MINUTES – PUBLIC – TERRITORY AND HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION (CDTH) – 6th meeting – September 19, 2025 – 9:01 a.m. to 10:19 a.m.

6. Update on the progress of the Affordable Housing Strategy – Presentation

Stefan Reyburn, project coordinator at the Service de l’urbanisme et du développement durable (SUDD), presents the progress of the file, accompanied by Marco Pilon, assistant director, for information purposes. The objective of the presentation is to ensure a follow-up of the Stratégie de logements abordable (SLA), adopted by the Municipal Council in 2023. This presentation follows a session held last March, during which several elements of the Strategy were discussed. From this first assessment, which was presented in March to members regarding the implementation of the SLA, several new initiatives have been initiated or planned. The current session allows for taking stock of these developments and responding to concerns raised previously, while opening the discussion on the next steps. The following 9 subjects, identified and addressed by the members of the CDTH during the session held in March 2025, are presented verbally, as an update:

1. Private developers and inclusion of affordable housing; It is mentioned that the City does not have an inclusion bylaw. However, it has Règlement 765, including the property tax reimbursement program which is enhanced, for example, by an affordable housing guarantee. The focus is on affordability. A 2023-2025 assessment is made.
2. Gatineau affordability target; In September 2025, the balance sheet of subsidized housing in Gatineau, regarding social and non-market housing, started or planned, counted approximately 1,300 units. The Service specifies that this is a record number incomparable to other years. It is mentioned that the Service intends to propose 350 subsidized units per year produced by developers supported by a subsidy program and non-market.
3. Right of first refusal bylaw; The right of first refusal is a bylaw that has existed for nearly 2 years in Gatineau, without having been the subject of a real deployment. The SUDD was invited to determine selection criteria to determine which private sector buildings would be subject to the right of first refusal.
4. Municipal land reserve; A process is envisaged by the Service to map and share with municipal services and partners the land reserve to properly identify buildings capable of hosting social and non-market housing projects composed of 30 units or more. Some buildings are mentioned as being the most suitable to host such a project including: surplus arenas, the site Guertin, the Fonderie, etc.
5. Letter of support and letter of guarantee to non-profit developers; The City already endorses subsidized residential projects through letters of support. In certain situations, it is specified that sustained support is proposed by the Service to ensure the completion of the project. Steps are underway to analyze more officially the idea of a letter of guarantee to developers.
6. Notion of affordability of subsidized housing; In Gatineau, the definition of affordable housing is based on that of the Société d’habitation du Québec (SHQ) which determines everything in the Programme d’habitation abordable Québec (PHAQ). It is specified that for housing ranging from studios to three-bedroom apartments, the median market rents in Gatineau are the highest among regions in Quebec, even Montreal.
7. Operating costs of non-market residential complexes, adaptation and eco-efficiency; This element is essential. The Service emphasizes that it is known that sustainable affordability in non-profits and co-ops depends on operating costs. Renovation and maintenance expenses are high and the Service mentions wishing to evaluate the possibility and feasibility of supporting these, to reduce operating costs. Rents being capped and controlled, this represents an issue since revenues are limited. Solutions will be proposed.
8. Collaboration with housing ecosystem actors; The Service specifies that the main issue is to strengthen the predictability of municipal funding. A memorandum of understanding could be concluded between the non-profit housing developer and the City to ensure transparency and formalize the collaboration.
9. Municipal fund and diversification of funding. The Service explains that in 2025, the City committed a sum of $7.2 million to its Social Housing Fund. This serves as the municipal contribution to support the realization of subsidized residential projects selected within the framework of a recognized program. Initiatives for diversifying funding are being explored.

The six structuring axes and the eighteen actions of the SLA are presented, accompanied by highlights related to new initiatives. The following highlights are noted:

1. Organizational performance: Attention is paid to the creation of a Project Office to which a facilitating cell will be attached to support continuous improvement and see to the accelerated processing of residential or non-market social project applications.
2. Naturally affordable housing: The Service mentions, among other things, the creation of an interactive and evolving interface, i.e., a geomatic platform, which will gather and present a set of georeferenced data and information.
3. Subsidized housing: The Service emphasizes supporting the implementation of Gatineau's homelessness action plan. A residential project for people experiencing homelessness will be carried out. The diversification of housing types is targeted in Gatineau. The Service wishes to continue the steps to become a proxy city for the PHAQ.
4. Acquisition of buildings: It is mentioned that an achievement of this axis is to carry out the geomatic inventory of buildings subject to the right of first refusal.
5. Pooling of resources: Among the initiatives presented, the Service presents the desire to set up a social utility trust in housing in Gatineau and the Outaouais, aiming to mobilize public, private, and philanthropic actors for the acquisition, construction, and operation of non-market housing projects. The commitment of several municipal actors and elected officials in this process is highlighted, aiming to strengthen the social and affordable housing ecosystem.
6. Affordable housing funding: It is mentioned that the Social Housing Fund, currently fueled by the municipal budget, is deemed insufficient to meet the growing demand. It is mentioned that alternative municipal revenues are under study, such as royalties and contributions related to incentive zoning, to increase the funds available to support a greater number of projects. The Service explains that the City is also exploring innovative financing options, notably: low-interest or interest-free municipal loans, inspired by patient capital models, to support off-program projects or expenses not recognized by subsidies (e.g., decontamination, infrastructure, demolition). It should be noted that these mechanisms aim to increase the capacity to carry out affordable housing projects. A request is underway with the Legal Affairs Department to confirm the City's legal capacity to grant this type of funding.

Exchange period

General comments: Thanks are addressed to the presenter.

Royalties and affordability: A question is raised regarding revenues and royalties, specifically on the legal possibility for the City to introduce development royalties to finance social housing. Clarifications are requested on this subject. The Service confirms that the imposition of royalties is legal. It is also specified that these royalties can be associated with a Social Housing Fund, which corresponds to one of the four major categories of eligible royalties. Thus, future royalties could fuel such a program and be specifically dedicated to the financing of social housing.

A member believes that the introduction of development royalties could, according to their understanding, lead to a transfer of the cost of financing social housing to tenants. The Service wishes to clarify that this type of royalty would instead allow for increasing the construction of social housing. Thanks to the Fund fueled by royalties, the City could invite private developers to carry out "turnkey" projects intended for non-profit organizations (NPOs). This approach is inspired by the Maison Canada model, which supports private initiatives in the construction of turnkey housing for NPOs. The Service considers this formula advantageous because it allows projects to be realized more quickly.

It is recognized that royalties increase construction costs. However, in the case of non-profit projects, an exemption from the royalty is planned, which constitutes an incentive to orient development towards the production of non-market housing. A member expresses their disagreement, based on the AppEco study presented recently to the municipal council. It is mentioned that any increase in construction charges for a project inevitably leads to an increase in rents and that this amounts to having social housing financed by new tenants, who have neither the means to acquire a property nor access to social housing. This situation is described by a member as unfair, both socially and generationally. It is emphasized that the principle of affordability should be at the heart of municipal decisions regarding housing construction. By using royalties as a financing mechanism, the City contributes to making housing even less affordable.

The Service indicates the existence of benefits within the framework of incentive zoning, an approach distinct from royalties. It is specified that this type of zoning has a neutral effect on the profitability of projects and makes it possible to avoid transferring costs to tenants. This mechanism, previously unauthorized, is now legal. It is emphasized that social and affordable housing constitutes a mission falling under the State and governments. As such, equitable funding is essential. It is important to avoid the creation of an "orphan clause," where only new tenants would contribute to the financing of social housing, while owners of already amortized housing would not participate.

Creation of an energy-efficient renovation fund: It is mentioned that the Fund discussed during the last Environment and Climate Change Commission excluded projects related to energy-efficient renovation, due to financial considerations. Two approaches seem to coexist on this subject from the two services. One wonders about the relevance of creating a new municipal subsidy program or if it would be preferable to support existing initiatives coming from other funds or levels of government. The question is asked: is it really necessary to go through the creation of a Fund at the City, or rather support the initiatives already in place and encourage local adherence? A suggestion is made to replace the term "creation" with "support for initiatives," to better orient future actions.

The Service explains wanting to evolve the Green Fund. The Ecological Transition Service has already informed the team of its concerns. It is desired to tackle a broader and more complex issue, namely the renovation of aging residential complexes, especially those of the non-profit housing stock. The Green Fund will be complementary to the existing program, such as that of Hydro-Québec. The area where priority intervention will be made is not known, but discussions have begun. Perhaps this will encourage suppliers to avail themselves of existing programs at the higher level.

Parking tax: A member points out that the parking tax could represent an opportunity to target certain lands of interest. Some developers with surplus parking might seek to dispose of it due to the economic weight that this tax represents. They suggest developing a strategy to identify the targeted lands as well as the owners likely to want to dispose of them. It is specified that the SUDD regularly receives this type of information internally, which could facilitate the analysis. This situation could also open the door to a right of first refusal. The same reasoning regarding the use of possibly surplus parking applies to infrastructure needs, notably schools and green spaces. It is suggested to examine the City's strategy regarding collective uses in order to seize the opportunities that could result from it. The Service specifies that three major categories of buildings are targeted within the framework of the right of first refusal:

• Existing residential buildings;
• Non-residential buildings intended to be recycled or converted (for example, office towers);
• Vacant spaces, such as parking lots or unexploited land.

It is emphasized that the main issue remains soil contamination. For vacant or surplus land, an environmental analysis is required to avoid costs related to decontamination. Vacant or surplus parking lots are included in one of the three identified categories.

Interactive map: The chair wishes to know if the map would be publicly available. The Service wishes to eventually share it. Work must be done to have anonymized data. Some projects having legal protection must obviously not be identified. This interactive map project is under development, in collaboration with different teams. Two versions are planned:

• An internal version, intended for municipal bodies, with a simplified interface and interactive pop-up windows.
• A general public version, accessible on the City's website, with lightened content and without sensitive data.

The transversal tool would aim to centralize information currently dispersed in several databases and facilitate access to data on funded projects, notably those related to the Green Fund. It will be updated annually and will allow visualizing subsidized projects, their location, and their nature. This project is part of a desire to break down silos between services and support a transversal approach regarding housing. The general public version would be accessible on all municipal actors' workstations and could be shared with certain partners. The map would be evolving and subject to annual updates.

Proxy City: One questions the intention to become a proxy city. The Service confirms that the City is no longer a proxy, unlike what it was previously for the Accès-Logis program. For the moment, no city is one. This situation limits the City's capacity for action in orienting projects and collaborating with the Société d’habitation du Québec (SHQ). It is emphasized that the City's current role is rather passive: it finances projects without having access to prior information, which leads to financial unforeseen events. A reflection has begun on the possibility of becoming a proxy again in order to play a more active role, notably to orient developers towards sectors and types of projects aligned with municipal objectives. It is emphasized that all cities can become one, if the SHQ authorizes it.

Federal buildings, densification and Airbnb: A member wonders about the federal strategy for reducing its real estate stock (rental and property). Although the progress of this strategy is not specified, it is recognized that this orientation could represent an opportunity for the development of affordable housing. A member emphasizes that densifying the existing urban fabric by building a city within the city is to be explored. For example, some sectors, like Limbour, offer little space for new construction, but present potential for integrated housing units. It is also suggested to reduce short-term rentals in order to free up housing for long-term use.

Housing shock committee: The chair emphasizes that Gatineau's portrait has also changed a lot. There has been a lot of affordable housing construction and this is the work, among others, of the City of Gatineau's Comité-choc en logement, chaired by councillor Daniel Champagne. The progress made and the work accomplished which contributed significantly to the evolution of the housing portrait in the City are highlighted.

Access to a summary: The Service indicates that it will share with members a written summary of the information presented verbally regarding the 9 follow-up subjects that were updated at the beginning of the presentation.