Acorn Canada Affordable Housing Report 2j526f

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 underhoused 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 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 istered 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 ed 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 ed 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 debtdriven 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 bying 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 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 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 ([email protected] / 416-506-1785)