Part 2: Housing Board Pauses Disraeli Street Project and Calls for Provincial and Federal Support - 04/14/2025

Leadership and Chairing

Councillor Phil St-Jean, serving as Chair, guided the meeting with a steady emphasis on transparency, fiscal responsibility, and accountability. Throughout the session, he consistently reinforced the importance of relying on internal municipal capacity wherever possible, cautioning against unnecessary external spending. His approach reflected an awareness of both budget constraints and public expectations, particularly given the long timelines and uncertainty surrounding major housing initiatives.

© PEC Council (YouTube)

View the entire PEC Council Meeting; or view our recap>

St-Jean also underscored the need to maintain public trust, noting that housing projects especially those involving public funds must be managed carefully and communicated clearly. His facilitation kept the discussion grounded in practical considerations while allowing space for broader policy concerns.

PELIS Leadership Perspective

Lynn Chenier and Scott Robertson delivered the core presentation, offering a detailed overview of current housing programs and constraints. Their remarks centered on a fundamental challenge: the growing gap between housing demand and available funding.

They emphasized that meaningful expansion of rent-geared-to-income housing is not achievable without significant and sustained investment from senior levels of government. While local efforts remain important, they made clear that municipal tools alone cannot address the scale of need.

The presenters also clarified that current programming is heavily focused on prevention and stabilization. This includes measures aimed at keeping residents housed, rather than building large volumes of new units. Importantly, they confirmed that existing rent supplements will continue and will not be withdrawn from current recipients, providing some reassurance to vulnerable households.

Their comments painted a realistic picture of the system: one that is actively working to prevent worsening outcomes, but is constrained in its ability to expand supply.

Board Questions and Policy Direction

Board members engaged deeply with the material, raising a wide range of questions that reflected both operational concerns and broader social impacts.

Jane Lesslie contributed extensively, focusing on program effectiveness and long-term strategy. She raised questions about unused funding, program capacity, and coordination across departments. In particular, she highlighted the connection between housing instability and child welfare involvement, emphasizing that lack of stable housing can lead to family separations and long-term social consequences.

Her comments pointed to the need for stronger prevention tools and more integrated approaches that address housing as part of a wider social support system.

Councillor Nyman and Councillor McNaughton concentrated on supply-side challenges. Their questions addressed land availability, development constraints, and funding models, reinforcing the reality that new housing cannot be delivered without coordination across municipal, provincial, and federal levels. They also highlighted the importance of partnerships in overcoming these barriers.

Councillor Sam Grasso expanded the discussion to include national policy considerations. He referenced potential federal reforms, including prefabricated housing, zoning changes, and efforts to reduce bureaucratic delays. While not immediate solutions, these ideas were framed as possible future pathways to accelerate housing delivery.

Disraeli Street Decision and Vote

A key decision point in the meeting was the Disraeli Street project. After discussion, the board unanimously supported a motion to:

• Receive staff report HC-5-2025

• Issue an Expression of Interest (EOI) for external partners

• Pause procurement of a construction manager

This decision represents a shift in approach. Rather than proceeding under the existing model, the board is exploring alternative delivery strategies that may reduce financial risk and improve project viability.

For residents of Picton, particularly those waiting for affordable housing, this introduces both delay and potential opportunity. While the project timeline may extend, the revised approach could result in a more sustainable and achievable outcome.

Advocacy and Public Impact

The board also unanimously approved sending an advocacy letter to the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), with flexibility for staff to expand outreach.

This action reflects a broader recognition that rural communities face unique housing challenges that are often underrepresented in national policy discussions. By formalizing advocacy efforts, the municipality is seeking to bring greater attention to these issues at higher levels of government.

For residents, this signals that while local progress may be slow, there is ongoing effort to influence the larger systems that shape housing availability and funding.

Overall Impact on the Community

The meeting reinforced several key realities for Prince Edward County residents:

• Housing demand continues to outpace available funding

• Prevention and stabilization programs are essential and expanding

• Large-scale affordable housing development faces systemic delays

• Partnerships and innovative delivery models are increasingly necessary

For low-income households, seniors, individuals with disabilities, and those experiencing or at risk of homelessness, these factors have direct and immediate consequences.

At the same time, the discussion demonstrated a consistent commitment to careful decision-making. Board members and staff showed a clear focus on risk management, long-term planning, and responsible use of public resources.

While progress may not be rapid, housing remains a central priority. The direction taken in this meeting suggests a continued effort to balance urgency with sustainability, ensuring that future projects are both achievable and aligned with community needs.

---

Disclaimer: This article is based on a meeting with an approximate duration of 1:52:003. Due to the length of the meeting, our team was not able to independently review the full recording in its entirety. As a result, we relied on software-generated transcription, automated summarization, and automated recognition of speakers and participants, which may not be entirely accurate. All transcriptions, summaries, and related content are prepared by our team in good faith and on a reasonable best-efforts basis. The content is provided for general informational purposes only and is intended to support public understanding of the topics discussed. While reasonable efforts have been made to present the information accurately, automated processes may result in errors, omissions, or unintended misinterpretations. This article does not constitute an official, certified, or verbatim record of the meeting, and it should not be relied upon as such. Readers are encouraged to consult original source materials, official minutes, or recordings where available for confirmation or clarification. Questions, requests for clarification, or suggested corrections may be submitted to hello@pecconnect.ca for review and consideration