Summary#
Montréal city council unanimously approved its position in favour of Addendum 1 to the grant agreement between the City and the Société d’habitation du Québec (SHQ). The change concerns a $5,206,297 grant for modular temporary housing with support; the stated goal is to change when the grant can be paid and clarify when two 10-year periods begin. The agglomeration council makes the final decision at a later meeting.
- The addendum would let the SHQ pay against invoices or other supporting documents it accepts, instead of requiring a certificate that work is substantially complete.
- The 10-year period for keeping the units in service would start from the date residents occupy the rooms at each site.
- The agreement’s 10-year term would start when the last of the three sites is occupied.
- The City may sign the addendum only if it is substantially in line with the attached draft, in the opinion of the City’s civil affairs directorate, and a decree authorizes the SHQ to award the grant.
What it means for you#
- People needing temporary housing: The grant is for a project with 90 units across three sites, intended for people whose social situation is stable while they wait for permanent housing. This decision does not set out how people qualify or guarantee anyone a place.
- City and SHQ: The change would allow grant payments based on documents the SHQ accepts, including before all three sites have reached substantial completion.
- City taxpayers: City staff say the grant agreement requires no contribution from the City.
Money#
The agreement provides for a $5,206,297 grant to the City; City staff report no required City contribution.
- The original agreement tied payment to substantial completion at all three sites. The addendum would allow payment based on invoices or other supporting documents satisfactory to the SHQ.
- City staff said payment was expected during the 2025–26 fiscal year. The supplied material gives no estimate of other administrative or operating costs.
What is unclear#
- The addendum’s full payment schedule and what supporting documents the SHQ will accept are not set out in the summary.
- The third site’s substantial-completion date is not yet determined, according to City staff.
- The supplied material does not explain what happens if a site is delayed or does not proceed.
Case for#
- The change could let the SHQ pay based on documentation available now, rather than waiting for substantial completion at all three sites.
- Clarifying when the 10-year periods start addresses the timing ambiguity identified by City staff, given that the sites are progressing at different rates.
Case against#
- One trade-off is that grant money may be paid before all three sites are substantially complete. The supplied material does not explain what protections apply if the third site is delayed or not completed.
- The SHQ decides whether the supporting documents are satisfactory; the supplied material does not describe an appeal or review process for that decision.