Affordable Housing 1
Running head: AFFORDALBLE HOUSING POLICY
Affordable Housing Policy
Leya Eguchi
SOWK 572A
Dr. Richard Sullivan
December 8, 2010
Affordable Housing 2
Introduction
Housing is central to achieving family life and positive
child outcomes. It affects all aspects of child and family well-
being, including physical and emotional health, safety and
security, successful learning and social engagement (Cooper,
2007). Since housing is intimately tied to socioeconomic status,
an effective affordable housing strategy can play a major role in
poverty reduction by it increases the net income available to a
family after paying rent. Stable housing also bolsters a
family’s support network, since it provides a home base for
community participation, caring activities and relationships.
Housing policy plays a key role in housing affordability and
allocation, through rent subsidies, tax incentives, mortgage
insurances and direct provision of subsidized rental housing.
The lack of affordable housing is reaching crisis proportions,
described by some as a national disaster (Porter, 2003). The
fact that housing marginalization is most prevalent among
indigenous populations, ethnic minorities, lone mother families,
Affordable Housing 3
seniors and people with disabilities strengthens Porter’s (2005)
argument that it is a human rights crisis.
The purpose of this paper is to identify a policy options
the Canadian government might take address the most urgent and
persistent housing needs of families across Canada. I will first
draw attention to the current affordable housing crisis, and
which population subgroups are most impacted. In order to better
understand the context of this social problem, I will trace the
recent history of Canadian housing policy since its start in 1945
to its gradual demise leading to the present day. Theoretical
considerations relevant to family housing policy will be
explored, including analysis from a developmental, feminist,
ethic of care and human rights perspective. I will then make
policy suggestions, including the development of a national
housing strategy; tax based housing assistance programs and
construction of social housing. I will discuss both the benefits
and limitations of the proposed housing policies. Throughout
this paper, I will continue to emphasize that affordable housing
is fundamental to a family’s quality of life, health and
Affordable Housing 4
development. As such, advocating for decent affordable housing
is an important component of social work practice.
The Current State of Affordable Housing
There has been much debate about affordable housing in
academic, political and popular media circuits, but there is no
real consensus on the meaning of affordable or adequate housing.
What determines affordability, adequacy or suitability of
housing? The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (2010)
considers a home affordable if the household spends less than 30
per cent of their before-tax income on housing. This includes
rent or mortgage; all utilities such as electricity, water and
heating; maintenance and repair costs; property taxes and
municipal services. Adequate housing is assessed by the self
report of residents that their home does not need any major
repairs. Suitable housing means that there are enough bedrooms
for the size and make-up of the household according to the
following National Occupancy Standard (NOS) requirements:
One bedroom for each cohabiting adult couple; unattached
household member 18 years of age and over; same-sex pair of
Affordable Housing 5
children under age 18; and additional boy or girl in the
family, unless there are two opposite sex children under 5
years of age, in which case they are expected to share a
bedroom. (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2010)
Core housing need is defined as failing to meet
affordability standards and either one or both of the adequacy
and suitability criterion. Based on this definition, the
incidence rate of core housing need is approximately 12.4% of the
Canadian population, or 12.7 million households (CMHC, 2010). In
order to account for people with an adequate income that choose
to live in expensive and undersized housing, it is important to
consider household income when determining actual need.
Households in the lowest-income quintile (below $30,250) with a
median income of $18,734 made up 80% of households in core
housing need, with an average shelter to income ratio of 37.2%.
In BC, approximately 46,250 families with children who rent fall
into this category (Klein & Copas, 2010). According to First
Call (2010), the living wage, or the income needed for a
household to meet its basic needs, is approximately $33,069
Affordable Housing 6
annually for Metro Vancouver (based on a two parent family with
two children). This means that the bulk of the families
designated as being in core housing need are at significant risk
of poverty. This risk was significantly higher for lower income
and fixed income Canadians as well as female lone-parent
families, seniors, immigrants and Aboriginal households (Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2009; Canadian Index of
Wellbeing, 2009). These numbers indicate that our target group
in most need of a better housing assistance program is about 10%
of Canadian households with an income below $30,000 and living in
inadequate housing conditions.
While there are several programs in place at various levels
of government, the system is mired with shortfalls and gaps in
both accessibility and funding level. Currently, each province
operates their own financial assistance programs aimed at helping
low-income households. These schemes vary widely from province
to province, with different funding levels and bureaucratic
procedures. Many programs use means testing with complicated
application procedures, and may not be available for some groups
Affordable Housing 7
or geographic locations. These programs are not always well
advertised or accessible, limiting participation of those in most
need. There may also be poor coordination between different
programs, and claw-backs from other income supplement programs
such as social assistance, child tax benefit or the federal
childcare supplement. For example, BC’s Rental Assistance
Program (RAP) is not available to families on social assistance.
The shelter allowance is lower than market rent in most of BC
($700 for family of four), forcing many families to spend a
significant amount of the non-shelter portion to pay for housing.
For families exiting social assistance, it is often complicated
to ensure uninterrupted housing assistance. Creating one system
of housing assistance through the tax system will eliminate all
of the complications, redundancies, unequal access and
bureaucratic administration.
Another facet of the housing crisis is the deterioration of
the existing social housing stock. With very little new
independent social housing being created, existing stocks are in
need of repair or rebuilding, putting current occupants in
Affordable Housing 8
jeopardy in terms of quality of life, health and potential
displacement (Klein & Copas, 2010).
What factors lead to this current calamity, and how can we
move towards constructive solutions? The next section explores
historical government policies, economic and demographic factors
that created the current problem, which gives us insight into
what worked in the past and what mistakes to avoid in the future.
Historical Context of the Affordable Housing Crisis
The current affordable housing crisis and concentrated urban
poverty is a product of historical shifts in the socio-economic
and political climate which degraded the status of rental housing
within the broader housing system. The neo-liberal restructuring
in housing and social policy over the last two decades has been
particularly detrimental (Bryant, 2003). In order to begin
exploring new policy ideas and strategies for change, it is
important to understand the historical context in which the
current housing situation has developed.
1) Early Housing Policy: 1946-64
Affordable Housing 9
The early stages of Canadian housing policy dates back to
1946, when the Canada (then Central) Mortgage and Housing
Corporation was established (CMHC, 2010). CMHC had a specific
mandate to build a housing community, mostly consisting of single
detached owner-occupied housing for middle-income families
(Carroll & Jones, 2000). Between 1949 and 1963, federal funding
was provided to municipalities to deal with key housing and
neighbourhood issues, such as slum clearance, urban redevelopment
and neighbourhood improvement under the National Housing Act
(Hulchanski, 2007). Only 12,000 public housing units were built
during this time, largely regarded as a public relations campaign
to deflect mounting public criticism about the lack of affordable
housing for the poor (Hulchanski, 2007). This attitude mirrors
that of today’s government.
2) Post war social development: 1965-75
The post-war era had the largest impact on Canada’s urban
landscape, as wartime production was quickly replaced by
production of consumer goods, and apartments targeted to single
labourers became integral in attracting a large workforce to
Affordable Housing 10
bustling industrial centres. Although homeownership was
encouraged, 42 percent of the population were renters with a
moderate income, many of them single or just starting families
(Bothwell, Drummond & English, 1989). Canadian policy gave
priority to rentals from 1965-75 in order to support industrial
growth and gain support among the rising middle class (Suttor,
2009). In addition to the post war baby boom, immigration also
contributed to the unprecedented population growth, with nearly
one percent of the population immigrating to Canada annually
between 1950−60 and 1965−75 (Suttor, 2009). During this time,
rural to urban migration and new immigrants overloaded large
urban centres, which experienced a 130% rise in population
(Bothwell, Drummond & English, 1989). This era left its mark on
our current built environment in major urban centres: A large
number of older, tall rental apartment buildings geared to
singles and couples without children (Suttor, 2009).
At the same time, Canada was establishing itself as a
welfare state, and there was unparalleled political will to
address the severe housing needs of the poor. There was
Affordable Housing 11
significant growth in social housing development, supported by
tax revenues from the booming economy. Canada started building
subsidized rental housing for low-income households in 1963
through a joint initiative involving the federal, provincial and
municipal governments (Hulchanski, 2007). Provincial and
municipal housing corporations such as BC Housing and Metro
Vancouver Housing Corporation were established to manage the
housing, under agreements with the federal government. About
200,000 public housing units were built under this program by the
1970s, accounting for about 2 percent of Canada’s total housing
stock (Hulchanski, 2007). Many researchers look to the proactive
construction of social housing during the latter half of the
1960s as the most successful Canadian model of social housing
(Leone & Carroll, 2010).
3) Recession and financial restraint: 1975-84
But by the mid 1970s, the decline in industry production
resulted in a recession, with major downscaling of renter income.
The emerging service jobs that replaced manufacturing jobs paid
wages that were so low that many families dropped below the
Affordable Housing 12
poverty line (Hajnal, 1995). The recession most significantly
affected lower-income renters, since they had no savings or home
equity to draw from in the event of unforeseen circumstances such
as job loss, rent increases or illnesses. Housing starts dropped
rapidly, and Vacancy rates fell below 1-2% in many metropolitan
areas (Hulchanski, 2007). As demand eclipsed supply, affordable
housing became increasingly difficult to access, pushing the
poorer renters to the inner city, often in crowded apartments.
This was particularly devastating to those who were dependent on
a low or fixed income such as seniors, lone mother families and
new immigrants. In particular, many new immigrants were only
able to rent in core areas of the inner city, leading to
concentrated urban poverty and increased residential segregation
based on race and socioeconomic status (Hajnal, 1995). This was
the beginning of the rental housing crisis still evident in many
of Canada’s large urban centres.
Meanwhile, the homeownership sector enjoyed relative
stability, often consisting of families with more than one earner
in their peak earning years (Carroll & Jones, 2000). Those who
Affordable Housing 13
can afford to buy a house, largely consisting of white, middle
class families, moved to the suburbs (Hajnal, 1995). During
this time, the effects of policies favouring white, middle class
families became increasingly evident in a growing gap between the
rich and the poor (Clayton, 2010; Hulchanski, 2007).
4) Neoliberal restructuring: 1985-present
CMHC continued to fund the development of social housing
through the 1970 and 80s, until the 1984 election of the
conservative government. This year, several cuts were made to
the social housing program, and a report was released criticizing
the high cost and the inefficiencies of the existing social
housing programs (Hulchanski, 2004). Growing government deficits
shifted the political culture towards financial restraint, and
the affordable housing program became increasingly targeted and
restrictive (Carroll & Jones, 2000). Social housing programs
were progressively scaled back through the 1980s, until 1993 when
the government underwent a complete neo-liberal restructuring
(Klein & Copas, 2010). This was the year in which CMHC froze
expenditures and discontinued the building of new affordable
Affordable Housing 14
housing (Wolfe, 1998). This is regarded as a natural political
consequence, since liberal welfare regimes have been consistently
linked to higher rates of homeownership and lower rental rates
among Western societies (Suttor, 2009). This policy shift
further exacerbated the housing crisis, with a steady increase in
poverty in homelessness, especially in inner cities. By the
1990s, it was increasingly evident that widening income
disparities were being magnified by housing status (Hulchanski,
2007).
Preferential policies for home owners
Hulchanski (2004) argues that throughout recent Canadian
history, social housing programs have always been modest compared
to the programs encouraging home ownership. The history of
renting is entwined with its counterpart, homeownership.
Hulchanski asserts that there was never a policy of neutrality to
treat renters and owners equally, and that the main focus of CMHC
has always been to make the market-based housing system work for
the majority of Canadians. Over the years, CMHC has introduced
programs to help Canadian homeowners such as the Registered
Affordable Housing 15
Homeownership Savings Plan, Assisted Home Ownership Program, the
Canadian Homeownership Stimulation Plan, and the Mortgage Rate
Protection Program (Hulchanski, 2004). Furthermore, Hulchanski
(2007) asserts that programs such as the first time homebuyer’s
tax credit, GST rebates for new housing, non-taxation of capital
gains on primary residences and the home renovation tax credit
can all be regarded as government subsidies for homeowners. For
example, in the 2010 budget, the federal government allocated
over 2 billion on social housing programs and program to assist
renters in the private market. However, this is eclipsed by the
direct spending and tax exemptions associated with private
homeownership in 2009, which totalled 15.8 billion (Clayton,
2010). This now large and affluent ownership sector has
considerable political clout and has been able to maintain the
status quo by financing political campaigns, lobbying, and
garnering majority votes for sympathetic politicians in our
“first past the post” voting system (Hulchanski, 2007). While
many proponents of the free market may argue that the current
housing situation is a product of natural market activities,
Affordable Housing 16
evidence speaks to the contrary. Without decades of federal
government policies favouring homeowners, there will be
significantly less homeowners today (Hulchanski, 2007). This is
not to say that the government should not support homeownership
for families. Rather, there should be equal support for renters
and owners, with extra help for families and vulnerable
individuals experiencing difficulty accessing safe, affordable
housing.
Theoretical Considerations in Family Housing Policy
In Canadian society today, home is regarded as the centre of
family life, fundamental to their health, mental health and
social acceptance. Many families spend a significant amount of
their financial resources on housing, making it a large agenda
item on public policy tables. However, policy considerations
must include the change in housing need throughout the life
course, structural inequalities and the meaning people attribute
to their home and community based on their unique life context.
1) Developmental considerations
Affordable Housing 17
Housing is intimately linked with child development, and
development throughout the life course. A person’s housing needs
and resources they are able to allocate to housing changes over
the life course, and in turn housing significantly affects human
development. Recent studies have demonstrated that housing,
neighbourhoods and communities are distinct factors that affect
the healthy development of a child (Cooper, 2007).
A family’s location in society is embedded in their
neighbourhood context. A neighbourhood’s socioeconomic
composition affects residential stability and the development of
social capital, which in turn fosters community resilience, crime
rates and their ability to advocate for themselves (Guest et al.
2006). There is considerable research linking low neighbourhood
socioeconomic status and poor housing conditions with poor mental
and physical health; reports of abuse and neglect; and the number
of children placed in temporary care (Cohen-Schlanger, 1995;
Hetherington, 1975; Duncan, Brooks-Gunn & Klebanov, 1994; McLoyd,
1998). For example, in their study of the effects of economic
deprivation on child development, Duncan and colleagues (1994)
Affordable Housing 18
found that the child’s home environment accounted for about one-
third of the effect of family income on a child’s IQ. They also
found evidence that regardless of the family’s socioeconomic
status, childhood IQ was higher if they lived in more affluent
neighbourhoods. In addition, lower income neighbourhoods were
associated with a higher prevalence of externalizing behaviour
problems. Although the correlation is relatively weak, there is
some evidence that when a child moves from to a lower poverty
neighbourhood, it results in improvements in their mental health
(Currie, 2009). This suggests that while family socioeconomic
status and intra-family dynamics play a large role in child
development, housing and neighbourhood qualities have a
considerable impact. This effect will likely fluctuate depending
on neighbourhood demographic composition, child friendly
neighbourhood amenities, qualities of schools, access to
transportation and the friendliness of neighbours. Many of
these factors have developmental implications across one’s life
course, so they are important to consider for housing targeted to
adults and seniors as well. This has implications for housing
Affordable Housing 19
policy: Social capital and neighbourhood resilience can be
cultivated by introducing policies to ensure tenure stability,
good transportation and schools, access to age appropriate
amenities. Since poverty is most strongly related to poor
developmental outcomes, affordable housing is a powerful avenue
to address this problem since it increases the family’s net
income after rent.
2) A feminist analysis: the social construction of home
What are the structural influences that have determined the
course of policy? In order to avoid perpetuating existing
structural inequalities, we must understand the ideology in which
these inequalities are rooted in. Why has social policy
consistently favoured homeowners over renters? While neoliberal
political ideology is often cited as the catch-all explanation,
our present day structural inequality is rooted in male dominated
Western cultural values, which have been exacerbated by the
industrial revolution.
In pre-industrialized societies, economic and domestic
activities often took place in the same sphere, with close ties
Affordable Housing 20
to the community (Valentine, 2001). The development of large-
scale industries resulted in the separation of the home work
life, with corresponding shifts in ideas about men and women’s
roles (McDowell, 1983). The home is not just a structure or
shelter, but is also the hub of social connections and has a
wider cultural and symbolic meaning (Valentine, 2001). In
Western traditions, the workplace has been constructed as public
space, and the home a private space, which is safe, loving and
nurturing (Valentine, 2001). Women’s care activities and
housekeeping became associated with the private space of the
home, while the men worked outside to support the family and
improve their social status. This privatization of family life
is embodied in the post-war suburban, single detached housing in
North America and Europe (England, 1991). This conservative
ideal of a two parent family with a father working in the city
and a nurturing at-home mother engaged in childcare and domestic
chores has been reinforced through decades of social policy
favouring nuclear families (Valentine, 2001). These patriarchal
social policies with assumptions about household roles served to
Affordable Housing 21
marginalize anyone who did not fit this ideal, including lone
parents, seniors, non-heterosexual couples, people with
disabilities, and new immigrant families. In particular, women
continue to face significant barriers to obtain well paid work
due to the lack of affordable childcare, poor public
transportation (especially in suburbs), lower wages and the
demands of balancing care-giving activities with work life
(England, 1991).
Housing policy must therefore include a careful
consideration of the social construction of gendered division of
work and care activities (Smith, 2005).
3) Ethic of Care
The ethic of care is an ethical framework developed in the
feminist tradition to challenge the dominant liberal justice
paradigm (Hankivsky, 2004). The ethic of care emphasizes the
importance of relationships, human interdependence and the need
to give special attention to people who are marginalized or
particularly vulnerable due to power differentials. The
principle of contextual sensitivity is central to the ethic of
Affordable Housing 22
care, as it takes into account people’s values,
interconnectedness and history, allowing us to meet people where
they are at (Hankivsky, 2004) An ethic of care encourages policy
makers to be responsive to the voices and values of marginalized
people. In the realm of housing, an ethic of care argues that
the liberal justice ethic of the current right-to-housing
campaign is still largely a one size fits all model, and does not
take into account the diverse experiences of different groups
(Reitz-Pustejovsky, 2002).
While policymakers often assume that the home is a positive
place, epitomized by the expression “there is no place like
home,” people’s actual experiences of home do not always fit this
ideal. The meaning people attribute to their home depends on
their individual circumstances, and changes over the life course
(Valentine, 2001). While some may regard the home as a space of
safety and nurturing, it can also be a site of conflict,
oppression or violence for others. For some women, a home may
represent constraints to domestic chores. For those experiencing
oppression in the outside world, the home may come to symbolize
Affordable Housing 23
protection and solidarity, a safe haven where they can be free of
stigma and discrimination (Hooks, 1991). The home may be a place
of additional pressure or rejection for non-heterosexual youth if
their family is not accepting. A young adult may pass through
several precarious rental arrangements without experiencing
attachment to any single dwelling. Research indicates that the
importance attributed to the home increases with age, with
seniors displaying the greatest degree of emotional attachment to
their homes (Cuba & Hummon, 1993). The developmental and
contextual meaning people attribute to their home has significant
policy implications. For example, even if social policy creates
beautiful supported housing for seniors, it may be met by great
resistance to institutional care, fear of loss of their sense of
roots, identity and control. Similarly, a homeless person may
refuse to enter a shelter or live in supported housing if they
associate it with fear of violence, theft, social isolation,
conflict, loneliness, pests or past failure. Housing policy
that assumes that the women can readily stay home and take on the
bulk of the care work also places significant constraints on
Affordable Housing 24
women’s life choices. Housing policy must therefore include
considerations about
4) Human rights perspective
In their 2009 Report on Adequate Housing, the United Nations
expressed concerns about the number of people in inadequate
housing and living conditions, rising housing prices, and the
decrease in public housing in Canada. Canada is a signatory to
several international human rights conventions affirming the
right to adequate housing, including the Universal Declaration of
Human Rights; International Covenant on Economic, Social and
Cultural Rights; and International Covenant on Civil and
Political Rights. These instruments imply the obligation of the
state to ensure access to adequate housing for all Canadians
(United Nations, 2009). For example, the Universal Declaration
of Human Rights Article 25 (1) states that:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for
the health and well-being of himself and of his family,
including food, clothing, housing and medical care and
necessary social services, and the right to security in the
Affordable Housing 25
event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old
age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his
control. (United Nations, 1948)
Domestic courts, however, cannot directly enforce any of these
International human rights treaties signed by Canada unless they
have been incorporated into Canadian domestic law through federal
or provincial legislatures (Porter, 2004). While section 7 and
15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms uphold the
right to “life, liberty and security,” it does not explicitly
establish the right to housing. Porter (2005) argues that
section 7 and 15 cannot be upheld without adequate housing, and
should be grounds for court decisions when dealing with
violations of the right to adequate housing.
The historical context, geographical and built environment
and the theoretical perspectives discussed in this section are
all important factors have all informed the following policy
recommendations.
Affordable Housing 26
Policy Recommendations
1) A national housing strategy and legal recognition of right to
housing
First and foremost, the development of a national housing
strategy is imperative in addressing a national scale housing
crisis. This national housing strategy must be developed in
collaboration not only with provincial and municipal governments,
but also representatives from the community including
marginalized groups.
The shortage of affordable housing is a national problem,
since it affects almost every major city in Canada, and is a
direct result of structural forces that are national in scale.
Leone and Carroll (2010) argue that much of the breakdown of
housing policy has been attributed to the devolution of housing
policy to provinces, municipalities and third parties through the
1980 s and 90s. While it is unrealistic to expect the federal
government to exercise the power and control it once had, it can
still play a leadership role and help negotiate a coordinated
strategy that works for the unique needs of provinces,
Affordable Housing 27
municipalities and citizen groups. This is exactly the policy
direction suggested by Bill C304, a Private Members’ Bill
currently in its third reading in the national Parliament.
(House of Commons of Canada, 2010). This bill advocates for a
collaborative national housing strategy and the explicit
inclusion of the right to housing in domestic law. During recent
years, the federal government is demonstrating increased interest
in getting involved in the development of affordable housing, so
the political timing is right. A national housing strategy will
lay the foundation for the implementation of the following
recommendations. Furthermore, a right to housing legislation in
domestic law will open up legal avenues for experiencing severe
housing marginalization. Care must be taken when crafting the
wording of the law to ensure that adequate housing and
unacceptable living conditions are well defined and legal aid is
available to ensure protection of the most vulnerable citizens
without massively overloading government resources.
2) Federal housing assistance program
Affordable Housing 28
In order to provide immediate assistance to struggling
families and streamline the various housing assistance, I propose
a federally administered program for housing assistance
administered through the tax system. This program will be aimed
at low income renters and homeowners alike.
This can be modeled after the child tax benefit, with a
funding formula that takes into account family income, family
composition, people with disabilities or special care needs, and
market rent levels. Most of this information is already
collected through the tax system, so it will require minimum
additional information on the tax form. Cutting many of the
current tax breaks for homeowners and applying a system that
gives everyone income based assistance will likely not result in
extra spending. However, if there are significant budget
constraints, the housing assistance can be in the form of a tax
credit, which is only paid out in monthly instalments if the
credits exceed the tax payable.
The downside is that the housing subsidy may end up
functioning as an indirect subsidy to private landlords,
Affordable Housing 29
reinforcing some of the exploitation and power differentials that
exist in the current market-based system. While the subsidy
will help provide a stable source of rent money, it may not
guarantee tenure stability or adequate living conditions, since
it does nothing to protect renters from poor maintenance, rent
increases or evictions. While policy changes such as better
mechanisms to ensure proper up-keeping of rental properties,
protect tenants from eviction and rent control are recommended as
part of the solution, it is not an adequate long-term solution.
The only way to secure a stable, affordable housing stock is to
build more social housing.
3) Investment in building social housing
As a long term solution, provision of subsidised housing is
the most desirable model, as it provides a stable supply of
housing for low income families. Publically owned housing is
often better maintained and of better quality, and its planning
can include considerations for the neighbourhood context,
ensuring the suitability of the environment and availability of
amenities for the target residents. There is less financial
Affordable Housing 30
stress for tenants, less crowding, and more secure tenancy,
allowing for the development of neighbourhood support networks
(CMHC 2010). However, the current system of subsidized housing
is mired with long wait lists, limited choice and mobility, the
clustering of low-income renters in one location, and cookie-
cutter designs that cry out social housing. Many of the current
social housing stock are not well maintained, and the amenities
are shabby compared to surrounding market homes in the
neighborhood. To address these potential shortcomings requires a
major overhaul of the system. The Calgary Homeless Foundation
suggests an investment of $2.5 billion in addition to current
funding levels to create 30,000 to 50,000 units of affordable
housing over the next two years. In addition, the federal
housing rehabilitation programs need to be significantly expanded
to maintain and retrofit existing substandard homes. This
includes collaboration with other ministries and local
organizations to ensure adequate neighbourhood amenities such as
childcare and senior’s centers, community centers, medical
facilities and parks to support the developmental needs of all
Affordable Housing 31
residents. Attention should be given to good building design as
well, to reduce stigmatization and foster neighborhood pride and
self esteem.
Since building new social housing is time consuming, it will
not provide an immediate fix to the current massive affordable
housing shortage. This model alone will not have the flexibly in
the future to increase supply upon demand. While CMHC is the
logical office to administer funding, set standards and provide
expertise for social housing, there should be more municipal
involvement in the actual building of social housing. Since
social housing may be subject to community resistance (known as
NIMBY, an acronym for the phrase not in my back yard), there is a
large role for municipalities to do develop support for
affordable housing initiatives (Oakley, 2002). Furthermore, it
will be important to maintain dialogue and collaborative
relationships with existing non-profit housing providers to
encourage creative solutions to increase affordable housing
options.
Limitations of Housing Policy
Affordable Housing 32
Even if the government did introduce regulations and assumed
a larger role in housing policy, there are significant
limitations, since 95% of the housing stock is situated in the
private market. In a liberal capitalist free market, one’s
position in the housing market is intimately linked with the
distribution of wealth, the exercise of power, and maintenance of
the status quo (Hulchanski, 2007). Housing is only one facet of
the multiple, overlapping inequalities perpetuated by our social,
economic and political system. There is only so much housing
policy can do to address these greater forces of social
inequalities.
It is also difficult for laws to regulate housing
discrimination. This can be in the form of neighbourhood
opposition to social housing, or discrimination of landlords
towards certain tenants they deem undesirable. There are some
federal, provincial and territorial human rights legislation is
in place to address overt discrimination, but there is not much
recourse for generalized intolerance and prejudice. These laws
are designed to prevent landlords from treating a person unfairly
Affordable Housing 33
or refusing tenancy based on race, colour, ethnic origin,
religion, sex, sexual orientation, age, family status, a
disability (mental or physical) or receipt of public assistance.
However, it is difficult to enforce these legislations, and there
are very little options available if one’s discriminated against,
due the complicated and costly legal process and ongoing cutbacks
to legal aid (Brewin & Govender, 2010).
There are also budgetary constraints, as it is difficult to
gauge the magnitude of cost to the government if our domestic law
endorses positive housing rights. The need for affordable
housing can greatly increase during unforeseen events such a
recession, natural disaster or war. Since it implies direct
government responsibility to provide housing, it can open the
door to many interest groups to make demands for the government
to provide funding for various specialized housing, asserting
their right to culturally or spiritually appropriate housing.
If too many people sue the government to settle their housing
problems, it can clog up the legal system and cost the government
a large amount of legal dollars that could have been spent on
Affordable Housing 34
actual housing. Designing contextually sensitive housing and
communities that address family care needs is also much more
costly than cookie cutter approaches. But for the long run,
care-oriented communities with strong social ties will
significantly increase the quality of life for Canadians.
Financially, this will translate into considerable savings to the
healthcare and criminal justice system.
Conclusion
The lack of affordable housing is a complex social issue
requiring a combination of policy instruments and public
education to move towards a solution. While policy instruments
can provide an overall framework to address social problems, the
bulk of the responsibility is placed on government,
underemphasizing the responsibility and obligations of
communities and the private sector as being part of the solution
(Ife & Fiske, 2006). It is clear that market forces will not
supply the affordable rental housing that is so desperately
needed, and Canada needs to catch up to other Western nations
that have a much larger social housing sector, and a much smaller
Affordable Housing 35
housing problem (Hulchanski, 2002). A focus on the human right
to adequate housing for all Canadians, which was the basis of
housing policy from the mid-1960s to the mid-1980s, is essential
to promote sustainable urban development, human development and
social cohesion (Hulchanski, 2002). The policy suggestions in
this paper are only part of the solution. As long as
discriminatory attitudes and Western libertarian ideology of
personal responsibility prevails in our society, we will fail to
gain public support and continue to lose the social justice
battle.
Social workers are well positioned to promote social justice
and caring communities through community development, public
education and advocacy (Meda, 2009). At the micro level, we are
involved in actively listening to the stories of our clients
experiencing housing challenges. This gives us a rich
understanding of personal and contextual factors, which we can
bring to higher level government and social service agencies
developing housing policy. At the mezzo level, we can organize
community awareness campaigns and encourage citizens to take a
Affordable Housing 36
proactive role in increasing affordable housing in their
neighbourhood. We can also advocate for affordable housing at
the municipal, provincial and federal level by participating in
political action, supporting politicians that are aligned with
social work values, writing letters, and campaigning through our
professional associations.
At the same time, social workers may reinforce the status
quo if we are not reflective of our own biases, social location
and world view (Taylor & White, 2000). Our societal values and
understanding of social justice was developed in the context of a
Western liberal ideology and capitalism, which privileges the
private market and shapes our idea of what is reasonable, or even
possible (Ife, 2008). As social work education is now shifting
towards a more relational and context-sensitive ethic of care, we
are in the position to engage our profession in a more bottom-up
and participatory social justice movement.
In his December 2001 budget speech, Paul Martin, the
Minister of Finance at the time, declared that “Housing is a
basic need of every Canadian, seniors and young families alike,
Affordable Housing 37
and meeting that need must be the responsibility of us all.”
(Canada, Minister of Finance, 2001) Although the government’s
commitment to this ideal has been haphazard at best, I want to
emphasize that this must continue to be the mandate for Canadian
housing policy. Even if our advocacy and community development
efforts do not yield the desired change in the short run, it is
important to keep affordable housing in the forefront of public
and political attention. The window of opportunity may open any
time, based on economic, political, social and other unforeseen
conditions. There has been a gradual shift towards increased
support for affordable housing, and we need to be ready to seize
the opportunity to move the agenda forward when the window of
opportunity opens up.
Affordable Housing 38
References
Badcock, B. (1984). Unfairly Structured Cities. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
BC Housing (2010). Annual Report 2009/10. Retrieved on December
2, 2010 from [http://www.bchousing.org]
BC Housing (2010). BC Housing Service Plan (2006-2011). Retrieved
on November 3, 2010 from [www.bchousing.org]
BC Housing (2010). The Housing Continuum. Retrieved on November
1, 2010 from [www.bchousing.org]
Bothwell, R. Drummond, I. & English, J. (1989). Canada since 1945.
Toronto : University of Toronto Press
Bursik, R. J., and Grasmick, H. G. (1993). Neighborhoods and Crime:
The Dimensions of Effective Community Control. New York : Lexington.
Butterwick, S. (2010). Meaningful Training Programs for BC
Welfare Recipients with Multiple Barriers: Help first, not
work first. Retrieved on November 5, 2010 from
[www.policyalternatives.ca]
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2000). Special studies
on 1996 census data: Housing conditions of immigrants.
Affordable Housing 39
Retrieved on December 3, 2010 from [https://www03.cmhc-
schl.gc.ca]
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2009). Housing in
Canada On-Line, based on the 2006 Census. Retrieved on
November 3, 2010 from [www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca]
Carroll, B. & Jones, R. (2000). The road to innovation,
convergence or inertia: Devolution in housing policy in
Canada. Canadian Public Policy, 26(3). 277–293.
Cater, J., & Jones, T. (1989). Social Geography: An Introduction to
Contemporary Issues. New York: Edward Arnold.
City of North Vancouver. (2006). Summary of Affordable Housing
Action Forum - May 6, 2006. Retrieved on November 1, 2010
from [www.cnv.org]
Clampet-Lundquist, S. (2010), “Everyone Had Your Back”: Social
Ties, Perceived Safety, and Public Housing Relocation. City &
Community, 9. 87–108.
Clayton, F. A. (2010). Government subsidies to homeowners versus
renters in Ontario and Canada. Canadian Federation of
Affordable Housing 40
Apartment Associations. Retrieved on December 2, 2010 from
[www.cfaa-fcapi.org]
CMHC. (2010). 2010 Canadian Housing Observer. Retrieved on
December 7, 2010 from [ http://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca]
Coleman, J. S. (1988). “Social Capital in the Creation of Human
Capital,” American Journal of Sociology, 94, S95–S120.
Cuba, L. & Hummon, D.M. (1993). A Place to Call Home:
Identification with Dwelling, Community, and Region. The
Sociological Quarterly, 34(1), 111-131.
Currie, J. (2009). Healthy, Wealthy, and Wise: Socioeconomic
Status, Poor Health in Childhood, and Human Capital
Development. Journal of Economic Literature, 47(1), 87–122.
D’Addario, S, Hiebert, D. & Sherrell, K. (2005). “Sleeping on the
Margins: The Role of Social Capital in the Housing Patterns
of Refugee Claimants in the Greater Vancouver Regional
District. Master’s Thesis. Retrieved on November 2, 2010
from [pi.library.yorku.ca].
Department of Finance (2001). The Budget Speech 2001: Securing
progress in an uncertain world. December 10, 2001. The
Affordable Housing 41
Honourable Paul Martin P.C., M.P., Minister of Finance.
Retrieved on December 3, 2010 from
[http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca]
Drummond, D. (2003). Affordable Housing in Canada: In Search of a
New Paradigm. TD Economics, Special Report. Retrieved on
November 3, 2010 from [www.td.com/economics]
Duncan, G. J., Brooks-Gunn, J. & Klebanov, P.K. (1994). Economic
deprivation and early childhood development. Child Development,
65(2), 296-318.
Duncan, G., Brooks-Gunn, J., & Klebanov, E. (1994). Economic
deprivation and early childhood development. Child Development,
65, 296-318.
Dunn, J. R. & Hayes, M.V. (2000). Social inequality, population
health, and housing: a study of two Vancouver
neighbourhoods. Social Science & Medicine, 51, 563-587.
England, K. V. L. (1991). Gender relations and the spatial
structure of the city. Geoforum, 22(2), 135-147.
Affordable Housing 42
Guest, A. M., Cover, J. K., Matsueda, R. L., and Kubrin, C. E.
(2006). Neighborhood context and neighboring ties. City &
Community, 5(4), 363–385.
Hajnal, Z. L. (1995). The nature of concentrated urban poverty in
Canada and the United States. The Canadian Journal of Sociology,
20(4), 497-528.
Harris, R., & Pratt, G. (1993). The meaning of home,
homeownership, and public policy. In L. S. Bourne, & D. F.
Ley, The Changing Social Geography of Canadian Cities.
Montreal and Kingston: McGill-Queen's Press.
Harvey, D. (1973). Social Justice and the City. Oxford:
Blackwell.
House of Commons of Canada (2010). BILL C-304, 3rd Session, 40th
Parliament. Retrieved on November 4, 2010 from
[www2.parl.gc.ca]
Howden-Chapman, P. (2002). Housing and inequalities in health.
Journal of Epidemiology and Community Health. 56(9). 645–646.
Affordable Housing 43
Hulchanski, J.D. (2002). Housing policy for tomorrow’s cities.
Discussion paper F|27. Canadian Policy Research Networks.
Retrieved on November 27, 2010 from [http://www.cprn.org]
Institute of Wellbeing (2009). Canadian Index of Wellbeing (CIW).
Retrieved on November 1, 2010 from [www.ciw.ca]
Kasarda, J. D. & Janowitz, M. (1974). Community Attachment in
Mass Society, American Sociological Review, 39(3), 328–339.
Klein, S. & Copas, L. (2010). Unpacking the Housing Numbers: How
much new social housing is BC building? Canada Centre for
Policy Alternatives. Retrieved on November 1, 2010 from
[www.policyalternatives.ca]
Leone, R. & Carroll, B.W. (2010). Decentralisation and devolution
in Canadian social housing policy. Environment and Planning C:
Government and Policy, 28, 389-404.
Mann, P. H. (1954). The Concept of Neighborliness. American Journal
of Sociology, (60), 163–168.
McDowell, L. (1983). Towards an understanding of the gender
division of urban space. Environment and Planning D: Society and
Space, 1(1), 59-72.
Affordable Housing 44
McLoyd, V.C. (1998). Socioeconomic disadvantage and child
development. American Psychology, 53. 185–204.
Merry, S. E. (1981). Urban Danger: Life in a Neighborhood of Strangers.
Philadelphia : Temple University.
Ministery of Finance (2010). Budget 2010: Leading the way on jobs
and growth. Tabled in the House of Commons by the Honourable
James M. Flaherty, P.C., M.P. Minister of Finance. Retrieved
on December 1, 2010 from [www.fin.gc.ca]
Pomeroy, S. (2001). Toward a Comprehensive Affordable Housing
Strategy for Canada. Caledon Institute for Social Policy.
Retrieved on November 6, 2010 from [caledoninst.org]
Portes, A. (1998). Social Capital: Its Origins and Applications
in Modern Sociology. Annual Review of Sociology, 24, 1–24.
Rainwater, L. (1966). “Fear and the House-as-Haven in the Lower
Class,” Journal of the American Institute of Planners 32(1), 23–31.
Renaud, J, Piché, V. and Godin, J.F. (2003). One’s bad and the
other one’s worse: Differences in economic integration
between asylum seekers and refugees selected abroad.’
Canadian Ethnic Studies, 35. 86-99.
Affordable Housing 45
Richards, T., Cohen, M & Klein, S. (2010). Working for a living
wage: Making paid work meet basic family needs in Metro
Vancouver. Vancouver: CCPA, First Call Child and Youth
Advocacy Coalition, and the Metro Vancouver Living Wage for
Families Campaign, 2010. Retrieved on November 1, 2010 from
[www.policyalternatives.ca]
Rose, D. & Ray, B. (2001). The housing situation of refugees in
Montreal three years after arrival. Journal of International
Migration and Integration, 2(4). 493–527
Sampson, R., Raudenbush, S., & Earls, F. (1997). Neighborhoods
and Violent Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective
Efficacy. Science, 277(5328), 918–924.
Smandych, E. (2010). Applying for Subsidized Housing in BC. Here
to Help: BC Partners for Mental Health and Addictions
Information. Retrieved on November 3, 2010 from
[www.heretohelp.bc.ca]
Steele, M. (1998). Canadian housing allowances inside and outside
the welfare system. Canadian Public Policy, 24(2). 209-232
Affordable Housing 46
Suttor, G. (2009). Rental paths from postwar to present: Canada
compared. Cities Centre, University of Toronto. Retrieved on
December 3, 2010 from [http://www.urbancentre.utoronto.ca]
Taylor, R. (1996). Neighborhood responses to disorder and local
attachments: The systemic model of attachment, social
disorganization, and neighborhood use value. Sociological Forum,
11(1), 41–74.
The Calgary Homeless Foundation. (2010). Facts on Homelessness.
Retrieved on November 10, 2010 from
[http://www.calgaryhomeless.com]
Wolfe, J. M. (1998). Canadian housing policy in the nineties.
Housing Studies, 13, 121–133.
Top Related