The Government of Canada announced its 2022 budget on April 7, with housing being among the top areas receiving investments during this pandemic recovery period. This budget is arriving at the halfway mark of the government’s ten-year National Housing Strategy (NHS), and there remains much room for improvement.
As investment dollars in the NHS have increased significantly since the inception of the strategy half a decade ago, the 2022 budget still does not direct adequate funds in the most effective way to address the housing needs of those living on low- to moderate-incomes. For many of these households, homeownership is well out of reach, while rental housing and alternative housing choices are becoming increasingly inadequate, inaccessible and unaffordable. Additionally, experiences of homelessness are growing in Canada.
While the 2022 budget falls short in responding to the urgent housing needs of those most impacted by the housing affordability and homelessness crisis, we analyze here the key housing investments that have been made, followed by a detailed outline of the amounts dedicated to specific housing initiatives.
Overall, this is a modest budget, with less spending than in the years before. A major portion of the budget is directed toward housing initiatives, with a total of $1.95 billion to be spent this fiscal year, and a spending promise of an additional $7.45 billion until 2027. There are also additional funds allocated towards Indigenous housing and infrastructure projects outlined in the budget. However, despite the fact that some of the housing investments are promising, they are unlikely to significantly improve housing affordability, adequacy and accessibility across Canada.
Arguably the most significant new funding initiative introduced in this budget is the investment in building new cooperative housing. The government plans to construct an estimated 6,000 new cooperative housing units, which is a major commitment to non-market housing options after decades of underfunding of the cooperative sector.
The government has also committed to adjusting its existing programs to increase the affordable housing supply. Affordability targets for the Rental Construction Financing Initiative (RCFI) will be increased to 40% of the total number of projects funded, and the government will adopt a new definition for affordability under this program. These changes respond to the important findings of a recent report from the National Housing Council, indicating that only three per cent of units created through the program to date would be affordable to lower-income Canadians. It remains unclear whether, with these measures, the government will prioritize funding for deeply affordable rental housing projects with rents considerably lower than the 80% average market rate through its commitments under the RCFI.
In addition, the government will continue its support for the Rapid Housing Initiative (RHI), one of its most effective programs in generating deeply affordable housing. This investment is estimated to create 6,000 new housing units that will be affordable to lower-income Canadians, with a quarter directed towards projects prioritizing women. Unfortunately, the government did not make the RHI a permanent fixture, and it remains unclear whether this initiative will continue beyond 2024.
The government also announced the new Housing Accelerator Fund, with a $4 billion commitment over five years. This new fund is aimed at supporting municipalities to increase their supply of housing by speeding up developments. The details of the program and requirements are yet to be developed. The government also plans to encourage the creation of secondary suites through its new Multi-generational Home Tax credit. This new fund has been allocated $5 million for this year, with increases in funding in year two and beyond. To stabilize housing for Canadians experiencing housing need, the budget continues to include funding for the Canada Housing Benefit (CHB). It includes an investment of $475 million in 2022-23 to cover a one-time $500 payment to households facing acute affordability challenges. To date, the CHB’s reach has been limited when considering the number of Canadians facing housing affordability challenges, and with its restrictive eligibility criteria, many Canadians will be unable to access this benefit.
The government has also committed $150 million over two years to build affordable housing in Nunavut, Northwest Territories and Yukon.
Finally, the government has indicated that it will conduct a review on the impact of increased commodification of housing, what it refers to as “housing as an asset class”, on renters and homeowners. Actions may be adopted following the review, which includes considerations for possible tax treatments of large corporations involved in speculation in the housing market.
The government committed to funding Indigenous housing through an investment of $4 billion over seven years, including funds for First Nations housing on reserves, and for housing in Inuit and Métis Communities. While this is an important step, it may be insufficient to have a significant impact on enhancing housing adequacy for First Nations communities. The Assembly of First Nations estimates that the cost of upgrading First Nations’ housing stock will be much higher, at $44 billion.
For years, Indigenous housing advocates have called on the federal government to establish an Urban, Rural and Northern Indigenous housing strategy, a recommendation that was once again formally made to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion through the National Housing Council’s recent report. The budget commits funding to develop this long-overdue strategy, however, some Indigenous advocates are disappointed that the strategy is not explicitly led by Indigenous communities themselves.
The budget allocates considerable funds to retrofitting programs. Several initiatives are detailed, including a new initiative called the Greener Neighbourhoods Pilot Program. The program will target up to six community housing neighbourhoods to pilot the Energiesprong model, an approach to conducting retrofitting through larger-scale neighbourhood initiatives. Additionally, the expansion of the Canada Greener Homes Loan Program will include low-interest loans and grants to providers of low-income housing. It is unclear whether the government plans to approach these retrofitting initiatives in tandem with capital repair projects, which combined can more effectively increase residents’ health and safety, while reducing emissions and preserving the existing housing stock. It is also important that these projects maintain housing affordability levels and ensure that existing residents are the main beneficiaries of these investments.
The budget includes further commitments to various programs and initiatives meant to support the path to homeownership. Rent-to-own projects continue to receive funding support. The First-Time Home Buyers’ Tax Credit has been doubled and the government has indicated that it will explore ways to make the program more flexible. A new Tax-Free First Home Savings Account was introduced with a total budget of $725 million, which will come into effect next year.
Overall, the budget includes commitments for several important housing initiatives. However, it falls short in making a major contribution to solving the affordable housing crisis or supporting the growing housing needs of low- to moderate-income Canadians. Missing are commitments to urgently tackle the housing adequacy crisis in long-term care homes, plans to repair and preserve the aging affordable housing stock, efforts to build affordable rental housing options, expanding supports to women experiencing hidden homelessness, and effective strategies to tackle housing financialization. Despite the government’s priority to support women and children who are survivors of domestic violence to access stable housing, the budget does not include specific investments to reach this goal.
Additionally, the taxation policies outlined in the budget do not go far enough to effectively regulate domestic investors or curb speculative behaviours in the housing market.
Disappointingly, the budget does not include a commitment to advancing housing as a human right, as legislated in its National Housing Strategy Act. A rights-based approach would ensure that programs and funding allocations, even in the current recessionary context, effectively respond to the needs of those most impacted by the housing crisis.
Here is a detailed outline of some of the 2022 federal budget’s housing commitments:
Cooperative housing is an affordable, secure and inclusive housing option for many Canadians. The new Co-operative Housing Development Program will support the construction of 6,000 new cooperative housing units to be built over five years. This is the largest investment in cooperative housing by the federal government in 30 years. It shows the government’s renewed commitment to community-based non-market housing options. The 2022 budget allocates $500 million in funding and $1 billion in loans for the new program. The program will allocate $6 million this year, which is to be increased to $34 million next year and above $70 million in the following years. A portion of funding under this new stream will be redirected funds from the National Co-Investment Fund and the Rental Construction Financing Initiative. The program will be implemented in partnership with the Cooperative Housing Federation of Canada.
The 2022 budget invests $1.5 billion over two years to the Rapid Housing Initiative (RHI), with most of the funds earmarked for this fiscal year, and with at least 25 per cent dedicated to women-focused housing projects. This funding stream has proven to be an effective way to build deeply affordable, supportive housing and to urgently respond to the needs of vulnerable Canadians. While this funding is welcome and an important initiative, it is disappointing that the government has not committed to making it a permanent fixture with future funding commitments.
The new Housing Accelerator Fund received considerable funding to allow the federal government to support municipalities to streamline and speed up the construction of housing projects. It received a budget of $4 billion over four years, to help create 100,000 new housing units, with the majority of funds flowing after the second year. The implementation plan of this fund is yet to be revealed.
No new money has been allocated to the National Co-Investment Fund (NCIF). However, the government will advance $2.9 billion from already provisioned funds, speeding up the delivery of planned investments so that all remaining funds will be spent by 2025-26. The government aims to accelerate the creation of up to 4,300 new housing units and the repair of up to 17,800 units through the NCIF. The budget did not specify whether this fund will be streamlined and how it intends to ensure that it can more effectively support affordable housing projects.
The budget commits to investing $4 billion over seven years in housing for Indigenous Communities. This includes $2.4 billion over five years to support First Nations housing on reserves, as well as funds to support housing in Inuit and Métis Communities. In addition, through a $300 million investment over five years, the government will co-develop and launch an Urban, Rural, and Northern Indigenous Housing strategy.
The budget also outlines the government’s $75 million plan for the implementation of the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act, with $4 million budgeted for this year. Through funding and partnership with Justice Canada and Natural Resources Canada, it plans to co-develop an action plan with Indigenous partners.
The budget outlines the government’s commitment to reform the Rental Construction Financing Initiative (RCFI) by enhancing affordability and energy efficiency requirements. It announced that eligible developers could be granted partial loan forgiveness for projects that significantly exceed these requirements. The budget announced that the RCFI’s goal will be to invest at least 40 per cent of its funds in affordable housing developments. The definition of affordability under this stream has also been revised. Affordability will now be defined as rents that are at or below 80 per cent of average market rent. However, in many cities across Canada where rents have skyrocketed, these affordability targets fail to create housing that is deeply affordable.
In its attempt to curb rising prices of residential homes, the budget outlined the federal government’s plans to prohibit investors who are not Canadian citizens or permanent residents from buying residential homes for a two-year period. A list of exemptions is provided, including for international students or people residing in Canada on work permits. Given that a major portion of the speculative and investor-driven demand is from domestic players, it is doubtful that this two-year ban will have any significant impact on reducing residential housing prices.
The Reaching Home stream is part of Canada’s main strategy to end homelessness, funding initiatives to support those experiencing or at risk of homelessness. The government announced new funding starting in 2024 of $562.2 million over two years, which will go to Infrastructure Canada to continue the funding for Reaching Home, ensuring the continuity of this program.
The Canada Housing Benefit received an additional $475 million to provide a one-time payment of $500 to recipients. The details of this one-time payment are yet to be released. Launched in 2020, the Canada Housing Benefit represents a joint funding commitment between federal and provincial governments of $4 billion over eight years.
The government has proposed a new tax credit to provide up to $7,500 for homeowners to build a secondary suite to be used by a senior or a person with a disability. Next year, in the 2023-24 fiscal year, households can use this credit to claim a portion of their renovation and construction costs for secondary suites.
Stories of discrimination in rental housing are far too common in Canada. Many advocates have long pointed to discrimination in housing as a systemic issue caused by patterns of behavior, policies or practices that are a part of the structures of our society which put certain groups at a disadvantage.
What does systemic discrimination in housing look like in practice? From passive aggressive comments to discriminatory housing posts, three women share their stories about their challenges finding and maintaining safe and accessible housing in the Greater Toronto Area (GTA).
Dorrett White is a wife, mother, and working actor who has had roles on several shows, including The Boys, What We Do in the Shadows, and Self Made: Inspired by the Life of Madam C.J. Walker.
White remembers first experiencing discrimination in housing when her and her now-husband were looking for a place to rent in the Beaches neighbourhood where they could grow into as a family. White is Black and her husband is Latino. Though they looked good on paper – her credit was great and his job paid more than minimum wage – they endured what seemed like endless rejection.
“Every landlord that we went to, they would tell us, ‘alright we’ll take your information and we will give you a call back’ and we never heard from any of them,” White said. “Even when we offered personal references, a number of employment letters, and people who could vouch for us, we would still never hear back. And we would always get told and reminded that ‘parties can’t happen here’ or not to invite too many people over. I’m not sure what that was about but that was a common thread in every single landlord we met on that journey.”
After a long search, White and her husband were accepted for a one-bedroom apartment, but they would soon find themselves on a difficult rental search again.
For Jasmine Jennings, a 24-year-old former youth in care and crown ward about to embark a Bachelor of Social Work, the challenge of finding suitable housing began when she turned 18.
“For a lot of youth in care, turning 18 is nothing to be excited about and the only gift you are guaranteed on this day is abandonment,” Jennings shared. “While other 17-year-olds around me were focused on finding the perfect prom dress or walking across the stage, I was thinking about homelessness.”
Jennings said that time spent in care often leads to a belief “that putting up with abuse, mistreatment, or just generally being uncomfortable is something that I have to do.” The belief that she did not deserve safe and stable housing was with her when she started to look for a place to rent after being released from foster care.
There were other challenges facing her, as well.
“I am disabled and Black, and I am a woman of low income, so it feels like all of the odds are stacked against me,” she said.
“Because I am disabled, my income is ODSP. And a lot of times, landlords do not want to accept someone who is disabled. In fact, in a lot of housing postings, you’ll see ‘job letter or recent paystubs required’ and this usually leaves me living in spaces that aren’t safe and don’t meet my accommodations,” Jennings shared. “I have had knives pulled on me, I have had inappropriate sexual advances. I’ve been locked out. I have been told that I have to be home at 10:00 p.m. I have paid money in cash then been told that I haven’t paid, so I had to pay double. So, being left to live in spaces that aren’t safe has been really challenging.
White also found herself renting an apartment that she did not feel comfortable with due to discrimination in her rental search.
After enjoying their apartment in the Beaches neighbourhood for a couple of years, White and her husband sought to find a bigger place after having a daughter. Realizing that the Beaches would be too expensive for their budget, they decided to try looking in Scarborough. While Scarborough had more apartments in their budget, it was still difficult for them to find a landlord willing to rent to them.
“We thought it would be easier to look for an apartment as a family, but funnily enough, it felt like it was much harder,” White said. Instead of being told, ‘Oh, we don’t know if you can afford this place,’ we would be told things like ‘Oh, this one-bedroom or this two-bedroom might not actually work for your family’ or ‘no children allowed here.’ ”
After “months and months” of searching, they eventually found someone that would rent to them. Though there were some red flags, such as the landlord only accepting cash as rent payment, they took the place.
“Out of desperation, we decided okay, this guy said we could come in, so let’s go. That ended up being one of the biggest mistakes we ever made,” White said.
Sheila Warner is Gitxsan, a member of the wolf clan, and her spirit name is May-may-zey May-ga-zay, Eagle from all Directions. She is a licensed paralegal with Aboriginal Legal Services, working primarily in eviction prevention.
One major housing issue that Warner sees with the community she serves – low-income Indigenous people in Toronto – is related to Rent-Geared-to-Income (RGI) and the idea of being incorrectly identified as overhoused.
“If a family has a two-bedroom apartment or a three-bedroom apartment and CAS [Children’s Aid Society] apprehends one or two children then that tenant is suddenly overhoused and they try and evict them for that,” Warner explained. “However, in order to get their child back, CAS requires that they have a bedroom for each child that are of the opposite sex or if it’s the same sex there is only so many years they can be apart to share a bedroom. So, then your housing is at risk, your children are gone, and now you have no way to get them back because they are not going to give them back unless you have that housing.”
While she advocates for her clients regularly, Warner said that she finds it challenging to advocate for herself as she also faces discrimination in her housing.
“I am experiencing it this week with my own landlord,” she said. “I have lived in this place for almost 10 years, so my rent is significantly lower than what market rent is right now. The upstairs tenants have just moved out, so he has in turn started harassing me and yelling at me. He doesn’t talk to me, he screams at me, and he seems to think that this is okay.”
Recently, while her landlord was yelling at her for letting a neighbour park in her parking space, Warner told him and his wife that instead of being concerned about a minor parking issue, they should look at the mould in her bathroom that she has been asking them to take care of for years. Warner says that the landlord’s wife turned to her and told her that if she had a problem with the mould, she could move out.
“I know my rights and I can professionally defend myself, but it is so stressful that I can’t,” Warner said. “I am dealing with other people’s housing stuff all day that when it comes to dealing with my own, I end up putting up with it. And also, it is cheap rent, so I let them push me around.”
White, the actor and mother, also reports being treated poorly by one landlord.
After leaving the apartment in Scarborough, her and her family ended up renting an apartment from White’s old college professor. They loved the apartment, but the landlord of the building made it difficult for them to enjoy their stay.
“He would make rude comments to us under his breath. He wouldn’t greet us like he would greet all the other tenants…And if he did talk to us, it was in a really stern, angry, aggressive voice,” White said.
While the three women felt frustrated and disappointed by their experiences trying to rent an apartment in the GTA, they expressed optimism that things can get better for racialized and low-income renters.
White hopes that discussions like the one at the workshop “can lead to changes and reforms and maybe a bit more ruling for private landlords in terms of how they choose who they are renting to.”
The Aboriginal Legal Services, where Warner works, has recently begun offering an Indigenous circle where people from all backgrounds can go to engage in alternative dispute resolution.
“I think when people sit down and they discuss with their landlord what is happening and they can tell their side of the story, the landlord is forced to see them as a person and not a name and number on a file in their office, and that is really beneficial,” Warner said.
For Jennings, as a former youth in care who is now immersed in social justice work, “it is important to me that a worker understands the systemic nature of homelessness and implements anti-oppression practices whenever possible. It is important that a supporter understands the child welfare system, the realities of youth from care.…And finally, it is important that a supporter is culturally competent and how my race impacts the likelihood of securing safe housing,” she said.
“I don’t think that stable housing is a want. I think it is a need and is a social determinant of health,” she added. “It is my hope that youth who age out of the system can experience safety and what it feels like to be home.”
These stories from Dorrett, Jasmine and Sheila were first shared during a workshop on systemic discrimination in housing that took place on July 6, 2021. The workshop was organized by CCHR and the Right to Housing Toronto as part of a virtual workshop series that addresses the critical challenges in advancing the right to housing.
A Housing Affordability Taskforce set up by the Ontario Government recently released a much-anticipated report recommending ways to combat the province’s housing affordability crisis. The Taskforce proposes several recommendations to increase the supply of market housing as the key way to resolve the problem. Broadly, the recommendations include a combination of changes to urban design rules, streamlining the housing approvals process, curtailing delays in developments that result from appeals at the Ontario Land Tribunal, promoting density, and targeting financial support towards municipalities who align their priorities with similar policy changes. The role of non-profits in increasing supply of affordable rental housing is only covered in the appendix of the document while other key options such as measures to protect affordable housing stock and rent regulations to curb arbitrary rent increases are not explored.
The Taskforce had only a couple of months to produce its recommendations during which it made some attempts to consult with myriad actors in the housing ecosystem. However, criticisms have been raised by housing advocates and experts regarding the limits to outreach, particularly in not adequately engaging with enough housing advocates, and the membership of the deliberating body being heavily comprised of representatives from the private sector.
Since the report’s publication, the Taskforce’s 55 recommendations have received a mix of supportive feedback and much skepticism. However, there seems to be some consensus that there is a need to act and be bold given the growing scale of the problem in Ontario. This sentiment is captured throughout the report, beginning with a call to prioritize housing in the province’s planning guidelines.
Many of the Taskforce report’s shortcomings stem from criticisms around scope and conceptual clarity. For example, the Taskforce’s restricted mandate to find “market housing” solutions overlooks the fact that the private sector has historically been unsuccessful in creating sufficient affordable housing options without some government support. More public interventions and the role of non-profits in filling this gap is only covered briefly in the document appendix.
In addition, the diagnosis of the problem, that a shortage of supply is leading to escalating housing prices, is questionable. Specifically, the target of creating 1.5 million homes over ten years has been criticized as not reflective of the problem at hand. In particular, the estimate in the report appears to be based on the assumption that every individual in need of housing is to live alone in a unit, rather than as part of a household. As such, the target appears to be too high and ought to be modelled instead at the household level, which would be a more useful reference to determine housing need. Using the latter frame, it may very well be the case that housing starts, at least for homeownership options, are keeping up with population growth across the country, as the trends of the past few years suggest. However, a shortage of affordable rental options remains no matter what lens is applied.
The implication is to make use of more accurate and granular data to enable nuanced distinctions between factors such as tenure choices, and in turn, help create more appropriate targets and associated interventions to meet those targets. The report does acknowledge that better data is required to determine housing needs including to understand, in more depth, which groups are facing the greatest barriers to accessing housing options.
Based on the premise that housing supply shortages should determine policy priorities, a variety of the recommendations are intended to remove barriers that slow development. Setting aside the contested premise, there remains a compelling case to fix bottlenecks in the development process to speed up construction. For example, the report shows how the development approvals process in Canada is one of the slowest among OECD countries, and that Ontario is particularly slow compared to the rest of the country. To this end, proposals to simplify policy documents and find efficiencies in existing urban design guidelines, for example, may hold promise.
However, stalled projects may not just be on account of the approval processes. For example, 19,000 units in Barrie that have received approvals have not yet proceeded with construction for various financial, engineering and related matters that are largely under the control of developers. In Toronto, the figure for a similar set of approved projects that are yet to get off the ground stands at 70,000. Plus, even as approvals may be perceived as roadblocks, the mechanisms still serve a fundamental purpose of upholding the integrity of the development process from environmental, social, economic and aesthetic perspectives. Any efforts to find efficiencies cannot be in good faith if not done deliberatively and measured against a rigorous process such as a cost-benefit analysis.
The report also recommends changes to the approval process through depoliticizing it and through fixing gaps in how existing mechanisms to appeal development proposals are perceived to be vulnerable to exploitation by local interests that may halt development for years. Indeed, there is a compelling case to be made against NIMBYism. Pushback from those living in existing neighbourhoods is not just exhibited in opposition to specific developments but against broader changes to regulatory practices, such as changing exclusionary zoning rules to be more inclusive. As the report finds, such practices have resulted in cities such as Toronto restricting 70% of its land for single family homes.
To this end, the report has made bold proposals to permit developments, as of right – in other words, without the need to go through the necessary zoning procedures – to, among other things, promote gentle density across the province, allow “unlimited density” for new construction near major transit stations, permit multi-tenant houses (rooming houses) to operate, and enable housing growth in underdeveloped land. These proposals are significant in acknowledging how the current trajectory of subdivisions for detached homes and condo-led developments are not producing the sufficient variety of housing options that Ontarians need. Notably, the report also states at the outset that existing land is sufficient for development with no further need for urban sprawl.
However, the menu of proposed regulatory rollbacks may also run the risk of watering down local powers. Various local governments have raised such concerns and noted how the province’s diverse demographic, socioeconomic and geographic conditions warrant a continuation of localized, democratic approaches to planning and development. For example, the recommended density threshold for as of right developments generally and across transit corridors might not be suitable in mid-sized communities, broadly implying the need to retain room for differentiated approaches to providing housing options across the province. Proposals to add guardrails to prevent potential delays at the Ontario Land Tribunals by local citizens has also been critiqued for stacking the cards in favour of developers.
To the extent that the province has contemplated ways to push municipalities to adopt these proposed reforms, it has been through recommending the creation of a Housing Delivery Fund that would reward those municipalities that synchronize their policies with the priorities of the Taskforce.
How the combination of proposals will lead to the creation of affordable housing options is not entirely clear in the Taskforce’s recommendations. Indeed, an affordable home is left undefined even though the report calls for a province-wide definition in the appendix. This does not mean that the question of affordability is not addressed. For example, as part of its proposed approaches to align government fees with promoting more housing, the Taskforce recommends waiving development charges for all affordable housing options that are guaranteed to remain affordable for 40 years.
In addition, there is likely room to find cost savings in a bloated regulatory regime. One study suggested that in eight cities in Canada, it costs an additional $229,000 to construct every new single detached house because of requirements such as zoning regulations. Bottlenecks in the labour supply chain can also do with fixing to reduce costs, the broad strokes of which are referenced in the report. Indeed, the premise of the report, that through finding an equilibrium between supply and demand, prices will become “affordable” is another circuitous route to which the document endeavours to fulfill its namesake – “The Ontario Housing Affordability Taskforce.”
And yet, the report overlooks many nuances. First, even if costs are reduced for developers through, for example, efficiency gains in the approval process and savings found in the supply chain, there is no guarantee that the proceeds will be passed on to the consumer, and by extension, a house be made “affordable.” Private developers and their financial backers are instead incentivized to maximize profits with little concern for broader public interest matters such as affordable housing unless they are required to take an interest in such matters. Absent any conditions, developers will likely continue to sell at rates as high as the market can bear.
Similarly, more density does not necessarily lead to more affordability, at least in prosperous areas and hot housing markets. On the contrary, this change may inflate the value of land and produce the opposite effect of making housing less affordable. In part, this is because such regulatory changes attract more people who will demand more services, which in turn, will attract more investments into the neighbourhood, all of which drives up the value of the area, and can be aggravated further by prospective buyers’ speculations of further price increases in the future. Such changes can gentrify neighbourhoods, in turn displacing traditionally lower and moderate-income residents from their communities.
The report does not contemplate such perverse impacts. It does indirectly explore the applicability of inclusionary zoning in its appendix but not in the context of how the policy could dampen the inflation of land prices and contribute to more affordable housing developments. Instead, it is more concerned about possible constraints placed on developers on account of its current iterations in cities such as Toronto.
In general, the Taskforce report pays little attention to how the role of managing “demand” has the potential to moderate prices. It rightly says that current government policies to manage demand, largely those adopted by the federal government, has not worked well. This is likely because the interventions amounted to tweaks to lending and borrowing requirements that effectively tinker at the edges and don’t have much of an impact on affordability. However, more consequential interventions to disincentivize investors to treat houses as investments – such as through charging a vendor a land transfer tax as opposed to the purchaser (which the province has control over) – have been given little attention. Plus, a more thorough investigation into the trade-offs between more rent regulation and vacancy control and its potential impacts on supply could add value to the current crop of proposals.
The report pays some attention to how investments in purpose-built rentals over time have declined. It rightly acknowledges feasibility constraints that inhibit further development of this much needed form of housing. To promote more construction of purpose-built rental apartment buildings, it largely recommends leveraging property tax incentives along with a combination of federal and provincial loan guarantees to support rental projects including affordable options.
There is also much promise in solutions explored to increasing the stock of affordable rentals in the appendix, where more public options are considered. The private market, after all, will not create affordable housing options alone, if at all. As such, proposals to providing incentives for affordable housing providers and surplus land for affordable housing are a good start. Importantly, the report acknowledges that many of the non-profit housing providers face the same barriers that private developers do – costly and time-consuming approvals coupled with restrictive zoning and local pushback to development. However, given the topic is not the focus of the report, a more detailed look into creating the conditions for and strengthening providers of deeply affordable housing options is missing.
As Ontario begins its legislative session, many of the report’s recommendations may be taken up for further consideration. These proposals offer a good starting point. However, the limitations of market solutions to creating affordable housing options are also made clear. Moving forward, a more integrated and effective strategy would more creatively incorporate the role of deeply affordable housing providers, retain a significant degree of local engagement to account for the province’s socio-economic diversity, and entertain matters beyond creating new supply such as through advancing strategies to preserve affordable housing stock.
Submission to:
In our submission, we urge the federal government to adopt the following recommendations to advance the right to housing and ensure all Canadians have an opportunity to find safe, adequate and affordable places to call home:
Canada’s rental housing market is punishingly competitive. Low vacancy rates and out of control rental rates that are divorced from people’s ability to pay have left housing out of reach for many in the city. Finding housing that fits within one’s budget is extremely difficult, and the resulting housing instability has led to countless households being underhoused or homeless.
In addition to having to compete for housing in this environment, many Black households face anti-Black racism and discrimination from landlords and housing providers when trying to access housing, even though race is a protected ground under the Ontario Human Rights Code.
Discrimination in the housing market is unfortunately not rare. In July 2021, CERA and the Right to Housing Toronto held a workshop on discrimination, where two Black women shared some of the challenges they have faced when trying to find and maintain safe and accessible housing in the GTA – from passive aggressive comments to blatantly discriminatory housing ads. The women shared that the racial discrimination they faced was compounded by other factors related to their income, family status and disabilities. After long searches and multiple refusals from landlords, both women were forced to accept the only options open to them, in unsuitable housing where they did not feel comfortable or safe.
In 2009, CERA conducted a study about discrimination faced by renters in Toronto’s housing market. The important findings from this work have informed our advocacy efforts for equitable changes to housing policy and legislation. CERA’s research study found that Black housing seekers faced discrimination based on multiple human rights grounds, such as race, family status and/or place of origin. Intersectionality is also relevant to the difficulties Black renters can experience when trying to find housing. Our study found that 1 in 4 single parents who were Black experienced discrimination when searching for rental housing, and this continues to be reported by the media.
In the same CERA study, the research found that racial discrimination, while prevalent, was not explicitly stated by housing providers. Media reports show that it is common for Black renters to face additional questions and inquiries from housing providers due to discriminatory stereotypes. The consequences of housing insecurity for racialized communities have only worsened in the decade since our study was released and have become dire with the onset of COVID-19.
Acknowledging the systemic racism that has prevented many Black Canadians from accessing housing is crucial to advancing effective change. This discrimination has not only impacted individuals but has also meant that Black renters have been shut out of entire parts of the city. The right to housing must be a reality for all households on an equitable basis, and it cannot be fully realized without addressing the housing discrimination experienced by the Black community.
In order to even begin to address anti-Black racism in housing, governments must take some basic steps:
CERA is dedicated to helping renters facing anti-Black racism and discrimination from their housing providers. If you are being discriminated against by your housing provider,please contact us to speak with a caseworker about how we can help to advocate for you:
Renters can also reach out to:
As an immigrant, a survivor of domestic abuse, and a formerly unhoused person, Dankwa’s journey has neither been easy nor linear. She wants to share her lived experience because “there are so many other people that nobody will ever know their story, but they are dying on the street. A lot of voices are not being heard and I’ve been through so much that keeping it to myself is not going to help.”
Dankwa came to Canada to escape an abusive relationship in New York where she felt her pleas for help were not being taken seriously enough.
“I felt like I wasn’t getting the support that I needed,” she says. “My children and I were not safe at all, so I did what I had to do to protect me and my children.”
After arriving in Ontario, Dankwa ended up at a shelter. She describes her time there as challenging, with a lack of trust between the women staying there and the shelter staff.
“The shelter is a good place in an emergency. It should be just emergency services,” she says. “I should be staying in that shelter not more than two to three weeks and then should be put in a house or apartment. We need homes. We don’t need to put so much money in the shelters. No abused women with children should stay in a shelter for more than a month because then it becomes another mental health issue to deal with in that place.”
At her shelter, Danka says she did not receive the appropriate transitional support and was instead kicked out for overstaying.
“A shelter is where you’re supposed to get the legal services, where you get all the support that you are supposed to get, but in my case, that was not there. In my case, I had to leave because I had overstayed and when I said no, I was literally kicked out and my stuff was thrown out in a plastic bag.”
After leaving the shelter, Dankwa bounced around different places.
“I was couch surfing. I will go to this person’s place for a week [then] that person’s place for a week and sleep on their couch. I’ll go take a shower here then I will go somewhere else the next day and stay there for a little bit until I get my work money then I can stay in a motel. When that money runs out, I go back on the street and try to figure out what friend will take me in for the night.”
After bouncing around for months, she finally found a one-bedroom basement apartment that she could afford.
However, her joy at finding housing for the first time since fleeing her abusive relationship was short-lived.
“What I didn’t know was that it was another nightmare that I was going to face,” she says.
Dankwa’s new landlord lived above her and had strict rules around what Dankwa could or could not do.
“She told me that when I go out, I have to come home at a certain time or I shouldn’t come in. I should stay outside,” Dankwa says. “So, when I go out and it’s past 10:00 o’clock, I have to sleep on somebody’s couch again.”
Dankwa was also not allowed to have friends over in her apartment. If someone wanted to visit her, they had to sit in her landlord’s living room while the landlord was there.
After a friend came over one day at a pre-planned time and the landlord asked her to reschedule because she wanted to go out, Dankwa had had enough.
“I didn’t know where I was gonna go, but I said to myself ‘If I have left that man in the United States and have come all the way and stayed in the shelter where I’ve been kicked out of, there is nothing else that I can’t deal with.”
And with that, Dankwa was homeless again.
“I remember Thanksgiving. It was the saddest Thanksgiving ever,” Dankwa recalls. “I was always the person cooking Thanksgiving, everybody coming to my home. I had a huge house, it was beautiful. I worked so hard for that place. And Thanksgiving came and I was homeless.”
After a couple of months, Dankwa found another basement apartment that she could afford in Peel Region; this one without a kitchen, fridge, or microwave.
The first night, she slept on the floor with no comforter. The second day, while a friend drove her to find some supplies, they were hit by another vehicle.
Being an immigrant with no permanent resident card at the time, Dankwa was too scared to go to the hospital.
“I started having anxiety attacks and depression,” she says. “When a woman is running from abuse, we should not look at the nationality or the country that they are coming from in order to provide them [with support], we should look at them as a human being. As a woman who needs help, that is it.”
Dankwa stayed in the basement apartment “hoping that the kitchen would be done,” she says. “That did not happen.”
Dankwa says she explored different avenues for help with finding suitable and stable housing, but was rebuffed at every turn, in part due to her immigration status.
“After a while, I started moving again,” Dankwa says.
“The road to finding a place has not been easy. Throughout, I encountered landlords that would like to take advantage of me in every way they can knowing my situation. But one thing that I said to myself after what I experienced with my ex-husband and what I experienced in the shelter, is that there’s things I won’t entertain anymore. I would rather be on the street and be happy than giving money to somebody to abuse me.”
While Dankwa has now found more stable housing, she still fears that it could all be taken away.
“When it comes to women’s homelessness, we need more special attention,” she says.
“I’m not saying other people don’t need special attention, but most of the time, it is women leaving abusers and a lot of them will take their children with them, so it is not as easy for women to stay in the shelter or on the streets,” she explains.
“We live in a world where we are always trying to help other people from different places, but we have women here going through abuse who don’t even have a home to stay. And sometimes people think that we have the systems in place…but the programs and the systems are not set up to actually provide adequate housing, and so the woman ends up back with the abuser or on the street.”
For Dankwa, a large part of the issue with women’s homelessness is that there is a lack of understanding by the vast majority of the population. “People get judgmental because they have not been in our shoes,” she says.
“If I can use that energy that I have, that anger, that strength, to let people know [what homeless people] are going through then somebody might listen. Somebody might read the story somewhere. Somebody might have the passion to even advocate. And this is the way that I can help somebody else.”
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.
Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consetetur sadipscing elitr, sed diam nonumy eirmod tempor invidunt ut labore et dolore magna aliquyam erat, sed diam voluptua. At vero eos et accusam et justo duo dolores et ea rebum. Stet clita kasd gubergren, no sea takimata sanctus est Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet.