. Um so while monitoring the strategy attached to Bill 60 is important, there was a bit of discussion about the value of also stepping back and looking more broadly at the support system itself prior to um and including under bill 60 which we understand the city plans to do. Just to emphasize this, the committee felt it was important that we not only track the impacts of Bill 60 over time, but also ask what is the current scope of eviction prevention supports and are they adequate, how well are they coordinated and whether they're sufficient to meet the level we know exists already. Um, frontline workers we emphasized and those working in the system already know what data may or may not show because the scope of the work they do every day. um you know that they've got that knowledge. So, we talked a little bit about uh data and what kind of data might be uh the city might be able to rely on outside of just numbers that could maybe include some qualitative interviews with people in the system or drawing on groups that already exist, including the right to housing community of practice that I that I designed at CCHR, which brings frontline workers together to share policy insights and their expertise with policy makers ideally. Um so just just wanted to kind of highlight those ideas for for us here. Um there's a lot of expertise in the sector as as Diana has also spoken about. Um and then we we did talk about intergovernmental advocacy. I won't belabor that too much but just the idea that um the city might be able to use some of those learnings and that data to leverage with other orders of government to say listen this is what's happening. These are the supports we need. you need to fund it. Um, so then we discussed the multi-tenant housing framework. Uh, the next major item we talked about, um, and I have to point out that Joy Connelly has been the the member of the committee who's really really been engaged mostly on that topic. Um we just focused on where data is being collected, whether there are emerging trends and closures or new operators, how HRA can help uh including operators, tenants and service providers for having input into how the framework is unfolding. uh we had some conversations uh with outside that meeting we'd had some conversations with members of the MTH community of practice about collaborating with HRA to support uh any key items that they had and the committee I think remains open to further discussions with that group if if it's helpful to them. Um and then finally the working group began reflecting on lessons learned from from our time on ATRA um and in our in our upcoming meetings. We want to continue talking about the what I've just mentioned, but also identifying key priorities moving forward for the next iteration of the committee. Um reflecting on how working groups can best support the committee's mandate and considering how we might strengthen HRA's ability to provide timely impactful advice and recommendations given the learning curve process with uh city with city processes. So, um, yeah, just to close, many of the issues we were talking about with Bill 60 are not new. Um, and from frontline line experience, we know that people are often facing eviction due to a rears linked to life events, job loss, illness, family emergencies, and increasingly the general affordability crisis. So, um, need the need to just support people um, to remain housed is is deeply deeply important. Um, so I just wanted to say uh thanks for every thanks everyone for the collaboration and dedication. We really um uh it's been it's been nice to be able to collaborate with city staff and and provide this feedback and receive those presentations and and looking forward to continuing that for the next couple of uh couple of months. Uh yeah, thanks. Thank you Annie. Um and to the committee, are there any questions on this item? uh to Annie more comments. Would anyone like to speak to this item? Again, abundantly clear. Wonderful. Uh thank you very much and thank you to the whole working group. It it does take a whole working group to get this uh level of of work accomplished. So, thank you for that. I'm also delighted that you're thinking about the lessons that we're going to take forward um as we begin to put together our collective uh reflections on the process that HRA has been. Um with that then I would move to receive this item. Um all in favor and carried. Thank you very much. Could I have uh someone please move the motion to excuse the absence of the members not in attendance today? I'll ask the clerk please to display the emotion, the motion, not the emotion, and we'll read it out loud. Uh that the housing rights advisory committee excuse the absences of Maria Sero Konalam and Chase God from April 8th, 2026 meeting of the housing rights advisory committee. Um all in favor? Thank you. None opposed and carried. Thank you. So this concludes our business for today. Thank you everyone for participating. A special thanks to members of the committee for the work that you are doing between these meetings. That's how we're getting to where we are. Um a special thanks to uh the city clerks team um Tanya and Anita who get us through this and help us with the details of how we move things forward. Uh to our tech team that keeps us all connected and uh working properly. Thank you. All smooth. YouTube is looking good. Thank you. Um, and to all the staff at the city, housing secretariat, TSS, MLS, I'm not sure who else is in the room, but um, and certainly I would look at Asha, um, who really keeps this machine rolling. So, thank you. Uh, and that's it. Have a great day and we will see you in May May 29th. May 29th, coming soon. Thank you. Thank you, Elizabeth.

Full Transcript