1324 Danforth Avenue, Suite 2, Toronto, Ontario (416) 461-8283

www.acorncanada.org

A Crisis of Commitment:
ACORN Canada’s 2008 Affordable Housing Report

Universal access to affordable housing has long been considered a basic quality of
advanced societies. Aside from providing citizens with shelter from the storm, housing also
enables them to access other basic necessities, such as potable drinking water and
electricity. Furthermore, homes and fixed addresses form the foundation for broader social
activities and interactions, such as obtaining employment, raising children, and building
relationships with neighbours and the wider community (Engeland and Lewis, 2004). With
this in mind, it should be of great concern to all Canadians to hear that following a recent
tour of Canada, the United Nations Special Rapporteur on adequate housing declared that
Canada is in the midst of a “national housing crisis” (United Nations, 2007). In addition to
his discussion of the easily noticeable problem of homelessness, Miloon Kothari agreed with
the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in pointing out that as many as 1.5 million
Canadians are currently experiencing core housing need, meaning that they are under-
housed or face an unsustainable financial burden to maintain their current housing
situation.

Canada’s national housing crisis is especially distressing because Canada remains

the only industrialized nation without a national housing strategy (Shapcott, 2008).
Though we have long sought to identify with progressive societies in Europe and elsewhere,
and pursue common aims through organizations such as the United Nations, the Group of
Eight, and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, even a brief
survey of the evidence shows that Canada has become an international laggard in terms of
funding, policy innovation, and the provision of affordable housing.

From an international perspective, Canada’s housing policy framework appears

inconsistent and inadequate. For example, in all European nations, policy is guided by
concrete aims and legislation provided by central governments (Federcasa, 2006: 98-113;
Norris and Shiels, 2004). While services and regulations are often administered through
local governments, non-governmental organizations, and other private agencies, they are
based on strong direction and funding from central governments, and involve close
collaboration with central government departments and ministers responsible for housing
(Norris and Shiels, 2004). In contrast, over the past two decades, Canadian federal
governments of all political stripes have cut funding, failed to deliver promises, and refused
to engage in good faith collaboration with other governments and agencies to develop a
comprehensive housing strategy for Canada. Although the federal government signed an
Affordable Housing Framework Agreement with the provinces and territories in 2001, in
which it committed to spend $1 billion on housing and match any additional provincial and
territorial allocations, only 23% of these funds have been delivered to date (Shapcott, 2008:
1). The current Conservative government has steadfastly avoided taking any further
responsibility for the issue. While provincial and territorial ministers met for several days
at White Point, Nova Scotia in 2005 and drafted a set of principles for a new Canadian
housing framework, they were joined for only one evening by the federal minister, who
would not agree to any definite or binding language. Provincial and territorial ministers
met again this past February, but were not joined by a federal representative. When
minister Monte Solberg finally assented to an informal conference in early April, he
declined to make any specific comments about existing or future agreements. He then
informed his colleagues that he would not be able to commit more time to the issue until
September (CICS, 2008).

Though Canada’s national averages for indicators such as housing affordability seem
comparable to averages in relevant European nations, these numbers can mask the
burdens faced by lower income Canadians, especially those living in cities. According to
data compiled from the 2006 Census, an estimated 3 million Canadian households (24.9%)
are spending more than 30% of their income on shelter (Statistics Canada, 2008). While
some of this is undoubtedly reflective of the high rates of condominium builds and debt-
driven ownership among citizens in higher income brackets, it is discouraging to note that
this number also includes nearly 80% of citizens in the two lowest income quintiles (Rea et
al., 2008). When the focus is narrowed further to include only major cities such as Toronto,
Ottawa and Vancouver, where the majority of the population actually resides, it is clear
that low and moderate income Canadians are truly being left behind. In these cities,
residents face a formidable affordability gap (household income versus market rates), and
can spend more than 75% of their monthly income on rents (Shapcott, 2008; Daily Bread
Food Bank, 2008).

This situation is of particular concern for Canadians because unlike in many

European nations, there are few policies, and very little funding, available to correct
market failings. For example, only 5% of Canada’s housing stock is dedicated to social
housing, as compared to a European average of 13% (including 20% in the United Kingdom
and 18%, 23% and 35% in Denmark, Sweden and the Netherlands, respectively) (Czischke,
2007: 12). Furthermore, Canada fails to regulate the construction industry as its European
counterparts do, thus bypassing an opportunity to ensure that a portion of all new housing
builds will be affordable for the vast majority of citizens (Whitehead and Scanlon, 2007).
Similarly, Canada has not kept up with European nations in terms of devising policies with
the explicit intention of giving low income citizens the ability to become homeowners under
fair, sustainable conditions (European Central Bank, 2003: 35). While some Canadian
municipalities, such as Toronto and Ottawa, have begun to make agreements for inclusive
zoning (granting permission for large developments subject to the condition that some
affordable units are either protected or constructed), these take place on an ad hoc,
piecemeal basis, apply almost exclusively to rental properties, and do not form the
foundation for a comprehensive housing strategy.
 Even in the new post-SUFA era of Canadian federalism, where provinces have
sought to exercise greater control over policy areas and participate in more sub-national
collaboration, the federal government clearly has a responsibility and a mandate to act in
one of the most fundamental social policy areas. As indicated by numerous European cases,
federalism or decentralization does not require or justify the failure to provide for citizens.
By abdicating its role, Canada’s federal government has neglected both its domestic
responsibilities and international obligations. In order to put an immediate end to this
national crisis, ACORN Canada and its members call on the federal government to:

Renew and extend the three federal housing and homelessness programs that
are due to expire this year (federal homelessness strategy, federal housing
repair program, federal affordable housing initiative).
Maintain the current investment in affordable housing (reversing the policy
decision of 1996 that locks in a rapidly decreasing annual housing funding
cut).
Meet Canada's international housing obligations by adopting a
comprehensive and fully-funded national housing program.
Establish a minister responsible for housing, with wide-ranging mandates.

References

Canadian Intergovernmental Conference Secretariat (CICS). (2 April 2008). News Release:

Provinces and Territories Disappointed with Federal Government’s Lack of Engagement on
Housing Issues in Canada. Available online at:
http://www.scics.gc.ca/cinfo08/860550004_e.html

Czischke, Darinka. (2006). “Social Housing in the European Union: Overview of Key
Approaches, Trends and Issues.” In Darinka Czischke (Ed.), Current Developments in
Housing Policies and Housing Markets in Europe: Implications for the Social Housing
Sector. Brussels: CECODHAS European Social Housing Observatory. 7-16.

Daily Bread Food Bank. (2008). Who’s Hungry: 2008 Profile of Hunger in the GTA. Toronto:
Daily Bread Food Bank.

Engeland, John and Roger Lewis. (2004). “Exclusion from Acceptable Housing: Canadians
in Core Housing Need.” Horizons 7(2): 27-33.

European Central Bank. (2003). Structural Factors in the EU Housing Markets. Frankfurt:
European Central Bank.

Federcasa, Italian Housing Federation. (2006). Housing Statistics in the European Union,
2005/2006. Rome: Ministry of Infrastructure of the Italian Republic.

Norris, Michelle and Patrick Shiels. (November 2004). Regular National Report on Housing
Developments in European Countries: Synthesis Report. Dublin: Government of Ireland
Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government.

Rea, Willa, Jennifer Yuen, John Engeland and Roberto Figueroa. (January 2008). “The
dynamics of housing affordability.” Perspectives on Labour and Income. 15-26.

Shapcott, Michael. (February 2008). Wellesley Institute National Housing Report Card.
Toronto: Wellesley Institute.

Statistics Canada. (4 June 2008). “2006 Census: Changing patterns in Canadian

homeownership and shelter costs.” The Daily. Available online at:
http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080604/d080604a.htm

United Nations. (1 November 2007). Press Release: United Nations Special Rapporteur on
Adequate Housing Calls for Immediate Attention to Tackle National Housing Crisis in
Canada. Available online at:
http://www.unhchr.ch/huricane/huricane.nsf/0/90995D69CE8153C3C1257387004F40B5?op
endocument

Whitehead, Christine and Kathleen Scanlon, Eds. (2007). Social Housing in Europe.
London, UK: LSE London.

ACORN Canada’s 2008 Affordable Housing Report was researched and authored by:

Adam Lemieux (adam.lemieux@gmail.com / 416-506-1785)