|
Reports / Articles |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
November 26, 2001 State
of the Crisis Report By
the National Housing and
Homelessness Network
Full
funding for a new national housing program As federal, provincial and territorial housing ministers meet for a special housing summit on November 29 and 30, 2001, in Quebec City, the National Housing and Homelessness Network and our partners across the country has prepared this report on the state of Canada’s nation-wide housing crisis and homelessness disaster. We
ask the Ministers to take note that: ·
the latest figures from Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation confirm
the depths of the nation-wide crisis
(see chapter 2); ·
the nation-wide housing crisis is growing worse (see chapter
3); ·
the nation-wide homelessness disaster is more severe (see
chapter 4); ·
the history of government-funded initiatives shows that expensive
private sector programs have failed to produce low-cost housing (see
chapter 5); and, ·
the current crisis is caused by the withdrawal of the federal
and most provincial governments from funding new social housing (see
chapter 6). The
National Housing and Homelessness Network and our partners across the
country welcome the federal promise to spend $170 million a year over four
years as a welcome first step towards a fully-funded national
housing program. We congratulate the Government of Quebec for
committing its share of this new program in its most recent provincial
budget. We
call on the Ministers to: ·
immediately
commit the federal
money to new social housing projects; ·
make sure all
provinces and territories follow the lead of Quebec in providing matching
funds, to double the
amount of new money available for social housing; ·
make sure that the program guidelines target the new funding
most effectively to build desperately-needed new housing for low,
moderate and middle-income renter households through the creation of new
non-profit and co-operative housing; and, ·
take the next step towards a fully-funded national housing program
by committing to the One Percent Solution, which calls for the federal
government to spend $2 billion in new social housing funding annually,
with a matching amount from provincial and territorial governments.
Rising rents, dwindling supply For
the second year in a row, Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s
annual rental market survey has set the dubious record of being the worst
ever since the agency started its current system of measurement in 1987. For
full details, see tables 1 and 2. The
numbers confirm that rental vacancy rates are falling to critically low
levels across the country. These rates, which measure the number of vacant
units, are a key measure of the health of a rental market. Not
only is the overall rental rate of 1.1% for Canada well below the healthy
rate of 3.0%, but nine of the country’s 26 metropolitan have rates at or
below 1%. Only five of the 26 regions have rental rates that are in the
healthy zone. At
the same time, rents have risen in every metropolitan region across the
country, including those areas with healthy vacancy rates. Rising rents
means that the cost of existing housing is moving out of the reach of low
and moderate income tenants. Toronto
has broken the $1,000 rent ceiling with the average rent for a two-bedroom
apartment. The median household income in Toronto is $27,039 – which
means half the renter households in the city have less than $750 per month
to afford to pay for rent. Victoria,
with a rental vacancy rate of 0.5%, has the worst rental market in the
country. Edmonton has posted the biggest annual rent increase at 8.7%.
“Rising rents dramatically outpaced tenant incomes in the early- to mid-1990s, and this trend is likely to continue. The rising demand for rental housing, coupled with changes in rent legislation and little new supply, are causing sharp rent increases. . . As recently as 1996, units in Toronto renting for less than $800 per month amounted to more than two-thirds of all units. . . They now make up only one-third of the total.” City of Toronto Report Card on Homelessness 2001 Rising
rents, stagnant and falling incomes, dwindling supply of affordable units
– this is the crisis facing the 4.8 million renter households in Canada.
More than 13 million women, men and children live in renter households,
about 40% of the Canadian population. Growing
poverty is a factor for a growing number of renter households. Almost
one-in-five tenant households are on the brink of homelessness, paying 50%
or more of their monthly income on rent. More than one-in-three tenant
households are paying more than 30% of their income on rent, which pushes
them into the “unaffordable” category. In
October of 2001, Statistics Canada reported that the gap between rich and
poor in Canada has surged to a 25-year-high. Most of the growing number of
poor are renters. In
1984, the median income for renter households was $21,554, about half the
$41,380 median income for owner households. By 1999, the median income for
renter households had dropped by 3% to $20,947, while owner incomes
increased 5% to $43,478. The gap between owners and tenants has grown to
208%. With
half of the country’s tenant population having less than $21,000 in
income, this leaves 2.4 million tenant households with less than $580 per
month that they can afford to pay for rent. In the year 2000, only 24 of
the country’s 57 metropolitan and large urban areas had average rents of
$580 or less. Seniors,
older women, single moms, Aboriginal people. All these face a
disproportionately high share of housing distress. According
to Statistics Canada, 50% of all single seniors are renters and of these,
39% are older women living on annual incomes of $12,500. They can only
afford a monthly rent of about $350. A recent report on mid-life and older
women found: “Those women who participated
in the Housing Factor Project span ages from mid-forties to over ninety
years of age. There are almost as many women under the age of sixty-five
as over. They come from a number of linguistic, cultural and geographical
groups, some living in cities, some in villages or town, and some on
reserves and in rural areas. They live with diverse circumstances,
privileges and needs. And they have a great deal in common. The findings
of the Housing Factor Project indicate a number of significant and
disturbing factors about housing for mid-life and older women in
[Hamilton, Ottawa, Parry Sound, Toronto, Tweed]. Overwhelmingly the women
want the option of aging in place, not only in their own homes but also in
their own communities. Financial concerns dominate all others in relation
to availability of housing. In addition mid-life and older women fear
increasing frailty and loss of health with very little evidence of
services that will be available to them in order for them to stay in their
own home.” The
Housing Factor Project, Older Women’s Network, 2000 The
Children’s Aid Society of Toronto (CAST) and the University of
Toronto’s Centre for Urban and Community Studies released a study in
November of 2001 showing that the housing crisis was a factor in
one-in-five cases of children admitted to the society’s care: “In one of five cases, the
family’s housing situation was a factor that resulted in temporary
placement of a child into care. . . The number of children admitted to
care where housing was a factor increased by about 60% over the eight-year
period: from about 290 children in 1992 to about 450 in 2000. . . The
approximately 450 cases in which housing was a factor in the admission to
care during 2000 cost Children’s Aid Society of Toronto about $18
million.” One
in Five. . . Housing as a Factor in the Admission of Children to Care,
CAST, 2001 Rising
rents set against stagnant or declining incomes means that tenants have an
increasing difficulty paying the rent. And a growing number of tenant
households are facing economic eviction. In Ontario during the year 2000,
54,000 tenant households were faced eviction because they could not pay
the rent. Even
during the holiday season, the evictions continued at a high pace: Joseph's landlord applied to
evict him the day after Christmas for $37.99. Joseph has been living in
his west-end Toronto apartment for 15 years and is in dispute with his
landlord over how much rent he should be paying. Joseph M is one of 1,948
tenants whose landlord applied to evict during twelve days of Christmas.
Considering the Ontario Rental Housing Tribunal's offices were closed for
six days in that period, we're looking at 325 eviction applications a day
during the peace and goodwill season. Centre
for Equality Rights in Accommodation, December 2000 About
40,000 renter households faced eviction in Quebec during the year 2000.
“Non-conventional”
private rental housing Some
politicians say that, while the conventional private rental market is
sinking into crisis, tenant households can find relief in the so-called
non-conventional market, which includes rented condominiums, accessory
apartments (including illegal units) and tenant-occupied single, semi and
row dwellings. Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the Ontario Ministry of Municipal
Affairs and Housing funded a detailed study by the Starr Group in 2000,
which examined the secondary rental market in Ontario. The study found
that non-conventional housing comprises a large portion of the overall
rental market. For instance, in the suburban area around Toronto, more
than 70% of the rental market is in secondary units. Three
key findings of the CMHC-MAH study:
Secondary Rental Market Study, The Starr Group, 2000
A coast-to-coast snapshot of the housing crisis Victoria: One
in ten households in Victoria earn less than $10,000 annually. They can
only afford monthly rents of $277. The average rent for a two-bedroom
apartment in Victoria is $731. Vancouver: An
estimated 13,000 households are on the social housing waiting lists in
Greater Vancouver. Almost one-quarter of tenant households, more than
66,200 households, are paying 50% or more of their income on rent. During
the 1990s, about 1,200 single room occupancy units were lost, mostly in
the downtown eastside. About 700 social housing units for singles were
built, leaving a net loss of about 500 units. Edmonton: More
than 2,400 people are on the waiting list for affordable housing in
Edmonton. Almost 21,000 households were spending more than 50% of their
income on rent in 1995, a total of 18.5% of renter households. The rental
vacancy rate in Edmonton has dropped from a high of more than 10% in 1995
to a critically low 1.4% in 2000. The city has lost more than 1,800 rental
housing units since 1990. Calgary: More
than 17,700 households paid more than half their monthly income on rents
in 1995, a total of 16.9% of renter households. The city is losing rental
units much faster than they are being built. About 3,500 rental units were
converted to condominium from 1995 to 1998. There are more than 3,000
people on social housing waiting lists. Regina: There
were 621 households on the local waiting list in 1999. One-in-five tenant
households, a total of more than 5,000 households, are spending more than
half their monthly income on rent. Saskatoon: In
1998, there were 1,600 households on the waiting list for social housing,
an increase of 9% from 1996. More than 7,100 tenant households are paying
more than half their monthly income on rent. In 1996, 304
government-subsidized low-income units were bought by realty companies in
1996 and rents have increased an average of 45% Winnipeg: In
1999, there were more than 2,000 households on the social housing waiting
list, an increase of 40% since 1993. Rental housing losses, especially in
the inner city, are increasing. In 1998 alone, 123 single family dwellings
were demolished. About 70% of Aboriginal households have severe
affordability problems. London: Average
rents in London increased by 25% between 1989 and 1999. Between 1992 and
1998, renter household incomes decreased by 11%. There were 1,156
households on the social housing waiting list in 1999. The London Housing
Registry was only able to find homes for 438 households in 1998, only half
of the agency’s 869 client households. Almost one-quarter of tenant
households are on the brink of homelessness, paying 50% or more of their
income on housing. Kitchener: There
are more than 3,800 households on the Waterloo Region social housing
waiting list. Fully 56% are families with children. One-in-five tenant
households are paying 50% or more of their income on housing, a total of
10,225 households. Between 1994 and 1998, 682 rental units were converted
to condominium or demolished, far more than the number of new rental units
built. Guelph: From
Jan. 1999 to Aug. 2001, a total of 2,269 households applied for social
housing units in Guelph, but only 13 were placed. Toronto: The
social housing waiting list in November 2000 included 20,364 single
adults, 30,563 families and 12,183 seniors – a total of 63,000
households. Applicants are told that the wait for a unit could be from 12
to 19 years. The handful of new rental units that have been offered in
recent years have had monthly rents ranging from $1,375 to $2,750. Kingston: The
number of people on social housing waiting lists has risen by 66% from
1992 to 1998. Ottawa:
The
social housing waiting list has grown from 8,575 households in 1993 to
15,000 households in 1998. There were 5,500 new applications in 1998
alone. Ottawa has the worst rental housing market in the country, with the
tightest rental vacancy rate (0.2%) and the highest annual increase in
rents (12% in one year only from 1999 to 2000). About 1,740 rental units
were taken off the market from 1996 to 1998, many times the amount of new
rental housing that was built. Montreal: One-in-four
tenant households in Montreal – a total of 163,415 households – are
paying 50% or more of their income on rents. That is an increase of 43%
from 1990 to 1995. St.
John’s: One
in four tenant households in St. John’s are spending more than half
their monthly income on rents. This is a total of 4,655 households. About
300 rental units have been converted to condominium since 1997, reducing
the overall rental housing stock. Canada’s homelessness disaster We
call on all levels of government to declare homelessness a national
disaster requiring emergency humanitarian relief. We urge that they
immediately develop and implement a National Homelessness Relief and
Prevention Strategy using disaster relief funds both to provide the
homeless with immediate health protection and housing and to prevent
further homelessness. State
of Emergency Declaration, October 1998 In November of 1998, the mayors of Canada’s biggest cities (the Big City Mayors Caucus of the Federation of Canadian Municipalities) passed a resolution to declare homelessness is a national disaster. The decision came just one month after the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee, a group of homeless people and housing advocates, issued its State of Emergency Declaration. Homelessness
has grown so bad in Canada that it fully meets the definition of a
national disaster. There
are no consistent national or provincial measures of the homeless. Some
counts include only those who stay in shelters, and exclude those on the
streets. Others exclude residents of shelters for abused women. Short-term
programs, sometimes called Out of the Cold or In from the Cold, which use
church basements and community centres are sometimes left out. A
large percentage of the homeless in urban, rural and remote areas are
Aboriginal people. Housing conditions on First Nations reserves are often
bad, but life in Canada’s cities offers little relief: "Aboriginal people are
over-represented in Canada’s homeless population by a factor of about
10. Individuals of Aboriginal original account for 35% of the homeless
population in Edmonton, 18% in Calgary, 11% in Vancouver, and 5% in
Toronto, but only 3.8%, 1.9%, 1.7% and 0.4% of the general populations in
those cities respectively. A disproportionate number of homeless people
who sleep on the street rather than in shelters are of Aboriginal
origin.” Dr.
Stephen Hwang, Homelessness and Health, January 2001 Most
experts agree that at least 250,000 people will experience homelessness
during the course of a year. A comparison of hostels in just seven
Canadian cities shows the number of bed nights occupied by homeless people
over the course of the year doubled from 1.4 million in 1987 to 2.4
million in 1999 (see table 3).
The Canadian Press reported on June 11, 2000: TORONTO -- Tonight, more homeless people per capita will sleep on the streets and in the shelters of Toronto than in several major U.S. cities. In fact, statistics show that homelessness in Canada's largest urban centre is comparable to levels in New York City, long considered the homeless capital of North America. About 75,000 people used municipal shelters last year in the Big Apple, an analysis of data provided by the city reveals. By contrast, 28,800 people used emergency shelters in Toronto in 1998, the city's current Report Card on Homelessness shows. Once population differences are taken into account, the percentage of people in Toronto using shelters is actually 15.8 per cent higher than in New York. But
not every homeless person ends on the streets. The Regional Municpality of
Sudbury released a study in October of 2000 which identified 407 homeless
people. There were only 68 beds in shelters, so most of the homeless were
left on the streets or “couch-surfing” with friends or relatives. The
study also reported that the most frequent cause of homelessness in
Sudbury was related to lack of employment, followed by problems with
social assistance (in particular, inadequate welfare payments), a lack of
affordable housing, and domestic violence. Homelessness
is not only costly to the children, women and men who are caught without
shelter, but there is a significant public cost. A recent study by the
Government of British Columbia found that the cost of health and social
services, policing and crisis centres for homeless people ranged from
$30,000 to $40,000. The costs for those who moved into
government-supported housing dropped to $22,000 to $28,000. The study
found: “The
literature demonstrates that there is a strong relationship between
homelessness and the health care, social services and criminal justice
systems. People who do not have safe, secure, affordable shelter have more
health problems than the general population, experience social problems
that may be exacerbated by their lack of shelter, and are more likely to
become involved in criminal activity than the general public. This tends
to result in greater use of some services by the homeless, particularly
hospital emergency services, shelters and correctional institutions, in
terms of frequency and length of use. Some specific sub-groups of the
homeless, such as those with mental illness, are even more likely to be
involved with the health care, social services and criminal justice
systems. . . Research confirms (though the number of studies is limited)
that preventive measures are more cost-effective than the status quo.
Issues arising from homelessness are more costly to deal with after the
fact than if homelessness were prevented in the first place. It is
essentially a problem of ‘pay now or pay more later.’” Homelessness
– causes and effects, Government of British Columbia, 2001 A
coast-to-coast snapshot of homelessness Vancouver: At
least 600 people sleep outside every night in Vancouver, more than the 400
who sleep in the city’s shelters. The number of people sleeping on the
floor on mats (because there are no beds) at one shelter tripled by 3,887
in 1995 to 10,758 in 1998. Edmonton: A
municipal count in 1999 found 836 people were homeless that night – 523
in the shelters and 313 on the streets. With only 511 beds in the hostel
system, the occupancy rate was 102%. That night, 113 people were turned
away because there was no more room. In addition, 32 people were
discharged that day by hospitals or prisons onto the streets, with no
place to live. Current estimates are that more than 1,200 people are
homeless every night. Shelters for abused women, operating at capacity,
turned away 3,000 families in 1997. Calgary: A
municipal count of homeless people in Calgary on May 21, 1998, found 998
homeless people in shelters, an increase of 121% from 1992. Most shelters
were full that day, with some over capacity. One hundred people were
turned away. Saskatoon: A
total of 6,700 people stayed in city shelters in 1998. About 68% were
Aboriginal. About 28% were children. Parry
Sound: Families
in Parry Sound sleep in cars and call this home. Homeless people in the
community “couch-surf” (go from friend to friend) in order to have
shelter. Gravenhurst: The
area’s only homeless shelter has been full every night since opening
last year. Barrie: There
were 8,491 bed-nights at homeless shelters in Barrie in 1998, an increase
of 1,235% from 1994. London: An
average of 400 households used London’s three emergency shelters in
1998, an increase of 13% since 1995. Cambridge: Homeless
shelters in Cambridge and throughout the Waterloo Region were entirely
full during the past winter. One youth shelter in Cambridge was so full
that it started a waiting list. The Out-of-the-Cold program, which offers
temporary shelter, has seen a 20% to 30% increase every year since it was
started four years ago. Toronto: More
than 30,000 people stayed in hostels in 1999. The biggest increase was
among two-parent families. Toronto has a shortfall of about 1,000 hostel
beds. Many shelters do not meet the basic United Nations standards for
refugee camps. Death rates for young homeless men are 8.3 times higher
than the general population of young men. More than 100 unclaimed bodies
were buried by city officials last year, most of them homeless. The
Toronto Disaster Relief Committee recorded 39 confirmed deaths of homeless
people last year. Peel
Region: There
were 28,403 bed-nights at homeless shelters in 1998, a 41% increase from
1994. The number of families staying in a motel, because there was no room
in the hostel system, grew from 351 in 1997 to 689 in 1998. Peterborough: There
were 3,762 bed-nights at homeless shelters in Peterborough in 1998, an
increase of 98% from 1994. Kingston: Emergency
shelter use rose by 210% from 1998 to 2000. Ottawa: Homeless
families required 71% more shelter bed nights from January to June of this
year than during the same period in 2000.
Montreal: An
estimated 8,250 people use homeless shelters in Montreal. About 380 are
under the age of 18. Current estimates are between 10,000 and 15,000
homeless people overall in the city. Death rates among street youth in
Montreal are nine times higher for males and 31 times higher for females
then in the general youth population of Quebec. Quebec
City: An
estimated 2,118 people use homeless shelters in Quebec City. About 250 are
under the age of 18. Saint
John: A
van that provides meals for the homeless helped 126 times during the first
two weeks of November, 2001, compared to 171 times during the entire month
of November last year. Charlottetown: According
to a recent, “conservative” survey, there are at least 268 homeless
people in Charlottetown. This includes 20 women with children, 52 youth
and 18 Aboriginal people. Nearby Summerside has another 65 homeless
people. Halifax: During
three years in the late 1990s, a total of 14 homeless women died on the
streets of Halifax. St.
John’s: “Hidden
homelessness” is a major problem in St. John’s. There are a large
number of people living in substandard, inadequate and unaffordable
boarding and lodging houses.
Private
sector rental housing programs The
federal government and the provincial government in Ontario have tried a
number of private sector housing programs since the late 1940s. In almost
every program, there has been a huge public subsidy that ended up creating
mostly high-end rental housing. Despite public expenditures of more than
$3 billion, none of the programs created long-term security for renter
households. The
pattern is clear. The big expensive programs produced expensive private
rental units. Those programs with tight rent restrictions – such as
Renterprise in Ontario – weren’t able to attract private developers,
which could get a bigger return for their investment dollars in
condominiums. The private sector is willing to take government money, but it has been unable to deliver affordable rental housing. Private sector programs have been the least regulated housing programs put in place by senior levels of government. They have produced the fewest benefits to low-income households. A
brief history: Limited
Dividend Program
(1946 to 1975) created 101,300 units that were, initially, moderately
priced. But, over time, rents were allowed to rise beyond those affordable
to low-income tenant households. Multiple
Unit Residential Building
– MURB (1974 to 1981)
created 195,000 units at an estimated cost to taxpayers of $2.4 billion.
There were no rent restrictions, so rents tended to be at the upper end of
the market. Assisted
Rental Program
(1975) created 122,650 private rental units at a cost of $300 million. The
federal government provided grants or loans to private landlords with no
restrictions or requirements on rents. An early study of the program
showed that in Toronto, average ARP rents were 32% higher than average
market rents. Canada
Rental Supply Plan
(1981) cost taxpayers $258.5 million (including the subsequent
Canada/Ontario Rental Supply Program). Under the terms of the program, up
to one-third of the units were to be offered to provincial governments or
local housing authorities for rent-geared-to-income housing for low-income
households. Authorities had 45 days to “take-up” the offer. Of the
24,667 units funded across Canada, only 1,526 (6.2%) were taken up as RGI.
For CORSP, 2,675 units were funded, but only 474 RGI units (18%) were
taken up. A
dramatic example of the high cost, and lack of benefits, under the CRSP
program was a private building on Bay Street in downtown Toronto built in
1985/86. The private building was supposed to offer as many as one-third
of the units for low-income households, but none were in fact used. More
than half the tenants had incomes of $50,000 annually, which was double
the median income of Toronto tenants at the time. Two and one-half years
after occupancy, the building was converted into a limited partnership.
The average rents at 1985/86 were $1,118 for the rental building. Value of
tax expenditures was $2,429 per unit in 1985 for rental building. By 1992,
the estimated value of taxpayer expenditures was $8,271for the rental
building. Ontario
Rental Construction Loans
program (Ontario, 1981) cost taxpayers $75 million for 15-year interest
free loans to private landlords with no restrictions on rents. Landlords
were supposed to offer up to 20% of units to local housing authorities for
RGI. Of the total of 14,540 units produced, with only 1,029 (7.3%) were
set aside for RGI. Convert-to-rent
(Ontario, 1983), produced 11,900 units in Ontario with a wide range of
rents (monthly rents for one-bedroom ranged from $400 to $900 and from
$650 to $1,250 for two-bedroom). The rents were all well above market
rents, and not affordable to low-income households. Renterprise
(Ontario, 1985) cost a modest $15.4 million and had the goal of building
5,000 new private rental units. Target market rents were established and
many developers withdrew Renterprise applications in favour of
condominiums. Only 2,176 units were built. A
1997 study funded by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation that compared
the long-term costs and benefits of private sector and social housing
projects, found that the cost to taxpayers of subsidizing co-op and
non-profit projects was far less than the cost of subsidizing private
developers and landlords. Ekos Research, which carried out the study,
found that in year 25, the social housing projects cost taxpayers $800,000
less than the private rental projects. An excerpt from their study: In all ten comparisons, the non-profit break-even rents started out higher than private rents but then rose more slowly than market rents. In nine of the ten cases, the non-profit rents crossed below market between the fourth and eighteenth year of operation. Assessing the resulting subsidy costs for comparable households (based on the use of a consistent 30 percent RGI scale), the study found that, over the past two decades, the non-profit vehicle has been the most effective vehicle in nine of the ten cases. On average, over time it is less expensive to subsidize households in non-profit projects. For example, in year 25 the estimated average subsidy of a non-profit unit compared to the estimated subsidy for a market unit is some $20,000 a year less. . . Since the ten projects have a total of some 400 units, the total savings in year 25 for these projects alone would be some $800,000. . . Where there are tight rental markets (i.e., extremely low vacancy rates) and governments wish to address supply issues at the same time as they address issues of housing need, non-profit projects can be more cost effective than subsidizing the construction of comparable market units and renting units from a private landlord. Cost-effective
housing, Ekos Research Associates, 1997 A
study released by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation in October of
2001 reports that “landlord-investors” are not interested in renting
to low-income households, since there is relatively little return to be
made on their investment. The study reports that: In
exploring landlord attitudes about the need for affordable housing to
serve lower-income tenants, landlords-investors did not contest the
legitimacy of social housing and a direct government role in the provision
of affordable housing. Many expressed interest in demand-side approaches
such as shelter allowance and rent supplements. However, they also saw the
need for social housing, particularly to house households on low income
and those on social assistance, whom some preferred not to accommodate. Residualization
of rental tenure, CMHC, October 2001 The
solution: Restore funding for social housing The federal government has abandoned its responsibilities with regards to housing problems. . . The housing crisis is growing at an alarming rate and the government sits there and does nothing; it refuses to apply the urgent measures that are required to reverse this deteriorating situation. . . The federal government’s role would be that of a partner working with other levels of government, and private and public housing groups. But leadership must come from one source; and a national vision requires some national direction. Paul
Martin, MP, Liberal Task Force on Housing, 1990 The
private sector is unable and unwilling to build sufficient affordable
housing to meet the growing needs of low-income households. Voluntary
groups, such as Habitat for Humanity, play an important role, but they too
are unable to build in sufficient quantity. This year, Habitat for
Humanity will build about 200 houses across the country. The group deals
with the housing needs of moderate-income households and cannot meet the
huge demand for new housing supply. “It must be accepted that causes of homeless situations described remain to be dealt with, perhaps through agreement and joint action on the part of all levels of Government. The reason that such an initiative must devolve upon Government is that homeless and near-homeless people do not represent an attractive market for private investors and developers, any more than they represent an attractive political market.” SCPI
Community Plan on Homelessness 2001, Charlottetown - Summerside Changes
to the national Housing Act in 1973 brought in the first
fully-funded co-op and non-profit housing programs in Canada. In
introducing the programs, the Minister responsible for housing told the
House of Commons: “Good
housing at a reasonable cost is a social right of every citizen of this
country. . . [This] must be our objective, our obligation, our goal”. The
federal and several provincial governments funded new social housing over
a 20-year period from the mid-1970s to the mid-1990s. This funding helped
to create hundreds of thousands of units of good quality, affordable
non-profit and co-operative housing, which continues to provide good homes
to more than one million Canadians even today. Unlike the private sector
programs, which were only able to deliver housing for low and
moderate-income households for, at best, a short time, social housing
remains affordable forever. Funding, through provincial and territorial governments and CMHC, the federal housing agency, peaked at approximately $4 billion annually in 1993/94. Approximately $2 billion of this funding was allocated through provincial/territorial budgets. The other $2 billion flowed from federal coffers through CMHC. Since 1993/93, funding for social housing through these sources has declined by $500,000,000. . . Approximately $450,000,000 or 90 percent of the reduction is at the provincial / territorial level, the other $50,000,000 is from the CMHC budget. The reduction in funding is localized in certain provides, particularly Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, Alberta and Ontario. In dollar terms, the most significant declines in funding have been in Alberta and Ontario. Canadian
Housing Policy, Prof. Tom Carter, 2000 For
more information, see table 4. Completion
of new social housing often exceeded 20,000 units annually in the late
‘70s and early ‘80s. By the late ’80s, production had fallen to an
annual average of just over 12,000 units. In 1998, according to the most
recent figures available, less than 2,000 units were produced. “In the space of approximately fifteen years, Canada has moved from a situation where it had an active and substantive social housing program to the point where it no longer has a national social housing policy.” Canadian
Housing Policy, Prof. Tom Carter, 2000 It
is no coincidence that the growth of the nation-wide housing crisis and
homelessness disaster parallels the withdrawal of federal and most
provincial governments from social housing funding. With no government
funding to assist social housing providers create no units, and little new
affordable private rental housing, the growing number of low-income
households faced an inevitable squeeze. The
Quebec government remains the only province committed to long-term social
housing funding. The Quebec program proceeds in partnership with
municipalities. British Columbia is “reviewing” its funding for
several projects approved by the previous provincial government. As
housing problems have grown worse, municipalities have raised the alarm,
and a number have introduced innovative local programs to create new
units. These developments have allowed a limited amount of new housing to
be built. One of the most recent initiatives is a $6.5 million capital
fund created by Waterloo Region to create 550 social housing units and an
additional 140 rent-geared-to-income housing units in existing buildings.
The municipal response is welcome, but cash-strapped local governments
cannot assume the entirely financial responsibility for new housing
programs – a responsibility abandoned by most senior levels of
government. After
considerable political pressure from a variety of groups, including the
National Housing and Homelessness Network and its partners across the
country, the federal government announced $753 million in funding for a
new homelessness strategy in December of 1999. The money, including the
Supporting Community Partnerships Initiative (SCPI), was supposed to go to
short-term measures to provide emergency relief for the homeless. Many
worthwhile local projects have been funded with the new federal money. Hard
work at the community level has also produced a number of housing projects
in St. John’s, Halifax, Toronto and elsewhere funded with SCPI, often
using a patchwork of funding including municipal and private money. But
SCPI is not a housing program and it can’t replace the need for a new,
fully funded national social housing program.
Economic
benefits of social housing New
social housing brings social and economic benefits, along with the homes: “I want to make the argument,
however, that social housing also has benefits – social benefits that
have positive direct and indirect economic spin-offs. These benefits
accrue to individuals and families and also to society as a whole. If we
neglect to provide adequate levels of social housing, society will pay the
price through increased costs in other areas. I now want to address a few
of the benefits of social housing and illustrate why it is so important to
provide adequate levels of housing: poverty alleviation, child poverty,
skills development, improved educational opportunities, a healthy
environment, privacy and modesty issues, empowerment, neighbourhood
stability, community development initiatives, neighbourhood
revitalization, stabilizing marginalized households, addressing the needs
of Aboriginals/indigenous people, family stability. I could continue, but
the preceding comments provide more than enough examples of why we need a
strong social housing program.” Access
to Housing: The Social Side, Prof. Tom Carter, 2001 The
shared goal of NHHN and many other groups for 20,000 new social housing
units and 10,000 renovated units would bring considerable benefits. A
Parliamentary study two years ago found that 20,000 new units would
generate 16,200 person-years of employment. The 10,000 renovated units
would generate 8,100 person-years. A
study by a consulting firm in 1992 also reported considerable benefits. It
found that 20,000 new social housing units would create housing co-ops
15,800 direct person-years (in the construction sector), 10,200 indirect
person-years (mainly in construction materials and manufacturing) and
18,200 induced person-years (in many sectors including transportation,
communications, utilities, forestry, mining). The
same study found that 10,000 renovated units would generate 7,000 direct
person-years, 3,000 indirect person-years and 340 induced person-years of
employment. The
author also calculated that 30,000 new units would also generate $570
million in personal and corporate income taxes At
a time when the Canadian economy, and world economy, appears to be falling
into recession, the economic stimulus from a fully-funded national housing
program would be considerable.
Aboriginal control of Aboriginal housing In
addition to many general economic and social benefits, off-reserve
Aboriginal housing has a particularly strong record of success: “Together,
urban and rural Aboriginal housing institutions are responsible for the
management of approximately 19,000 units serving nearly 85,500
individuals. . . Adequate, suitable and affordable housing provided by
urban Aboriginal housing institutions have a measurable and profound
impact upon the well-being of off-reserve Aboriginal households.
Aboriginal tenants indicate that their accommodation contributes to their
families stability and access to education. Aboriginal owned and operated
housing also helps to preserve and reinforce cultural identity of
Aboriginal peoples. Improvement in community morale, identity and
self-worth is a central part of the healing process. . .Aboriginal housing
institutions have been able to offer more than just a real estate or
property management function. . . All foster a sense of community among
their clients. . . At its annual meeting held in Ottawa in April 1998,
National Aboriginal Housing Association members passed a Resolution
calling the Government to “acknowledge and recognize the Aboriginal
control of Aboriginal housing policy of Aboriginal people”. Members
further resolved that the NAHA “. . . directors seek the transfer of the
Aboriginal housing portfolio to Aboriginal control, to NAHA and its
constituent members”. Restore federal, provincial, territorial housing funding The
National Housing and Homelessness Network is calling on federal,
provincial and territorial governments to adopt the One Percent Solution:
Table
1 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 Atlantic Region Quebec Region Ontario Region Prairie Region British Columbia Region Total (1) 4.1 3.4 2.6 1.6 1.1 (1)
Weighted average of Metropolitan Areas Surveyed.
Table
2 One-Bedroom Two-Bedroom 2000 2001 2000 2001 Atlantic Region Québec Region Ontario Region Prairie Region British Columbia Region Source: CMHC, 2001
Table
3 - Homeless shelter usage, 1987 and 1999 (not
including overflow, short-term and battered women beds)
Sources: CCSD, 1987; CMJ, 2000 Table
4 – Spending on housing by Canada,
Source: CMHC, 2001 For more information, contact TDRC (the Secretariat for the National Housing and Homelessness Network) at tdrc@tdrc.net |