The issue of housing affordability in Canada remains an ever-escalating challenge, affecting individuals and families across the nation. As housing prices soar, the dream of owning, or absurdly, even individually renting a home seems increasingly out of reach for many Canadians. Despite the severity of the crisis, some argue that the government's response has been lacking in significant measures to bring about tangible change. While acknowledging the gravity of the situation, this article seeks to examine the existing government initiatives aimed at tackling the housing affordability crisis and explore potential avenues for bolstering their impact. By critically evaluating the current state of affairs and contemplating innovative solutions, we hope to shed light on the complexities of this pressing issue and lay the groundwork for a more effective and comprehensive approach to making housing affordability a reality for all Canadians.The Government of Ontario sets an ambitious goal of building 1.5 million homes by 2031. However, the word "affordable" seems conspicuously absent from this statement. It is often observed that luxury condos are under construction even in small towns, where affordable housing is desperately needed. Additionally, with Canada aiming to welcome around 500,000 new citizens in 2023 alone, the demand for housing is bound to surge beyond the current projections.One of the key housing initiatives in Ontario is the Ontario Community Housing Renewal Strategy, which recognizes the challenges of accessing the private housing market for many residents. Moreover, the existing community housing units are in poor condition and inadequately maintained, compounding the crisis of affordable housing. The Strategy aims to increase the supply of affordable homes and improve the maintenance of existing ones. However, the specifics of how this will be achieved remain unclear, with the offered solutions on the government website being rather vague. For example, the proposed solution to accessibility issues in social housing is simply stated as "improving accessibility," which lacks clarity and actionable steps.To improve housing supply, the Rent Geared to Income Subsidy suggests that a household's rent should be 30% of their monthly Adjusted Family Income. However, with the cost of housing on the rise, researchers and policy makers have started to suggest that the 30-percent rule of thumb may not be an accurate measure of affordability.The 30-percent rule for measuring affordability can be traced back to an amendment passed in 1969 by the US Senator Edward Brooke, the country's first popularly elected African American senator and a vocal advocate of affordable housing. He and then-Senator Walter Mondale coauthored the 1968 Fair Housing Act, which prohibits housing discrimination on the basis of race. The Brooke Amendment, which was passed as a response to rent increases and complaints about services in public housing, capped public housing rent at 25 percent of a resident’s income. Congress raised the cap to 30 percent in 1981.According to Rental Burdens: Rethinking Affordability Measures article, the Joint Center for Housing Studies of Harvard University study released in 2014 defined cost-burdened families as those “who pay more than 30 percent of their income for housing” and “may have difficulty affording necessities such as food, clothing, transportation, and medical care.” Severe rent burden was defined as paying more than 50 percent of one’s income on rent.The 30-percent rule — that a household should spend no more than 30 percent of its income on housing costs — has long been accepted in academic circles and is often included in blogs and websites on family budgeting. However, as early as 2014, reputable business magazines such Business Week and Bloomberg argued that the 30-percent rule was “nearly useless”, and suggested that calculating housing cost burden using only income ratios oversimplifies the issue of housing affordability.&nbsp;While discussing the affordability measurements and questioning the 30 percent rule as arbitrary, one cannot help but notice that the industry pundits and policy makers alike reason that this percentage can be higher. Not less. &nbsp;One of the arguments against the share of income approach is that different households earning the same annual income spend considerably different amounts of money on basic necessities. For example, families with children spend more on clothing, food, and medical bills than do single adults. Therefore a household with children that spends 50 percent of its income on housing might be cost burdened, whereas a single adult who earns the same salary and spends the same percentage of income on housing might not be. According to this logic, a situation where single persons are forced to spend 50 percent of their income on housing (instead of for example, making savings for retirement) is acceptable.&nbsp;If we factor in the cost-of-living differences with skyrocketing food and clothing prices in GTA, the 30 percent share of income spent on housing seems, in fact, high. High housing costs and high prices for basic necessities place a greater burden on households living in metropolitan areas. Measures of affordability should be reassessed to ensure that policymakers are decreasing rental burdens for poor households.On a positive side, Ontario continues to offer incentives to non-profit housing providers even when they are not legally required to do so, indicating a need for more effective allocation of resources to address housing shortages.&nbsp;Canadians can also avail themselves of several benefits, including the Canada-Ontario Housing Benefit, a federally and provincially funded program that assists households with rental payments. Additionally, the Multigenerational Home Renovation Tax Credit provides up to $7,500 to offset renovation costs when adding a secondary unit to a home.To reduce living costs indirectly, the government has implemented measures such as the Foreign Buyer Ban, aimed at preventing Canadians from being priced out of the housing market by restricting foreign buyers from acquiring residential properties for a two-year period. Days before non-residents were banned from buying homes in Canada, however, the federal government has announced a number of broad exemptions, including foreign nationals with temporary resident status, international students, and consulate workers who plan to live in Canada long-term. The Vacant Home Tax also discourages property hoarding by imposing a 1% tax on secondary residences left unused for six months.A crucial aspect often overlooked is the predatory marketing by landlords targeting vulnerable students. Luxury condos near colleges and universities are marketed as ideal student accommodations, emphasizing proximity to the campus, despite the exorbitant rent of $1500 per month or more, a financial burden many students cannot bear.The impact of the housing crisis extends far beyond financial strains. A study conducted in Ontario found that 31% of people support Medical Assistance in Dying (MAID) for those experiencing poverty or homelessness, highlighting the desperate circumstances some Canadians face due to the lack of affordable housing. For instance, Amir Farsoud, a disabled man in St. Catherine's, Ontario, faced the grim choice of seeking assisted suicide due to the fear of homelessness. His life was ultimately saved by a GoFundMe campaign, but this should not be the solution. When people would rather die than live in the conditions of the country, it’s a sign the government needs to do more.In conclusion, addressing the housing affordability crisis demands a multifaceted and comprehensive approach from the government. While existing programs provide some relief, more substantial efforts are required to meet the increasing demand for affordable housing. Solutions include incentivizing the development of affordable housing units, addressing foreign ownership, curbing predatory marketing practices, and fostering a climate that encourages good-paying jobs outside the public sector. Only through collective action and innovative policies can we secure a brighter future for all Canadians, free from the burdens of unaffordable housing. Hopefully, the Cabinet reshuffle will bring in new people and fresh ideas on housing affordability.

Government Initiatives Addressing Canada's Housing Affordability Crisis

Explore government initiatives for Canada's housing affordability crisis and potential solutions for a brighter future with RIFO

About RIFO

Business

Investors

News

Contact Us

Contact Us