A generation of affordable housing developers are dying – what will we do without them?

January 27th, 2022 by Celia Chandler

Jon Harstone, a pillar of the affordable housing community in Toronto, had extraordinary instincts about the skills and connections necessary to reach the common end goal.

On New Year’s day, the housing sector in the Greater Toronto Area got dealt a blow with the sudden death of leading affordable housing developer, Jon Harstone.

Born in 1950, Harstone came of age in the 1970s when affordable housing development was firmly on the federal government’s radar. He bragged that the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) distributed millions of dollars to a young guy like him to see what he could do with the money – and he ended up doing great things.

Brian Iler, founding partner of Iler Campbell, delivered a tribute at Jon’s retirement party in 2019, where he described Jon’s countless housing projects including his founding of St. Clare’s Multifaith Housing. St. Clare’s repurposes urban properties into housing for people experiencing homelessness or precarious housing.

At the party, we also celebrated Local 75 Hospitality Workers Housing Co‑operative, one of the rare new‑build and green housing co‑ops in downtown Toronto. Local 75 was the brainchild of Pam McConnell, a housing co‑op stalwart who held a downtown council seat from 1994 until her death in 2017. Pam and Jon were the only people who truly understood the complexity of the project, taking much of that expertise with them at their untimely deaths.

While Jon may have formally stepped away in 2019, he never retired.

Federal funds for affordable housing came to a screeching halt in 1993. Just two years later, with the election of Harris’ Progressive Conservatives, provincial funding was severed. Jon recognised, in addition to limited governmental funding, Ontario lacked opportunities for young people to learn the art and skill of housing development. One of Jon’s most significant roles was as mentor to a new generation of housing developers — a labour of love that continued until his death.

Anjala Kulasegaram, a mentee working with Jon in the months before he died, admitted she largely took her role at the Co‑operative Housing Federation of Toronto (CHFT) because she was promised mentorship from the legendary Jon Harstone. Now in her thirties, Kulasegaram was raised in Scarborough’s Woburn Village Co‑op, making her eligible for a Diversity Scholarship that financed her post‑secondary education. She can likely recite the Co‑operative Principles that underpin the co‑op movement, backwards.

Even if CMHC were still in the business of large-scale development from the ground up, Kulasegaram knows the current focus on accountability for public funds means it is unlikely someone her age would be entrusted with a multi‑million dollar budget to build affordable housing. Yet she felt with Jon’s support, she would develop the confidence to take the risks he did 45 years ago.

Kulasegaram reports a close and meaningful mentorship from Jon. He taught her that the modern fixation on protecting existing stock and adding the table scraps from for‑profit developers, will not meaningfully alter the affordable housing landscape. Jon encouraged her to feel entitled to stand alongside big‑money developers and fill her plate at the housing buffet. He felt it was the only way to get affordable, safe, and permanent housing for all.

Harstone did not talk much about his successes but his mentor learned from the scary situations he encountered along the way. Jon was a whiz with numbers; Kulasegaram wishes she could still learn from his analysis of the messy, unaligned programs and patchwork approach to housing. He had extraordinary instincts about the steps, skills and connections necessary to reach the common end goal. For Kulasegaram, Jon’s death leaves a gaping hole in her professional development and she worries how she can fill it, knowing there are so few around who have similar experiences to him.

Anjala Kulasegaram is the last of Jon’s many mentees. James Calderone first encountered Jon’s generosity as a student. They reconnected later when Calderone joined Homestarts, a property management company with roots in co‑op development. Like Kulasegaram, Calderone mostly heard about the challenges; Jon recognised mistakes are the best teachers. Calderone remembers witnessing “a heavyweight bout of words” between Jon and Nancy Singer, another developer of Jon’s generation, when the two talked housing. Singer died in 2021 — another loss to the housing development world.

The bouts of words Jon used were not the most carefully chosen but he was clear and passionate about moving the needle on housing. Another one of Jon’s mentees, heard him say to an indecisive affordable housing provider: “if you don’t fucking take these units [from the developer], we’ll find someone else who will.” That’s the kind of confidence, conviction, and forthrightness that makes for great learning.

I am not the only one worried about this generational gap.

The Canadian Housing and Renewal Association (CHRA) is a national umbrella organization for housing. Established in 1968, they support the social housing sector to ensure all Canadians have access to affordable, secure, and decent housing. CHRA knows the sector’s struggle to attract and maintain a new generation of professionals. The Association developed the Housing Professionals Mentorship Program in partnership with the Housing Partnership Canada and the Chartered Institute of Housing Canada. They consulted Jon in the early stages of the program’s development, knowing he would embrace the idea of development leadership competencies among housing professionals.

Jake Gorenkoff, a director at CHRA, proudly told me the mentorship program is in its fifth year, counting over 220 people involved as mentors and mentees. The program aims to be self‑sufficient soon, relying on a combination of sponsorship and user fees for participants who can afford it (they offer bursaries for those who cannot).

Gorenkoff confessed they do not receive as much interest in development as he would like; many of the mentor/mentee relationships are focussed on learning about the management of existing properties. He lamented the fact the sector is not attractive to those with aspirations in housing development.

Another Homestarts alumnus, Patrick Masterson, is now a housing development consultant who works with Tim Welch Consulting (TWC). The firm helps clients achieve their affordable housing goals through research, planning, and development services. Masterson left me more hopeful when he told me that of TWC’s office of 12, nine are under the age of 40.

But the generational gap remains a real concern. Why?

Low salaries are part of the answer. The very housing crisis we are trying to solve pushes younger people, eager to achieve home ownership, to sacrifice working where their passions lie for the premium of working in the for‑profit sector.

Perhaps our current challenge is less about losing the Harstones and the Singers and the McConnells, and more about having to navigate an increasingly complex regulatory environment that stifles the kind of creativity developers brought to the table over the last 40 years.

CMHC, provincial housing ministries, and local governments: the current system is not working. Offer housing incentives attractive to a new generation of developers to create vibrant, safe, secure, and affordable communities for all.

Rent Increase Guideline as of January 1, 2022

January 14th, 2022 by Hunter Stone

The province set the rent increase guideline at 1.2 per cent as of January 1, 2022. The rent increase guideline is determined by the Ontario Consumer Price Index, which measures inflation calculated by Statistics Canada using information reflected on economic conditions during the year. This year’s guideline increase is lower than 2020’s 2.2 per cent increase and comes after a year‑long rent freeze in 2021 in response to the pandemic. Continue reading “Rent Increase Guideline as of January 1, 2022”

Client Profile: IFH Rebrands as Birch Housing

January 12th, 2022 by Iler Campbell

Birch Housing is a private nonprofit community housing provider with over 45 years of experience. In line with the organization’s vision that every person has a safe and quality space to live, Birch Housing has remained steadfast in its commitment to fostering social equity and providing affordable housing to those who need it.  

Before rebranding as Birch Housing in 2020, the organization was known as Inter Faith Homes, operating through four separate corporations. Its complicated corporate structure reflects both its regional nature and its evolution. Each of the four was formed with the overall goal of developing new community housing, coming together at various times in the 80s and early 90s, together providing quality housing for low and moderate-income homes.  Continue reading “Client Profile: IFH Rebrands as Birch Housing”

Jon Harstone, champion of affordable housing development

January 7th, 2022 by Iler Campbell LLP

We were saddened, as with all of Toronto’s housing sector, to learn that Jon Harstone, champion of affordable housing development, died suddenly on January 1, 2022. What follows is a tribute Brian Iler delivered at Jon’s retirement party in early 2019. Continue reading “Jon Harstone, champion of affordable housing development”

GHCHF Winter Workshop 2022

January 5th, 2022 by Iler Campbell LLP

Iler Campbell is proud to provide workshops for the Golden Horseshoe Co‑operative Housing Federation Winter Workshops 2022 conference. Workshops are Saturday, January 29, 2022 from 9:30 AM to 6:00 PM, registration is available here.  And be sure not to miss the Thursday night AGM followed by a Special Guest Presentation and social mixer! Continue reading “GHCHF Winter Workshop 2022”

Bill 21: the Charter, the challenge, and the controversy

December 31st, 2021 by Maggie Fleming

Rather than have those from outside Quebec providing monetary support to fund a legal challenge — which would likely backfire — it should really be up to the federal government, which has jurisdiction, to intervene.

Bill 21 has resulted in one Quebec teacher losing her job because of her hijab. Credit: Nada Hanifah / Unsplash

The nation‑wide debate over Quebec’s Bill 21, which passed in 2019, has been reignited following the removal of a Quebec elementary school teacher from her classroom. Pursuant to the provincial law, the teacher, Fatemeh Anvari, was moved to an alternate non‑teaching role this month because she wears a hijab. In response to public outcry, Quebec’s Premier François Legault stated that Anvari should not have even been hired in the first place given Quebec’s Bill 21.

Bill 21, known as the “Act Respecting the Laicity of the State,” restricts public employees, including judges, lawyers, police, and teachers, from wearing religious symbols. It also restricts peoples’ ability to access public services if their faces are covered. The purpose of the Bill is to preserve Quebec’s status as a secular state, and is based upon the principles of “equality of all citizens” and “freedom of conscience and freedom of religion.” In practice, however, the Bill is discriminatory and excludes Muslim women from full participation in society.

In short, it is a racist, xenophobic and Islamophobic law passed under the guise of secularism. It further imbeds racist policies into already racist Canadian institutions, and further marginalizes vulnerable groups. And it disproportionately impacts Muslim women, who already experience increased violence in this country. Islamophobic hate crimes have risen in Canada, and these hate crimes are more likely to involve female victims than other hate crimes.

On December 13, commenting on Fatemeh Anvari’s situation, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau stated that the impact of Bill 21 “is no longer a theoretical issue” now that it has led to the removal of someone from their teaching position. With all due respect to the Prime Minister, the impacts of Bill 21 have never just been theoretical. In fact, research has shown that the implementation of Bill 21 has directly resulted in increased racism against religious minorities in Quebec.

Discriminatory laws like Bill 21 do not exist in a legal vacuum; they reinforce and perpetuate stigma and hate in our communities. By marginalizing and removing entire groups of people from positions of authority, the law is demonstrating, to Canadians and to the rest of the world, that these groups are not seen as worthy of these positions and are not fully accepted into Canadian society. It adds fuel to a hatred that is already burning in Canada – a hatred that has led to the Quebec City mosque attack in 2017, the fatal stabbing of a caretaker at a Toronto mosque in 2020, and, more recently, the vehicular murder of a family in London, Ontario.

A brief history of Bill 21

In order to fully appreciate the debate surrounding the Bill, it is important to understand how it came into law and how it has survived legal challenge.

The National Assembly of Quebec passed the law on June 16, 2019, with considerable opposition. It has been clear from the beginning that Bill 21 likely violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including section 2(a), the freedom of conscience and religion.

Anticipating a challenge to the law, the government of Quebec invoked the notwithstanding clause (section 33) of the Canadian Charter to prevent judicial intervention. Section 33 basically allows provincial legislatures and parliament to shield a piece of legislation for five years, even if it is in violation of Charter rights. In other words, the law continues to operate even though it could, upon judicial review, be deemed in violation of the Charter and, consequently, “of no force or effect.” The notwithstanding clause only applies to certain Charter rights: section 2 and sections 7‑15.

Simply put, this clause allows governments to infringe upon minority rights with no clear or reasonable justification, and it is a clause that is rife with opportunities for government abuse. What purpose could such a clause possibly serve if section 1 of the Charter already provides for reasonable limits on Charter rights? What is the point of enshrining Charter rights if provincial legislatures and parliament can so easily override them for five years at a time, with no judicial intervention? These are questions that I will leave to the Constitutional law experts, but I believe that they are worth asking in the wake of Bill 21.

Following Quebec’s invocation of section 33, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) and the National Council of Canadian Muslims (NCCM) challenged the law as unconstitutional.

Judge Blanchard of the Quebec Superior Court upheld the Bill in April, 2021, but struck down the law as it applied to English school boards and members of the provincial legislature (due to protections under sections 3 and 23, for which the notwithstanding clause cannot apply). Although critical of Bill 21, Blanchard upheld the rest of the law because Quebec was within its right to invoke the notwithstanding clause and insulate Bill 21 from Charter scrutiny.

In response to the Quebec Superior Court decision, the CCLA and NCCM have filed legal submissions against Bill 21 at the Quebec Court of Appeal, and it is likely that this case will go all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada for an ultimate decision.

Response to teacher’s removal

In the wake of Fatemeh Anvari’s removal from her classroom, mayors from around the Country, including Brampton, Calgary, and Toronto have either pledged funds, or are considering contributing funds, to the legal challenge in Quebec. Federal leaders have yet to commit to intervene in the case and, Erin O’Toole, the leader of the Conservative Party, has asked his MPs not to publicly criticize the Bill at all.

While I applaud the City of Brampton and other municipalities for expressing disdain for Bill 21, as we all should, providing monetary support from outside Quebec to fund a legal challenge inside Quebec may backfire. It could shift the debate away from the Charter legality of the Bill itself, and towards a conversation about English‑Canadian cities taking steps to affect the laws within Quebec. As a result, it should really be up to the federal government, which has jurisdiction, to intervene.

In spite of the Bill’s obvious discriminatory impact, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has not firmly committed the federal government to any such intervention, stating that he does not want the federal government’s opposition to turn the issue into a fight between Ottawa and Quebec. But, given the dire consequences of the Bill on the safety and fundamental rights of Muslim Canadians, that fight needs to happen.