January/February 2022 // Canadian Government Executive / 9 AFFORDABLE HOUSING government moved to funding non-profit organizations and provided direct funding from 1973-1993—allowing credit for housing support to accrue to the federal government (Hulchanski, 2006). On the provincial-municipal front, starting in the mid-1980’s when the federal government was decreasing transfer payments, the provinces passed along this austerity to municipalities and sometimes also passed along expensive service areas like housing. Once again, lots of service areas, coupled with little revenue generating avenues, had created huge problems for cities. This mounting pressure resulted in new federal money for municipalities for housing and infrastructure improvements in 2004 and 2005 budgets (Hulchanski, 2006). In spite of the federal government’s initial enthusiasm in the post war and baby boom years, housing was slated to be turned over exclusively to the provinces in the constitutional negotiations of 1992. The 1992 Charlottetown Accord failed to be ratified, but the federal government had made clear its wish to extricate itself from the social housing arena. In 1993, the federal government stopped all funding and removed itself from housing (Hulchanski, 2006). After 1993, the public housing previously created by the federal government devolved to the provinces and a minor federal affordable housing program was undertaken instead. An initiative ”that seems to produce more press releases than housing units” (Chisholm and Hulchanski, 2019). RECOMMENDATIONS Federal A group of housing policy and economics scholars created a report based on international research and a widespread knowledge exchange between policy experts, academics and front line organizations in Australia, Britain and Canada. This report contains recommendations for future directions for housing policy. Using some of these recommendations as benchmarks, the federal government is taking steps in the right direction with the creation of the National Housing Strategy (NHS) described above. For example, the report discusses that while the federal government must play a part in housing, it is imperative that the provision of housing be collaborative, but also focused on a municipal level. Housing should involve all governments and sectors to ensure open and effective governance, and financial resources as well as cooperation must be on offer (MacLennan, 2019). The NHS evidences both this cooperation and a municipal focus in the announcement of a partnership between the Canadian government, the City of London, and London & Middlesex Community Housing. The $40 million in federal funding will provide 2,082 housing units that will be under the umbrella of the LMCH. (CMHC, 2021). This represents a collaboration of a non-profit/community group, and two levels of government—municipal and federal, with the necessary financial resources. Another principle discussed in this report is that housing policies need to be ‘intelligent’ and based on logical actions to solve goals. Governments need to ‘apply appropriate instruments to real (not ideal) housing systems’ (MacLennan, 2019). Echoing part of this sentiment the NHS includes a section on the need for more and better information about current housing statistics, policy research and expertise. There is money and actions in the strategy to address these issues. However, the federal government should also take heed of the ‘real (not ideal)’ portion of that statement. The NHS still contains some of the traditional support for homeownership while striving for ‘stable and competitive housing markets’ (NHS, 2017). It appears the government is still chasing the ideal of home ownership rather than the real need to supply housing to all and this may be a policy direction that is already being well served by currently running programs. Provincial Provinces should work with the federal government to achieve the goals of the NHS as much as possible. The federal government has made financial commitments for housing initiatives and programs with an expectation of some matching of funds by the provinces (NHS, 2017). As indicated by housing policy experts, all levels of government need to work together to ensure housing needs are met and encourages governments to work to create fairness in allocating and supporting housing (MacLennan, 2020). While the provinces may see housing as falling under their umbrella, it is clear that the federal government would like to direct housing initiatives. If working in collaboration is what is required to access the funds necessary to meet this essential need then provinces should do so. To assist with non-market housing, provinces could encourage renting through stronger tenant protection, especially to assist with issues created by STRs and evictions related to conversion to STRs. Provinces should institute stronger tenant protection and rent controls. This should be accompanied by a program of education and information for both landlords and tenants. Municipal Municipal governments, especially cities should institute and enforce policies regarding short term rentals (STRs). Two particular avenues are worth exploring. The first is instituting some form of lodging tax that would be levied upon any renters and used to fund the cost of regulating STRs. The secThe main area of contention between governments in housing policy is jurisdiction. While encouraging home ownership is almost fully in the federal sphere, the provision of social housing is not.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy NDI0Mzg=