Oudshoorn Affidavit - The Council of Canadians

Transcription

Court File No. CV-14-513961
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
THE COUNCIL OF CANADIANS,
THE CANADIAN FEDERATION OF STUDENTS,
JESSICA McCORMICK, PEGGY WALSH CRAIG, and SANDRA McEWING
Applicants
- and –
HER MAJESTY IN RIGHT OF CANADA
AS REPRESENTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
AFFIDAVIT OF ABRAM OUDSHOORN
(sworn March 12 , 2015)
I, Abram Oudshoorn, of the City of London, in the Province of Ontario, MAKE OATH
AND SAY as follows:
Background
1. I am currently an Assistant Professor at The Arthur Labatt Family School of
Nursing, University of Western Ontario. I completed my PhD at Western in 2011.
My doctorate concerned community based care serving people who are
experiencing homelessness. A copy of my CV is attached hereto as Exhibit “A”.
2. I am also a Registered Nurse, and have worked as a front-line nurse with the
homeless from 2004-2009. In 2010 I founded the London Homelessness Outreach
Network which has since merged with the London Homeless Coalition.
3. I have been asked by the law firm Sack Goldblatt Mitchell LLP, representing the
Council of Canadians, the Canadian Federation of Students and three individuals
in these proceedings to provide a report that outlines the difficulties that homeless
people encounter in acquiring and maintaining identification documents required
for them to vote. I am not being compensated, financially or otherwise, for
providing this opinion.
4. On the basis of my academic and professional training, and my practical
experience, I have knowledge of the matters hereinafter deposed.
5. On April 9, 2014, I appeared as a witness on behalf of the Coalition before the
Parliamentary Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to speak to
Bill C-23. A transcript of my testimony before the Committee is attached hereto
as Exhibit “B”.
6. There are various ways in which the term “homeless” can be defined, but for the
purpose of this affidavit, I am utilizing the Homeless Hub Canadian definition
which includes people sleeping rough, staying in shelter, provisionally
accommodated, or at risk of homelessness.1
7. According to the “State of Homelessness in Canada 2014” report (attached hereto
as Exhibit “C”), the most reliable estimates of the homeless population in
Canada is that at least 200,000 Canadians access homeless emergency services or
sleep rough for at least one night in a given year and approximately 30,000
Canadians are experiencing homelessness each night. Based on my experience in
London Ontario alone where I worked at the London Intercommunity Health
Centre, we have at least 3,000-4,000 unique individuals experience homelessness
in a given year.
8. Based on both my experience and research, a significant number of individuals
who experience homelessness are youth, individuals with mental health issues,
Aboriginal people, and women fleeing domestic violence situations.
Availability/possession of identification documents by people experiencing
homelessness
9. From my experience, the majority of homeless individuals at some point in time
during their homelessness have lost or have had stolen all of their identity
documents of any kind.
10. Obtaining and maintaining identification is a key challenge faced by people
experiencing homelessness. Academic studies have continually highlighted the
lack of current and accurate identification as a barrier that people face in exiting
homelessness, and accessing services while homeless.
11. The primary reason that homeless people do not have any identification
documents is that such documents are lost or stolen.
1
Available at: http://www.homelesshub.ca/sites/default/files/COHhomelessdefinition.pdf
12. Identification documents may be stolen intentionally if seen by others living on
the street who see identity documents as valuable assets. Documents can also be
stolen unintentionally if for example a homeless person’s sole bag containing all
of that person’s possessions (including identification documents) is stolen. Both
sleeping rough and sleeping in dorm-style shelters have been identified as putting
one at risk of having one’s belongings stolen.
13. Identification may also be lost in the chaos of people’s lives. At times,
identification is left behind if a person is unable to return to a shelter where their
belongings are temporarily stored or if women are fleeing violence and are unable
to go back to a dangerous home environment to access their possessions. Those
people experiencing addictions or mental health issues may also misplace some or
all of their possessions during a period of high drug use or acute illness.
14. Once identification is lost or stolen, the process to replace it is laborious,
expensive, and lengthy. A homeless person who finds herself or himself without
identification will have to acquire replacement identification one item at a time,
start by acquiring their birth certificate, which takes several weeks and involves
contacting one’s community of birth. Only then can they obtain other
identification documents such as a health card, driver’s license, or passport. This
process can be daunting for someone who doesn’t have an address to which
documents may be mailed.
15. Even if agencies serving homeless people are able to serve as an individual’s
address on a temporary basis, the chaos of many of these people’s lives can easily
interrupt the process of obtaining such documents. It is often the case that when
ID documents do arrive at an agency, they sit unclaimed as the person enters a
new cycle of distress or has moved onto a new community. While some agencies
serving homeless people have programs or initiatives to assist their clients in
obtaining identity documents, this type of assistance is not available to a great
many homeless people since agencies have limited resources and tend to focus
their efforts on meeting the more immediate, shelter, health and hunger needs of
the clients.
16. When homeless people are struggling on a day-to-day basis to obtain adequate
food, shelter or healthcare, obtaining identification documents can be a
burdensome task and difficult to prioritize. On any given day a significant number
of Canadians experiencing homelessness would have no identification in their
possession.
Identity documents accepted by Elections Canada
17. I have reviewed the list of documents identity and address documents approved
by Elections Canada that people are entitled to use in the upcoming election.
18. Although there are 28 documents that qualify as proof of an individual’s name, as
stated above, it is extremely likely that most homeless individuals will at some
point in time find themselves without any of the documents on this list.
19. Regarding proof of residence, in my experience, the only one of the 19 documents
that homeless individuals may be able to obtain in an expedient and affordable
manner that indicates both their name and address, is a letter of confirmation of
residence. Even if a person is able to obtain such a letter, in order to vote, an
individual will still be required to provide one other approved document proving
their name. As indicated above, it will often be very difficult for them to do so.
Experience in London Ontario
20. I have experience working with health and social service agencies in London
Ontario that mobilize every election day to ensure, as much as possible, that
citizens who want to vote are able to in spite of their housing status and
identification challenges.
Letter of attestation of residence
21. Use of a letter of attestation of residence is something that agencies serving the
homeless have, in past elections, relied on quite frequently in London. This
option however only works in some cases. An agency will only provide such a
document to an individual who has been receiving services from that
shelter/kitchen on a consistent basis. Moreover, such confirmation isn’t available
for many individuals who sleep on the streets; habitually move from city to city;
“couch surf”; or who are newly admitted into a shelter.
22. Provision of a letter of attestation of residence requires that shelter or soup
kitchen workers have the time to complete this documentation. It is often the case
that staffing limitations mean that homeless serving agencies are forced to
prioritize meeting basic needs over completing forms. It is my experience in
London that we would not have nearly the capacity required to provide such
documentation if all persons experiencing homelessness in our community
requested this service.
23. All that together, in London, while we have made efforts to use the letter of
attestation of residence as we can, there are still many who did not have the
documents required to obtain a ballot at the time of the election. This is where
vouching came in.
Voter information card
24. The primary focus of the community mobilization efforts in London involved
ensuring that individuals were registered to vote using an agency as their
permanent address and were thus able to obtain the Voter Information Card
(VIC). The registration initiative, combined with identification replacement
clinics, and the receipt of the Voter Information Card was a strategy that was
successful in allowing some homeless electors to vote.
25. I understand that it was Elections Canada’s intention to allow all qualified voters
to use the VIC as proof of identity or residence in the next general election. That
would have been of great assistance in relieving homeless serving agencies of the
burden of preparing letters of confirmation of residence and assisting homeless
electors to obtain identification documents. In my experience, allowing the VIC
to be used as an authorized piece of identification would have enabled some
homeless electors to vote.
Vouching
26. In previous elections, if an elector lacked the necessary identification to prove
both his or her identity and place of residence, they could have both their identity
and place of residence vouched for. Thus, as part of our community outreach
initiative to assist homeless electors to vote, we reached out to agencies serving
the homeless to inform them about the availability of vouching and how the
vouching process works.
27. As a result of this initiative, people volunteered to act as vouchers if they had the
required identification documents and lived in the polling division where
homeless people were frequently present or received services. Thus, when a
homeless person entered a service agency asking about how they could vote, they
would be connected with a volunteer or someone else who had identification
documents and resided in the polling division. Because vouching was permitted
for both identification and residence, this enabled homeless people with no
identification whatsoever to vote.
28. As a result of this vouching initiative, homeless individuals who expressed an
interest in voting on election day were able to vote if they had the time available
to wait to be connected with someone already identified as able to vouch for
them. In the majority of the instances that I observed, this process was used to
assist an individual who had no identification whatsoever.
29. Unfortunately, there were several instances in which no person was immediately
available to vouch for a homeless person or no person of the appropriate poll was
available to vouch, and the individual desiring to vote did not have the time to
wait as they had to meet other immediate food and shelter needs. However, in
London these instances were in the minority, reflecting the extent of our
collaborative community efforts.
30. It is my understanding that as a result of Bill C-23, the old vouching rules have
been eliminated and no other procedure is available for someone lacking the
necessary documents to prove their identity. While new procedures are available
for someone to have their residence attested to, two pieces of identification
indicating their identity are still required. As explained above, in my experience,
many homeless people will often be without any authorized documentation
showing their name at any given time; they are even less likely to have two such
pieces. The barriers that homeless people face in obtaining not only one, but two
authorized pieces of identification are considerable, as I have explained. In my
experience the new attestation of residence procedure will be of little avail to the
majority of homeless people in regards to meeting full identification
requirements.
31. In other words, as a result of the Bill C-23, there is no longer a “fail-safe” for a
homeless person with either no, or only one identity document. For those with
two identity documents but no proof of residence, the attestation of residence
procedure is helpful, but not without limitations in terms of the ability to assist all
homeless Canadians. In consequence, it is my belief that a significant number of
homeless people, including those we have previously been able to assist through
vouching, will be unable to vote in the next federal general election.
32. I make this affidavit for the purpose of providing evidence in the above noted
proceeding having been apprised of, and understanding my obligation as an expert
witness. I have signed and attached hereto an acknowledgment of my duty in this
respect.
SWORN before me at the City of London,
In the Province of Ontario, on March 12,
2015.
_____________________________
Commissioner for Taking Affidavits
__________________________
ABRAM OUDSHOORN
Court File No. CV-14-513961
ONTARIO
SUPERIOR COURT OF JUSTICE
BETWEEN:
THE COUNCIL OF CANADIANS,
THE CANADIAN FEDERATION OF STUDENTS,
JESSICA McCORMICK, PEGGY WALSH CRAIG, and SANDRA McEWING
Applicants
- and –
HER MAJESTY IN RIGHT OF CANADA
AS REPRESENTED BY THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA
Respondent
ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF EXPERT'S DUTY
1.
My name is Abram Oudshoorn. I live at the City of London, in the Province of Ontario.
2.
I have been engaged by or on behalf of the Lawyers for the Applicants to provide
evidence in relation to the above-noted court proceeding.
3.
I acknowledge that it is my duty to provide evidence in relation to this proceeding as
follows:
4.
(a)
to provide opinion evidence that is fair, objective and non-partisan;
(b)
to provide opinion evidence that is related only to matters that are within my area
of expertise; and
(c)
to provide such additional assistance as the court may reasonably require, to
determine a matter in issue.
I acknowledge that the duty referred to above prevails over any obligation which I may
owe to any party by whom or on whose behalf I am engaged.
March _____, 2015
__________________________
Abram Oudshoorn
This is Exhibit A referred to in the
affidavit of Abram Oudshoorn, sworn
before me this __________ day of
March, 2015
____________________________
A COMMISSIONER FOR TAKING AFFIDAVITS
CURRICULUM VITAE
1. Name:
Abram Oudshoorn, RN, PhD
Assistant Professor and Year 4 Coordinator, Arthur Labatt Family School of
Nursing, The University of Western Ontario
2. Address:
345 Wortley Rd
London, ON
Canada
N6C 3R8
Home
Work
Room H142, Health Sciences Addition
Arthur Labatt Family School of Nursing
The University of Western Ontario
London, ON
N6A 5C1
Mobile: (519) 854-2085
Email: aoudsho@uwo.ca
Phone: (519) 661-2111 x86042
Fax: (519) 661-3928
3. Academic Preparation:
Degree
Doctor of Philosophy in
Nursing – Health Promotion
Masters of Science in
Nursing – Health Promotion
University
The University of
Western Ontario
The University of
Western Ontario
Department
Nursing
Years
2005-2011
Nursing
Bachelor of Science in
Nursing
The University of
Western Ontario
Nursing
2004-2005 (Fasttrack, Degree not
conferred)
2000-2004
4. Employment History:
Date
2011-Present
2011-Present
2009-2011
2007-2009
2004-2009
2003-2004, 20062007
Institution
Lawson Health Research
Institute
The University of Western
Ontario
Ontario
Ontario
London InterCommunity Health
Centre
Ontario
1
Position
Associate Scientist
Assistant Professor, School of
Nursing, and Year 4 Coordinator
Lecturer, School of Nursing
and Year 4 Coordinator
Lecturer, School of Nursing
Staff Nurse, Part-time
Research Coordinator
Summer 2004
2001-2003
London InterCommunity Health
Centre
Ontario
Chart Auditor/Relief Nursing,
Contract
Research Assistant
5. Honours and Awards:
2012
2012
2011
2011
2011
2011
2010
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2009
2008
2008
2008
2008
2008
2007
2007
2007
2007
2006
2006
Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Western Ontario, Recognition of
Excellence for an outstanding contribution to teaching.
Nominee, The Outstanding Nurse Recognition Program, Grand Theatre, London
University Students’ Council, The University of Western Ontario, Teaching
Honour Roll Award of Excellence.
Outstanding Graduate Student Award, Sigma Theta Tau International Honor
Society of Nursing, Iota Omicron Chapter
Nominee, Prime Minister’s Volunteer Award – Community Leader
Arthur Labatt Family School of Nursing, The University of Western Ontario,
Louise Rickwood PhD Scholarship in Nursing ($550)
Canadian Homelessness Research Network, Travel Grant ($500)
Excellence for an outstanding contribution to teaching.
Canadian Nurses Foundation, AstraZeneca Urban Scholarship ($6,000)
National Initiative for the Care of the Elderly, Student Travel Assistance Grant
($3,000)
Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Western Ontario, FHS Graduate
Student Conference Travel Award ($236.25)
National Initiative for the Care of the Elderly, NICE Student Mentorship Program
($1,000)
Canadian Homelessness Research Network, Travel Grant ($1,000)
University Students’ Council, The University of Western Ontario, Teaching
Honour Roll Award of Excellence.
Achievement for an outstanding contribution to teaching.
Canadian Association on Gerontology, Travel Grant ($145)
Ontario Graduate Scholarship ($15,000)
National Initiative for the Care of the Elderly, NICE Student Mentorship Program
($1,000)
Canadian Association on Gerontology, Travel Grant ($306.60)
Summer Program in Aging sponsorship, Canadian Institutes of Health Research –
Institute of Aging.
Jan Metcalfe Award, Registered Nurses Foundation of Ontario ($1,000)
Strategic Training Fellowship, Canadian Institutes of Health Research,
Transdisciplinary Understanding and Training on Research - Primary Health Care
($15,437.50)
Nursing Education Initiative, Registered Nurses Association of Ontario ($1,500)
2
2006
2006
2006
2006-2007
2006-2007
2006
2006
2006
2006
2005
2005-2006
2005
2005
2004
2004-2005
2004
2004
2003
The Graduate Student Research Award, VP Research and Faculty of Health
Sciences, The University of Western Ontario ($330)
People’s Choice for Best Student Research Project, Ontario Gerontology
Association, 2006 Annual Conference ($100)
Student Travel Award, School of Nursing, The University of Western Ontario
($416.08)
Research Traineeship, “Client-Caregiver-Provider Relationships in Home-Based
Dementia Care: A Critical Analysis”, Alzheimer Society of Canada ($5,000)
Doctoral Fellowship, Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council ($40,000)
Ontario Graduate Scholarship (Offer declined due to SSHRC Fellowship)
The Dean’s Award for Research Excellence for a second place oral presentation at
the Western Research Forum, The University of Western Ontario ($175)
Educational Bursary, Community Health Nurses’ Initiatives Group, Registered
Nurses Association of Ontario ($1,000)
Doctoral Scholarship, Nursing Research Interest Group, Registered Nurses
Association of Ontario ($2,000)
Research Traineeship, “Double Duty Caregiving: Development and Validation of
the DDC Scale”, Canadian Institutes of Health Research ($8,000)
Extendicare Scholarship in Gerontology, Canadian Nurses Foundation ($5,000)
Research Traineeship, “Understanding Client-Family-Nurse Relationships in
Home-Based Palliative Care for Seniors”, Canadian Institutes of Health Research
($17,500)
Outstanding Undergraduate Student, Sigma Theta Tau International Honor
Society of Nursing, Iota Omicron Chapter
Commissioner of Excellence Award, The University of Western Ontario
Inductee, Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing, Iota Omicron
Chapter
6. Professional Memberships and Associations:
Community Health Nurses’ Association of Canada
College of Nurses of Ontario, Registered Nurse
Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, Nursing Research Interest Group
Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, Community Health Nurses’ Initiatives
Group
2003-Present Sigma Theta Tau International Honor Society of Nursing, Iota Omicron Chapter
2002-Present Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario
International Union for Health Promotion and Education
2010-2012
2007-2010
London Interprofessional Healthcare Students' Association
2007-2010
National Initiative for the Care of the Elderly
2004-2010
Canadian Association on Gerontology
2006-2007
Canadian Association for Nursing Research
2005-2008
Ontario Gerontology Association
2007-Present
2004-Present
2004-Present
2004-Present
3
2003-2004
2003-2004
2001-2004
Nursing Students’ Organization
Student Representative, Registered Nurses’ Association of Ontario, Research
Committee
Canadian Nursing Students’ Association
7. Administrative Duties:
A) The University of Western Ontario
2011-Present
2010-Present
2005-2010
2007-2009
2005-2006
2003-2005
2004-2005
2004-2005
2003-2004
2003-2004
2003-2004
2003-2004
2002-2003
2001-2002
2000-2001
Faculty Representative, Graduate Programs Educational Policy Committee
Faculty Representative, Undergraduate Programs Council
Doctoral Representative, Graduate Nursing Students’ Committee
Doctoral Representative, Graduate Scholarship Awards Committee
Doctoral Representative, Graduate Affairs Committee, Nursing
Student Representative, Facilities Management Committee, Nursing
Nursing Representative, Society of Graduate Students
First Year Representative, Graduate Nursing Students’ Network
Vice-President Student Affairs, Nursing Students’ Council
Student Representative, School Affairs Committee, Nursing
Committee Chair, Charity Committee, Nursing Students’ Council
Off-Campus Orientation Commissioner, University Students’ Council
Vice-President Administration, Nursing Students’ Council
Senior Social Commissioner, Nursing Students’ Council
Junior Social Commissioner, Nursing Students’ Council
B) Other Academic
2012-Present Mentor, School Within a University Program
2011-2012
Planning Committee, 2012 Global Health Conference, Marginalized Communities
Sub-Committee
Champion, Street Nurses Virtual Community of Practice
2008-2009
2006-2008
Secretary/Treasurer, Canadian Association on Gerontology, Student
Connection/Connexion Etudiante
C) Community
2012-Present Board Member, United Way London & Middlesex
2012-Present Member-at-large, Housing Advisory Committee, City of London
2012-Present External Member, Middlesex London Health Unit – Strategic Achievement
Group, Health Inequities
2011-Present Board Member, Thames Valley Family Health Team
2011-Present Vice-Chair, London Homeless Coalition Executive Committee
2010-Present Member, All Our Sisters Steering Committee
2010-Present Founder, London Homelessness Outreach Network
2005-Present Member, Street Nurses Network
2005-Present Member, London Homeless Coalition
4
2011-2012
2011-2012
2006-2011
2007-2008
2006-2007
Board Member, Daya Counselling Centre
Coordinator, Emerging Leaders – OnBoard Program
Member, London Harm Reduction Coalition
Volunteer, Hospice of London
Volunteer, The London Coffee House
8. Scholarly and Professional Activities:
A) Manuscript Reviewer
2012
2010-Present
2009-Present
2008-Present
2008-Present
2005-Present
2009-2011
2006-2007
Youth Homelessness in Canada: A Reader [Book]
Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing
Medical Care
Esurio: Ontario Journal of Hunger and Poverty
End Poverty Now Journal
Journal of Clinical Nursing
Western Undergraduate Research Journal: Health and Natural Sciences
Western Journal of Graduate Research
B) Guest Manuscript Reviewer
Spring 2009
Canadian Journal of Nursing Research
C) Abstract Reviewer
2008 National Health Sciences Students Association. Annual Research Conference.
2006, 2007, 2009
Iota Omicron Chapter, Sigma Theta Tau. Annual Research Conference.
9. Teaching Record
A) Courses Taught
Fall 2012
Fall 2012
Fall 2012
Fall 2012
Summer 2012
Summer 2012
Winter 2012
Fall 2011
Fall 2011
Summer 2011
N4496 Preceptorship: Independent Practice in Nursing – a Synthesis
N4410 Operating Room Nursing – Course Coordinator
N4412 Nurses Influencing Change – Course Coordinator
N4420 Focused Clinical Concepts – Course Coordinator
N3324 Community Health Promotion – Course Coordinator
N3341 Mental Health Care – Course Coordinator
N4496 Preceptorship: Independent Practice in Nursing – a Synthesis
N4420 Focused Clinical Concepts
N3362 Professional Practice in Communities
N3331 Mental Health Care and Community Health Promotion – Course
Coordinator
Winter 2011 N4496 Preceptorship: Independent Practice in Nursing – a Synthesis
Summer 2010 N3331 Mental Health Care and Community Health Promotion – Course
Coordinator
5
Winter 2010 N4496 Preceptorship: Independent Practice in Nursing – a Synthesis
Fall 2009
N4420 Focused Clinical Concepts - Lecturer
Fall 2009
N3362a Professional Nursing Practice III: Promoting the Health of Communities
– Clinical Instructor
Fall 2009
N3318a Elementary Statistics – Course Coordinator
Summer 2009 N3331 Mental Health Care and Community Health Promotion – Course
Coordinator
Winter 2009 N3351 Promoting the Health of Families and Communities - Lecturer
2008-2009
N3352 Professional Nursing Practice III: Promoting the Health of Families and
Communities – Clinical Instructor
2007-2008
N352 Professional Nursing Practice III: Promoting the Health of Families and
Communities – Clinical Instructor
B) Undergraduate Student Co-Supervision
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
2006
Katherine Race, N319a – Research Methodology in Nursing
Elizabeth Kent, N319a – Research Methodology in Nursing
Sicong Liu, N319a – Research Methodology in Nursing
Leeann Gibbs, N319a – Research Methodology in Nursing
Melissa Smith, N319a – Research Methodology in Nursing
Samantha Bondy, N319a – Research Methodology in Nursing
Dawn Brunschwiler, N319b – Research Methodology in Nursing
Anna Sullivan, N319b – Research Methodology in Nursing
C) Thesis Examination
July 18, 2012 Diana Leone, MScN – The Lived Experience of Anxiety Among Adolescents
during High School. Chair.
Mar 27, 2012 Jennifer Molloy, MScN - Moral Distress Experienced by Registered Nurses in the
Resuscitation of Extremely Premature Infants: A Qualitative Secondary Analysis. Examiner.
Dec 15, 2011 Ana Paula Anjos, MScN - Understanding the Gendered Expectations and
Exemptions Experienced by Male Double Duty Caregivers. Examiner.
10. Peer Reviewed Research Funding
1. Information and Communication Technology use and Well-Being in the Context of Homelessness
Term
2012-2013
Principal
Investigator
Oudshoorn, A.
Co-Investigators
Donelle, L., Grzyb, A., & Hall, J.
Grantor
Research Western – Academic Development Fund
6
Term
2012-2013
Total Amount
$8,467
2. The Influence of Structural and Systemic Violence on the Health of Children and Adolescents:
Intersections Among Gender, Race, and Class
Term
2011-2016
Principal
Investigator
Berman, H.
Co-Investigators
Damant, D., Johnson, H., Thurston, W., Gonick, M., Richardson, C.,
Ashbourne, L., Donelle, L, Forchuk, C., Grzyb, A., Jaffe, P., Jiwani, Y.,
LaPierre, S., Lessard, G., Molgat, M., Nixon, K., Oudshoorn, A.,
Samuels-Dennis, J., Tutty, L.
Grantor
CIHR Team Grant: Gender, Violence, and Health
Total Amount
$1,371,511
3. A Program for Peer-Facilitated Social Support for Persons Living in Poverty with Hepatitis C
Term
01/2010 – 12/2010
Principal
Investigator
Tobin, S.
Co-Investigators
Oudshoorn, A.
Grantor
Public Health Agency of Canada - Hepatitis C Prevention, Support and
Total Amount
$26,114.80
Research Program, Community Acquired Infections Division
4. Client-Provider Relationships in a Community Health Centre for Homeless Persons: A
Critical Ethnography
Term
05/2009 – 12/2009
Principal
Investigator
Oudshoorn, A.
Co-Investigators
Ward-Griffin, C., Berman, H., Forchuk, C. & Poland, B.
7
Term
05/2009 – 12/2009
Grantor
Registered Nurses Association – Nursing Research Interest Group, Open
Research Grant
Total Amount
$2,000
5. Client-Provider Relationships in a Community Health Centre for Homeless Persons: A
Critical Ethnography
Term
01/2009 – 12/2009
Principal
Investigator
Oudshoorn, A.
Co-Investigators
Ward-Griffin, C., Berman, H., Forchuk, C. & Poland, B.
Grantor
Faculty of Health Sciences, The University of Western Ontario – Graduate
Thesis Research Award
Total Amount
$1,333
6. Knowledge Exchange for Evidence Based Gerontology Content in Undergraduate Nursing Education
Term
10/2008 – 10/2009
Principal
Investigator
McCleary, L.
Co-Investigators
McDonald, L., McGilton, K. & Oudshoorn, A.
Grantor
CIHR – Meetings, Planning and Dissemination: Aging
Total Amount
$10,000.00
11. Grant Proposals Under Review (pending)
12. Community-Based Funding:
1. Poverty in London and Middlesex
Term
2011-2012
Principal
Investigator
Oudshoorn, A.
8
Term
2011-2012
Co-Investigators
McManus, K., Cowan, K.
Grantor
United Way London & Middlesex
Total Amount
$4,500
2. A Community Roundtable on Healthcare and Homelessness in London, Ontario
Term
07/2011 – 09/2011
Principal
Investigator
Oudshoorn, A.
Co-Investigators
Walker, C., Richardson, J., Coad, S.
Grantor
London Community Foundation, Ashley Grace Powell Memorial Fund
Total Amount
$2,500
3. “Grit Uplifted”: A Magazine for Creative Writing and Visual Arts by People Experiencing
Homelessness in London, Ontario
Term
05/2011 – 12/2011
Principal
Investigator
Oudshoorn, A.
Co-Investigators
McConnell, K.
Grantor
London Community Foundation
Total Amount
$1,500
13. Publications:
A) Publications in Scholarly Journals (Refereed)
1. Oudshoorn, A., Ward-Griffin, C., Forchuk, C., Berman, H., & Poland, B. (In Press).
Client-Provider Relationships in a Community Health Clinic for People who are
Experiencing Homelessness. Nursing Inquiry.
2. Ward-Griffin, C., McWilliam, C., & Oudshoorn, A. (In Press). Relational Experiences
of Family Caregivers Providing Home-Based End-of-Life Care. Journal of Family
Nursing.
9
3. Ward-Griffin, C., McWilliam, C., & Oudshoorn, A. (2012). Nursing relational care
patterns in palliative home care. Journal of Palliative Care, 28(2), 97-104.
4. Ward-Griffin, C., Hall, J., De Forge, R., St Amant, O., McWilliam, C.L., Oudshoorn, A.,
Forbes, D., & Klosek, M. (2012). Dementia Home Care Resources: How Are We
Managing? Journal of Aging Research, 2012. doi:10.1155/2012/590724
5. Mcwilliam, C. & Oudshoorn, A. (2011). Evidence-based refinement of health and
social services: Exploring the possibilities of intravention research. Quality Management
in Health Care 20, 280-292..
6. Wilson, B., Harwood, L., Oudshoorn, A. & Thompson, B. (2010). The Culture of
Vascular Access Cannulation Among Nursing in a Chronic Hemodialysis Unit.
Canadian Nephrology Nursing Journal, 20(3).
7. McCleary, L., McGilton, L., Boscart, V. & Oudshoorn, A. (2009). Improving
Gerontology Content in Baccalaureate Nursing Education Through Knowledge Tranfer to
Nurse Educators, Canadian Journal of Nursing Leadership, 22(3), 33-46.
8. Ward-Griffin, C., Martin-Matthews, A., Keefe, J., Kerr, M., Brown, J.B., Oudshoorn, A.
(2009). The development and validation of the Double Duty Caregiving Scale (DDCS).
Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 41(3), 108-128.
9. McWilliam, C., Kothari, A., Leipert, B., Ward-Griffin, C., Forbes, D., King, M.L.,
Klosek, M., Ferguson, K. & Oudshoorn, A. (2008). Accelerating Knowledge to Action
in Client-Driven Care: Pilot Study for a Social Interaction Approach to Knowledge
Translation. Canadian Journal of Nursing Research, 40(2), 58-74.
10. McWilliam, C., Ward-Griffin, C., Oudshoorn, A. & Krestick, E. (2008). Living while
dying/dying while living: Older clients’ socio-cultural experience of home-based
palliative care. Journal of Hospice and Palliative Nursing, 10(6), 338-349.
11. Leipert, B.D., Kloseck, M., McWilliam, C., Forbes, D., Kothari, A. & Oudshoorn, A.
(2007). Fitting a round peg into a square hole: Exploring issues, challenges, and
strategies for solutions in rural home care settings. Online Journal of Rural Nursing and
Health Care, 7(2).
12. Oudshoorn, A., Ward-Griffin, C. & McWilliam, C. (2007). Nurse-client relationships in
home-based palliative care: A critical analysis of power relations. Journal of Clinical
Nursing, 16(8), 1435-1443.
13. Ward-Griffin, C., Oudshoorn, A., Clark, K. & Bol, N. (2007). Mother-Adult Daughter
Relationships Within Dementia Care: A Critical Analysis. Journal of Family Nursing,
13(1), 13-32.
10
14. Ward-Griffin, C., Bol, N. & Oudshoorn, A. (2006). Perspectives of women with
dementia receiving care from their adult daughters. Canadian Journal of Nursing
Research, 38(1), 121-146.
15. Oudshoorn, A. (2005). Power and empowerment: Critical concepts in the nurse-client
relationship. Contemporary Nurse, 20(1), 57-66.
B) Invited Publications (Non-Refereed)
1. Oudshoorn, A. (2011). Health and wellbeing: Protect yourself from the sun. The
Pavement, 62, 24-25.
2. Oudshoorn, A. (2011). Health and wellbeing: Do you know what to do in case of an
overdose? The Pavement, 61, 24-25.
3. Oudshoorn, A., Tobin, S. & Walsh, M. (2007). Community Response to Hepatitis C: A
Strategic Plan for London, Ontario. Prepared for: Hepatitis C Secretariat, Ministry of
Health and Long-Term Care Ontario.
4. Oudshoorn, A. (2005). Nursing: An untapped opportunity for men. Let’s Talk Science
Partnership Program newsletter, Winter 2005.
14. Presentations:
A) Abstracts/Presentations at Professional Meetings (Refereed)
1. Wilson, B., Harwood, L. & Oudshoorn, A. (October 27, 2012). Moving beyond the
“perpetual novice”: Understanding the experiences of novice hemodialysis nurses and
cannulation of the arteriovenous fistula. CANNT 2012, Ottawa, ON.
2. Oudshoorn, A., Cowan, K & McManus, K. (September 29, 2012). Poverty in London &
Middlesex. 4th Biennial Nursing Conference, University of Windsor, Windor, ON.
3. Oudshoorn, A. (June 21, 2012). A life of its own: Experience of the critical mandate of
critical ethnography. Annual Qualitative Analysis Conference: Cultures of
Narrative/Narratives of Culture, St John’s, NL.
4. Oudshoorn, A., Ward-Griffin, C., Berman, H., Forchuk, C., & Poland, B. (May 15,
2012). Client-provider relationships in a community health clinic for people who are
experiencing homelessness. 6th National Community Health Nurses Conference,
Toronto, ON.
5. Oudshoorn, A. & Chadwick, A. (Apr 20, 2012). Connecting community and academia
for learning and action on homelessness. STTI Region 10 Biennial Conference, Ann
Arbor, MI.
11
6. Oudshoorn, A. (May 17, 2011). Caregiving relationships with homeless clients: Why
every nurse should be a political activist. 5th National Community Health Nurses
Conference, Toronto, ON.
7. Oudshoorn, A. (May 9, 2011). Developing a Network for Action on Homelessness in
London, Ontario. All Our Sisters: First Canadian Forum on Housing and Safe
Communities for Women, London, ON.
8. Ward-Griffin, C., DeForge, R., St-Amant, O., Hall, J., McWilliam, C., Forbes, D.,
Oudshoorn, A., Klosek, M., & Mowatt, J. (Dec 4, 2010). Advocating for equitable
dementia home care services: Linking practice, policy and research. Canadian
Association on Gerontology: 39th Annual Scientific and Educational Meeting, Montreal,
QC.
9. Oudshoorn, A., Ward-Griffin, C., Berman, H., Forchuk, C. & Poland, B. (Oct 28, 2010).
An Insider and an Outsider: Conducting Critical Ethnographic Research in One’s Place of
Employment. Rethinking Homelessness, Montreal, QC.
10. Oudshoorn, A., Ward-Griffin, C., Berman, H., Forchuk, C. & Poland, B. (Oct 15, 2010).
Policy as a Barrier to Healthcare for Homeless Persons. Poverty 2010, Kingston, ON.
11. Oudshoorn, A. (June 17, 2010). Exploring Space and Place in Community-Based
Healthcare with Homeless Persons. 4th National Community Health Nurses Conference,
Toronto, ON.
12. Ward-Griffin, C., McWilliam, C., Forbes, D., Klosek, M., Oudshoorn, A., Mowat, J., StAmant, O. & DeForge, R. (October 22, 2009). Resource management in dementia
homecare: Merging divergent perspectives. Canadian Association on Gerontology: 38th
Annual Scientific and Educational Meeting, Winnipeg, MB.
13. Oudshoorn, A. & Ward-Griffin, C. (October 22, 2009). Using a Life Course Perspective
to Understand Pathways into Homelessness. Canadian Association on Gerontology: 38th
Annual Scientific and Educational Meeting, Winnipeg, MB.
14. McCleary, L., DeForge, R., McGilton, K., Oudshoorn, A. (October 22, 2009).
Knowledge Exchange for Advanced Geriatric Nursing Education. Canadian Association
on Gerontology: 38th Annual Scientific and Educational Meeting, Winnipeg, MB.
15. Ward-Griffin, C., McWilliam, C., Forbes, D., St-Amant, O., DeForge, R., Oudshoorn,
A., Klosek, M., Mowat., J. and Bol, N. (October 6, 2009). Promoting Transformational
Change in Dementia Homecare for Seniors. RNAO 8th International Edlercare
Conference, Toronto, ON.
16. McCleary, L., DeForge, R., McGilton, K., Oudshoorn, A. (October 6, 2009). Increasing
Capacity for Geriatric and Gerontology Content in Canadian Nursing Education. RNAO
8th International Edlercare Conference, Toronto, Ontario.
12
17. Oudshoorn, A., Ward-Griffin, C., Berman, H., Forchuk, C., Poland, B. (July 6, 2009).
Why is Everyone at this Clinic Aged 30 to 40? Using Life Course Perspective to
Understand Homelessness. 19th IAGG World Congress, Paris, France.
18. Ward-Griffin, C., McWilliam, C., Forbes, D., Klosek, M., Oudshoorn, A., Bol, N.,
Mowat, J., St-Amant, O. & DeForge, R. (July 6, 2009). Evaluating home-based dementia
care practices: A critical analysis. 19th IAGG World Congress, Paris, France.
19. McCleary, L., DeForge, R., McGilton, K., Oudshoorn, A. (July 6, 2009). Increasing
Capacity for Geriatric and Gerontology Content in Canadian Nursing Education. 19th
IAGG World Congress, Paris, France.
20. Ward-Griffin, C., McWilliam, C., Forbes, D., Klosek, M., Bol, N., Mowat, J.,
Oudshoorn, A., St-Amant, O. & DeForge, R. (June 4, 2009). A critical analysis of
home-based dementia care: Where have all the nurses gone? The 9th International
Family Nursing Conference, Reykjavik, Iceland.
21. Ward-Griffin, C., Keefe, J., Martin-Matthews, A., Kerr, M., Brown, J.B., Oudshoorn, A.
& St-Amant, O. (June 4, 2009). Providing care at home and at work: Investigating the
impact of double duty caregiving on the health of nurses. The 9th International Family
Nursing Conference, Reykjavik, Iceland.
22. McCleary, L., Oudshoorn, A. & McGilton, K. (May 28, 2009). Knowledge Exchange
for Evidence Based Gerontology Content in Undergraduate Nursing Education. 15th
National Conference on Gerontological Nursing: Making Moments Matter, Banff, AB.
23. Oudshoorn, A. & Ward-Griffin, C. (May 21, 2009). Aging in the Context of
Homelessness. Annual NICE Knowledge Exchange 2009, Toronto, ON.
24. St-Amant, O., DeForge, R., Oudshoorn, A. & Ward-Griffin, C. (May 7, 2009). Creating
equitable dementia homecare policies and practices. Showcase Health Policy at Western,
London, ON.
25. Oudshoorn, A. & Ward-Griffin, C. (May 1, 2009). Engaging in critical ethnography:
Navigating multiple roles. 22nd Annual Research Conference: Nursing Research The
Path To Excellence, London, ON.
26. St-Amant, O., DeForge, R., Oudshoorn, A., & Ward-Griffin, C. (May 1, 2009).
Negotiating relationships in home-based dementia care: A critical analysis of the
evaluation of care practices. 22nd Annual Research Conference: Nursing Research The
Path To Excellence, London, ON.
27. Oudshoorn, A. & Ward-Griffin, C. (February 19, 2009). Health services for homeless
persons: Moving to relationship-centred care. Growing Home: Housing and
Homelessness in Canada, Calgary, AB.
13
28. St-Amant, O., DeForge, R., Oudshoorn, A., Ward-Griffin, C., McWilliam, C., Forbes,
D., Klosek, M., Bol, N. & Mowat, J. (February 6, 2009). The social context of
caregiving: A critical analysis of home-based dementia care. ARGC/FHS Symposium,
London, ON.
29. Ward-Griffin, C., McWilliam, C., Oudshoorn, A. & Krestick, E. (November 23, 2008).
End-of-Life Home Care for Seniors and their Caregivers: Exploring the Practice Patterns
of Nurses. Gerontological Society of America's 61st Annual Scientific Meeting, National
Harbor, Maryland.
30. McCleary, L., Forbes, D., Platt, N., Ferguson, K., Bawden, M., Reid, D., Oudshoorn, A.,
Guse, L. & Dodge Wilson, L. (October 24, 2008). Successfully Integrating Gerontology
in Undergraduate Nursing Curricula. Canadian Association on Gerontology: 37th
Annual Scientific and Educational Meeting, London, ON.
31. Forbes, D., Platt, N., Ferguson, K., Bawden, M., Reid, D., Oudshoorn, A. (October 24,
2008). Workshop to Enhance Gerontological Curriculum for Nurse Educators.
Canadian Association on Gerontology: 37th Annual Scientific and Educational Meeting,
London, ON.
32. Ward-Griffin, C., Oudshoorn, A., St-Amant, O & DeForge, R. (October 24, 2008).
Examining Relationships within Home-Based Dementia Care: “Lessons Learned” in the
Field. Canadian Association on Gerontology: 37th Annual Scientific and Educational
Meeting, London, ON.
33. St-Amant, O., Ward-Griffin, C., Oudshoorn, A. & DeForge, R. (October 24, 2008).
How do families negotiate the provision of home-based dementia care? Canadian
Association on Gerontology: 37th Annual Scientific and Educational Meeting, London,
ON.
34. Ward-Griffin, C., McWilliam, C., Forbes, D., Klosek, M., Bol, N., Mowatt, J.,
Oudshoorn, A., Clarke, K., St-Amant, O., & DeForge, R. (October 24, 2008).
Negotiating Relationships-Navigating Positions in Home-Based Dementia Care: A
Critical Analysis. Canadian Association on Gerontology: 37th Annual Scientific and
Educational Meeting, London, ON.
35. St-Amant, O., Oudshoorn, A., DeForge, R., Chabot, S. & Ward-Griffin, C. (June 2008).
A critical analysis of dementia care networks: Homecare providers’ perspectives. Annual
NICE Knowledge Exchange, Toronto, ON.
36. DeForge, R., St-Amant, O., Oudshoorn, A., Chabot, S. & Ward-Griffin, C. (June 2008).
Negotiating home-based dementia care: A critical ethnography. Annual NICE
Knowledge Exchange, Toronto, ON.
14
Oudshoorn, A., Clarke, K., St-Amant, O., & DeForge, R. (June 2, 2008). Negotiating
dementia home care: A critical analysis. Canadian Public Health Association 2008
Annual Conference, Halifax, NS.
38. Oudshoorn, A., Tobin, S. & Walsh, M. (May 30, 2008). Project work and the
community health nurse. 2nd National Conference for Community Health Nurses,
Toronto, ON.
Oudshoorn, A., Clarke, K., St-Amant, O., & DeForge, R. (May 30, 2008). Clientprovider relationships in dementia home care: A critical analysis. 2nd National
Conference for Community Health Nurses, Toronto, ON.
40. Leipert, B., Klosek, M., McWilliam, C., Forbes, D., Kothari, A. & Oudshoorn, A. (May
30, 2008). Fitting a round peg into a square hole: Exploring issues, challenges, and
solutions in rural home care. 2nd National Conference for Community Health Nurses,
Toronto, ON.
41. St-Amant, O., Oudshoorn, A., Deforge, R., Chabot, S. & Ward-Griffin, C. (May 2,
2008). A critical analysis of dementia care networks: Homecare providers’ perspective.
21st Annual Research Conference: Nursing Research The Path To Excellence, London,
ON.
42. Deforge, R., St-Amant, O., Oudshoorn, A., Chabot, S. & Ward-Griffin, C. (February 8,
2008). Negotiating home-based dementia care: A critical ethnography. ARGC/FHS
Symposium: Bridging Partnerships in Aging and Rehabilitation Research, London, ON.
43. Leipert, B., Kloseck, M., McWilliam, C., Forbes, D., Kothari A. & Oudshoorn, A.
(February 8, 2008). Rural Home Care Issues, Challenges, and Solutions. ARGC/FHS
Symposium: Bridging Partnerships in Aging and Rehabilitation Research, London, ON.
44. Oudshoorn, A., Ward-Griffin, C., St Amant, O. & Clark, K. (November 2, 2007).
Negotiating Care: Power relationships within families providing home-based dementia
care. Canadian Association on Gerontology: 36th Annual Scientific and Educational
Meeting, Calgary, AB.
45. Ward-Griffin, C., McWilliam, C., Oudshoorn, A. & Krestick, E. (Nov 2, 2007).
Exploring Nursing Practice Patterns in Home-Based Pallaitive Care. Canadian
Association on Gerontology: 36th Annual Scientific and Educational Meeting, Calgary,
AB.
46. McWilliam, C., Ward-Griffin, C., Forbes, D., King, M.L., Klosek, M., Kothari, A.,
Leipert, B., Ferguson, K. & Oudshoorn, A. (Nov 2, 2007). Promoting knowledge
translation to shape the landscape of in-home care. Canadian Association on
Gerontology: 36th Annual Scientific and Educational Meeting, Calgary, AB.
15
47. McWilliam, C. Coleman, S., Ward-Griffin, C., Laschinger, H., Kothari, A., Forbes, D.,
King, ML., Leipert, B., Kloseck, M., Walker, C., Ferguson, K., Oosterink, J., Peirce, T.,
Wilson, M., Golding, S., Stewart, M., Vingilis, E., Oudshoorn, A. (July 13, 2007).
Using Transformative Knowledge Translation to Advance Practice in a Transdisciplinary
Environment. 18th International Nursing Research Congress, Vienna, Austria.
48. McWilliam, C., Ward-Griffin, C., Oudshoorn, A. & Krestick, E. (June 17, 2007). Older
Clients' Experiences of End-of-life Care. FICCDAT: The Festival of International
Conferences on Caregiving, Disability, Aging and Technology, Toronto, Ontario.
49. Ward-Griffin, C., Keefe, J., Martin-Matthews, A., Kerr, M., Brown, J. & Oudshoorn, A.
(June 17, 2007). The development and validation of the DDC Scale. FICCDAT: The
Festival of International Conferences on Caregiving, Disability, Aging and Technology,
Toronto, Ontario.
50. Oudshoorn, A., Ward-Griffin, C. & McWilliam, C. (June 17, 2007). Clients’
perspectives of home-based palliative care: An experience of powerlessness. FICCDAT:
The Festival of International Conferences on Caregiving, Disability, Aging and
Technology, Toronto, Ontario.
Wilson, M., Golding, S., Stewart, M., Vingilis, E., Oudshoorn, A. (June 10, 2007).
Putting "Health" into Health Professionals’ Practice. 19th IUHPE World Conference on
Health Promotion and Health Education, Vancouver, British Columbia.
52. Oudshoorn, A. (June 10, 2007). Providing critique in health promotion research:
Exposing oppression in a meaningful way. 19th IUHPE World Conference on Health
Promotion and Health Education, Vancouver, British Columbia.
53. Ward-Griffin, C., Keefe, J., Martin-Matthews, A., Kerr, M., Brown, J., Oudshoorn, A.
(June 10, 2007). Caring at home and at work: Investigating the impact of double duty
caregiving on the health of caregivers. 19th IUHPE World Conference on Health
Promotion and Health Education, Vancouver, British Columbia.
54. Ward-Griffin, C., Oudshoorn, A., Clarke, K., & Bol, N. (June 5, 2007). Motherdaughter relationships within dementia care: A critical analysis. The 8th International
Family Nursing Conference (IFNC), Bangkok, Thailand.
55. Oudshoorn, A. (June 1, 2007). Palliative care and homelessness: Is dying with dignity
possible? Ontario Gerontology Association: 26th Annual Conference, Toronto, Ontario.
56. Oudshoorn, A., Ward-Griffin, C., McWilliam, C. & Krestick, E. (June 1, 2007).
Providing home-based palliative care for seniors: Nurses’ perspectives. Ontario
Gerontology Association: 26th Annual Conference, Toronto, Ontario.
16
57. Ward-Griffin, C., McWilliam, C., Krestrick, E., Oudshoorn, A. (May 3, 2007). Client
Centered versus family centred home-based palliative care: Nurses’ perspectives.
Community Health Nurses Association of Canada 1st National Conference, Toronto, ON.
58. Oudshoorn, A. (May 3, 2007). Ideologies of Health Promotion and Community Health.
Community Health Nurses Association of Canada 1st National Conference, Toronto, ON.
59. Oudshoorn, A. (April 23, 2007). Palliative care and homelessness: Where does
palliation occur? Ontario Palliative Care Association: 17th Annual Ontario Provincial
Conference on Palliative and End-of-Life Care, Toronto, Ontario.
Wilson, M., Golding, S., Stewart, M., Vingilis, E., Oudshoorn, A. (April 13, 2007).
Accelerating Knowledge to Action : Promoting Evidence-Based Practice. Sigma Theta
Tau – Iota Omicron Chapter: 20th Annual Research Conference, London, Ontario.
61. McWilliam, C. Coleman, S., Stewart, M., Vingilis, E., Ward-Griffin, C., Laschinger, H.,
Kothari, A., Forbes, D., King, ML., Leipert, B., Kloseck, M., Walker, C., Ferguson, K.,
Oosterink, J., Peirce, T., Wilson, M., Golding, S., Oudshoorn, A. (December 12, 2006).
Promoting Evidence-Based Practice in Home Care. The 16th Annual Home Care
Summit, Toronto, ON.
62. Ward-Griffin, C., Oudshoorn, A. & Clark, K. (November 6, 2006). Negotiating MotherDaughter Relationships within Dementia Care. Alzheimer Society: 28th National
Conference, Toronto, Ontario.
63. Ward-Griffin, C., Bol, N., Oudshoorn, A. & Clark, K. (November 6, 2006). InterviewBased Research with Persons with Dementia: Methodological Issues. Alzheimer Society:
28th National Conference, Toronto, Ontario.
64. Ward-Griffin, C., Oudshoorn, A. & Krestick, E. (October 27, 2006). Living in limbo:
The family’s perspective of home based palliative care. Canadian Association on
Gerontology: Acknowledging our past, Building our Future, Quebec City, Quebec.
65. Ward-Griffin, C., Oudshoorn, A. & Clark, K. (September 28, 2006). Mother-daughter
relationships within demntia care: A critical analysis. RNAO: 5th International
Conference Older People Deserve the Best, Toronto, Ontario.
66. Oudshoorn, A. (September 26, 2006). A fading focus on health promotion. CommunityUniversity Research Alliance (CURA) – Mental Health and Housing Dissemination
Conference, London, Ontario.
67. Ward-Griffin, C., Keefe, J., Martin-Matthews, A., Kerr, M., Brown, J. & Oudshoorn, A.
(July 21, 2006). Nurses caring for aging relatives: Blurring the professional-personal
17
boundaries. Sigma Theta Tau 17th International Nursing Research Congress: Focusing
on Evidence-Based Practice, Montreal, Quebec.
68. Oudshoorn, A., Ward-Griffin, C. & McWilliam, C. (April 27, 2006). Client-Nurse
Relations in Palliative Care: Clients’ Perspectives. Ontario Gerontology Association:
25th Annual Conference, Toronto, Ontario.
69. Ward-Griffin, C. & Oudshoorn, A. (April 27, 2006). Supporting Mother-Daughter
Relationships Within Dementia Care. Ontario Gerontology Association: 25th Annual
Conference, Toronto, Ontario.
Relationships in Home-Based Palliative Care: Nurses’ Perspectives. Ontario Palliative
Care Association: 16th Annual Ontario Provincial Conference on Palliative and End-ofLife Care, Toronto, Ontario.
71. Oudshoorn, A. (April 21, 2006). Neo-Liberal Ideologies and the Co-optation of Health
Promotion. Sigma Theta Tau – Iota Omicron Chapter: 19th Annual Research
Conference, London, Ontario.
Relationships in Home-Based Palliative Care: A Hierarchy of Power. Western Research
Forum, London, Ontario.
73. Oudshoorn, A., Ward-Griffin, C. & McWilliam, C. (March 28, 2006). Client-Nurse
Relationships in Home-Based Palliative Care: A Critical Analysis of Power Relations.
Lawson Health Research Institute: Sister Mary Doyle Research Day, London, Ontario.
74. Oudshoorn, A., Ward-Griffin, C. & McWilliam, C. (October 21, 2005). Nurse-Client
Relationships in Home-Based Palliative Care for Seniors: A Critical Analysis of Power
Relations. Canadian Association on Gerontology: Navigating the Winds of Change,
Halifax, Nova Scotia.
75. Ward-Griffin, C., McWilliam, C., Oudshoorn, A. & Krestick, L. (October 21, 2005).
Client-Family-Nurse Relationships within Palliative Care. Canadian Association on
Gerontology: Navigating the Winds of Change, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
76. Ward-Griffin, C., Oudshoorn, A., Clark, K. & Bol, N. (October 21, 2005). MotherDaughter Relationships within Dementia Care: A Transformative process. Canadian
Association on Gerontology: Navigating the Winds of Change, Halifax, Nova Scotia.
77. Oudshoorn, A. & Ward-Griffin, C. (October 13, 2005). Palliative care research ethics:
A new perspective. Nursing Research Day: Bridging the Gap Between Research &
Nursing Practice, Hamilton, Ontario.
18
78. Ward-Griffin, C., Oudshoorn, A. & Bol, N. (May 6, 2005). Older women with
Alzheimer’s Disease receiving care from daughters: A burden or a blessing? Sigma
Theta Tau 18th Annual Research Conference, London, Ontario.
79. Oudshoorn, A. (April 12, 2005). Building a model of social inequalities in caregiving
relationships. Western Research Forum, London, Ontario.
80. Ward-Griffin, C., Bol, N. & Oudshoorn, A. (February 18, 2005). Interviewing people
with dementia: Methodological considerations. The Sixth International Interdisciplinary
Advances in Qualitative Methods Conference, Edmonton, Alberta.
81. Ward-Griffin, C., Bol, N. & Oudshoorn, A. (October 22, 2004). Mother-daughter
relationships: Supporting family ties within dementia. Canadian Association on
Gerontology: Diverse Perspectives, Victoria, British Columbia.
82. Ward-Griffin, C., Bol, N. & Oudshoorn, A. (September 22, 2004). Understanding
mother-daughter relationships within Alzhemier Disease. 3rd International Conference on
Elder Health Elder Care, Toronto, Canada.
83. Ward-Griffin, C., Bol, N. & Oudshoorn, A. (July 22, 2004). Mother-daughter
relationships within the care process of Alzheimer Disease: Daughter perspectives. Sigma
Theta Tau 15th International Research Congress, Dublin, Ireland.
84. Ward-Griffin, C., Belle Brown, J., Vandervoort, A., McNair, S., Melles, P., Oudshoorn,
A. (Oct 23, 2003). Health professionals as family caregivers of elderly relatives:
Building policy through partnerships. 2nd International Conference on Elder Care –
RNAO, Toronto, Ontario.
B) Invited Presentations (Non-Refereed)
1. Oudshoorn, A. (June 22, 2012). Poverty and healthcare: A collaborative approach. The
Harris Centre, St John’s, NL.
2. Oudshoorn, A., Richardson, J., Murray, P., Walker, C. & Coad, S. (Mar 29, 2012).
Evolving health services for individuals and families experiencing homelessness in
London, Ontario. Faculty of Health Sciences Research Day, London, ON.
3. Oudshoorn, A. (Feb 1 & 2, 2012). Understanding homelessness in London, Ontario.
Student Transitional Education Program, University Students’ Council, London, ON.
4. Oudshoorn, A. (Jan 25, 2012). Ethnography as a research Methodology. N9663:
Interpretive and Critical Research Methodologies – The University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario.
19
5. Oudshoorn, A. (Jan 19, 2011). [KEYNOTE] Homelessness is a process of being dehoused. United Way London and Middlesex – Labour Appreciation Awards Night,
London, ON.
6. Oudshoorn, A., Richardson, J., Waterfiled, D., & Tanner, G. (Nov 21, 2011).
Connecting the dots between housing with supports and homelessness. Made in Canada
Solutions: Partnerships for People, London, ON.
7. Oudshoorn, A. (May 6, 2011). [KEYNOTE] Homelessness and health: An exemplar of
integrating research, practice, and social action. 24th Annual Research Conference:
Nursing Research The Path To Excellence, London, ON.
8. Oudshoorn, A. (Mar 16, 2011). Data analysis in critical ethnography. N9663:
Interpretive and Critical Research Methodologies – The University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario.
9. Oudshoorn, A. (Feb 22, 2011). A response to ‘In From the Margins: A Call to Action
on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness’. Presentation by the Honourable Art Aggleton,
London, ON.
10. Oudshoorn, A., Forchuk, C., Gutmanis, I., Noble, E., & Teasell, R. (Feb 4, 2011). What
drives research? Impetus for basic, applied, or clinical research. AGRC/FHS Symposium
– The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
11. Oudshoorn, A. (Oct 21, 2010). Creating an Engaging Poster Presentation. PACS 301:
Special Topics – Trauma, Healing, and Conflict Resolution – The University of
Waterloo, Waterloo, Ontario.
12. Oudshoorn, A. (July 29, 2010). Writing for University – School of Nursing. Summer
Academic Writing Clinic - The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
13. Oudshoorn, A. (November 25, 2009). The content and process of PhD dissertations.
N680: Doctoral Seminar – The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
14. Oudshoorn, A. (March 18, 2009). Navigating Policies and Philosophies in Delivering
Health Care with Persons who are Homeless. Street Nurses Outreach: Fireside Chats –
Online, http://sno.mcmaster.ca/.
15. Oudshoorn, A. (January 21, 2009). Methodological Issues in Health Promotion
Research. N679: Advanced Concepts of Health Promotion – The University of Western
Ontario, London, Ontario.
16. Oudshoorn, A. (November 17, 2008). Nursing families in transition: Families dealing
with loss. N351: Promoting the Health of Families and Communities – The University of
Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
20
17. DeForge, R., St. Amant, O., Oudshoorn, A., Chabot, S. & Ward-Griffin, C. (March 28,
2008). Negotiating home-based dementia care: A critical ethnography. FHS Research
Day - The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
18. Oudshoorn, A. (March 19, 2008). Getting critical: My experiences with an emergent
paradigm. N663: Interpretive and Critical Research Methodologies – The University of
19. Oudshoorn, A., Tobin, S. & Walsh, M. (March 18, 2008). Community response to
Hepatitis C: A strategic plan for London, Ontario. The Hepatitis C Toolkit Project:
Workshop Series, London, Ontario.
20. Oudshoorn, A. (March 17, 2008). Achieving success in the comprehensive examination.
N680: Doctoral Seminar – The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
21. Oudshoorn, A. (March 10, 2008). Nursing families in transition: Families dealing with
loss. N351: Promoting the Health of Families and Communities – The University of
22. Oudshoorn, A., Ward-Griffin, C., Berman, H. & Forchuk, C. (November 20, 2007).
Therapeutic client-provider relationships in health care provision with persons
experiencing homelessness. Nursing Research Forum – The University of Western
24. Oudshoorn, A. (October 27, 2007). A student’s experiences of Doctoral studies in
Nursing. CNSA 2007 Ontario Regional Conference – London, Ontario.
25. Oudshoorn, A. (June 4, 2007). Advancing research in aging in the context of absolute
poverty. CIHR Summer Program in Aging, Harrison Hot Springs, British Columbia.
26. Oudshoorn, A. (March 26, 2007). Nursing families in transition: Families dealing with
loss. N351: Promoting the Health of Families and Communities – The University of
Wilson, M., Golding, S., Stewart, M., Vingilis, E., Oudshoorn, A. (February 27, 2007).
Celebrating the Evidence to Date. Building Partnerships for Client-Driven Care.
London, Ontario.
21
28. Oudshoorn, A. (February 22, 2007). Methodological issues in qualitative research:
Household as unit of analysis. CIHR Recognition Reception – The University of Western
29. Ward-Griffin, C. & Oudshoorn, A. (February 20, 2007). Caring at Home and at Work:
Investigating the Impact of Double Duty Caregiving on the Health of Caregivers.
Nursing Research Forum – The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
30. Oudshoorn, A. (January 16, 2007). Research in the margins: A focus on methodological
issues. N679b: Advanced Concepts of Health Promotion in Nursing – The University Of
32. Oudshoorn, A. (November 21, 2006). Critical but fair: Exploring oppression without
alienating an audience. Nursing Research Forum – The University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario.
33. Oudshoorn, A., Ward-Griffin, C. & McWilliam, C. (October 31, 2006). Home-Based
palliative care and power: A critical analysis of caregiving relationships. N319a:
Research Methodology and Statistics – The University of Western Ontario, London,
Ontario.
34. Oudshoorn, A., Ward-Griffin, C., McWilliam, C. (June 15, 2006). The home-care
system, power and powerlessness: A critical analysis. Aging and Health Research
Centre, The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
35. Ward-Griffin, C., McWilliam, C., Krestick, E. & Oudshoorn, A. (January 25, 2006).
Client-Family-Nurse relationships in home-based palliative care. Community Care
Access Centre - London and Middlesex, London, Ontario.
36. Oudshoorn, A. (January 18, 2006). Health promotion research: A focus on
methodological issues. N679b: Advanced Concepts of Health Promotion in Nursing –
The University Of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
37. Oudshoorn, A. (December 12, 2005). Nurse-Client relationships in home-based
palliative care: A critical analysis of power relations. Nursing Research Forum – The
University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
38. Oudshoorn, A. (May 16, 2005). Palliative care research ethics: Unique but manageable
challenges. AHRC 4th Annual Research Meeting – The University of Western Ontario,
London, Ontario.
22
39. Ward-Griffin, C., Bol, N. & Oudshoorn, A. (February 15, 2005). Mother-daughter
relationships within the care process of Alzheimer Disease. Nursing Research Forum The University of Western Ontario, London, Ontario.
40. Oudshoorn, A., Ward-Griffin, C., Bol, N. (May 10, 2004). Mother-daughter
relationships within the care process of Alzheimer Disease: Daughter perspectives.
Aging and Health Research Meeting - The University of Western Ontario, London,
Ontario.
23
This is Exhibit B referred to in the
March, 2015
____________________________
Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs
PROC
●
NUMBER 031
●
2nd SESSION
●
EVIDENCE
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
Chair
Mr. Joe Preston
41st PARLIAMENT
1
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
Wednesday, April 9, 2014
● (1905)
[English]
The Chair (Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London,
CPC)): Members, we are ready to start. We're a little late and I
apologize to our witnesses, we had votes in the House that ran a little
late and that meant we ran over here. Some of us ran on a bus, but we
ran over here and we will now get started.
Again, we're here televised in public and with some video on the
fair elections act, Bill C-23. Our witnesses in the first hour tonight
are from Raising the Roof, Carolann Barr; and from RainCity
Housing and Support Society, Leslie Remund; from the Ethiopian
Association, Mr. Beyene.
Is that correct? Did I get your name pretty close to right?
Mr. Wosen Yitna Beyene (President, Ethiopian Association in
GTA and Surrounding Regions): That's right, that's good, yes.
The Chair: You're from the GTA, from Toronto and surrounding
area? Super.
Normally, we start with a short opening statement if you have it,
five minutes or less.
Mr. Beyene, we'll start with you since you're on video. We always
do that in case we lose the connection, then you've at least got your
input in.
So if you'd like to start with an opening statement, we'll let you do
so.
Mr. Wosen Yitna Beyene: Thank you very much, Chairman
Good evening, everybody.
My quick presentation this evening will focus basically on one
major element of the bill itself, Bill C-23. I will focus on civic
participation in the electoral process and particularly refer to the
experience of Ethiopians in Toronto. This is all based on my
observations and my engagement within the community.
My role in the community is president of the association. I'll just
give you a quick briefing about the association. It has been serving
Ethiopians and other newcomers for the last 34 years. It was
established in 1980, and we have been providing services for
settlement, crisis, for seniors, for youth, HIV/AIDS, and all other
types of community initiatives within the community. Although our
capacity has been significantly reduced recently, that's part of our
mandate and focus, the community service we provide, and again,
we are not limited to providing service to Ethiopians. We provide
service to all other eligible newcomers as well, based on the specific
program or service we offer.
To give you a quick profile of the Ethiopian community, although
we don't have a very clear number, we estimate that about 50,000
Ethiopians reside in Toronto and the GTA. Some of the challenges in
the community, based on some of the research, are the huge
unemployment and underemployment in the community and some
barriers in terms of access to services and programs in very specific
areas.
The community is relatively new to Canada, here for the last 30 to
40 years. As a community, although we are trying to address the
specific needs of the community, there is a huge gap, and there are a
lot of areas that still need to be addressed, one being the active
participation of community members—Ethiopians—in the electoral
process of different levels of government in Canada, the municipal,
provincial, and federal governments.
So on this line, I will just quickly go through my presentation
about the bill itself. I would like just to quote the remarks given by
the Chief Electoral Officer to this committee, I believe, the Standing
Committee on Procedures and House Affairs on March 6:
It is essential to understand that the main challenge for our electoral democracy is
not voter fraud, but voter participation. I do not believe that if we eliminate
vouching and the VIC as proof of address we will have in any way improved the
integrity of the voting process. However, we will...have taken away the ability of
many qualified electors to vote.
So with this quotation from the Chief Electoral Officer, I would
like to emphasize the key wording about voter participation. I will
quickly go through my points: one, how we can engage a community
like the Ethiopian Association to be actively involved with voting
and the whole electoral process; two, the community engagement
that we already have—we engage our community members—could
be an opportunity to disseminate and educate the community
members with civic education about the Canadian political arena;
and three, how we can encourage voters. I don't have concrete data
or figures to use here, but from my understanding and observation, I
would assume not that many Ethiopians really vote, again, because
of factors like social exclusion or inclusion elements, employment,
time spent with the family, and time spent at work in support of
families.
These are generic features that we hear of in other ethnocultural
groups or ethno-specific groups, but again, this is true also in the
Ethiopian community. So we need to have a strategy here, along with
Bill C-23, which I understand has quite a broader scope than what
I'm trying to present here.
2
PROC-31
● (1910)
But in the participation of our community, the community
engagement work can really be done through another organization
like the Ethiopian Association in partnership with the electoral office
and other relevant organizations. For example, Canada's democracy
week in September could be an opportunity where we can educate
our community members in the electoral process.
I was involved in training with the Maytree Foundation here in
Toronto. It started in 2011 to educate community members on how
the different levels of government work. That type of model is also
very important in tapping into the existing resources.
I know there are a lot of documents and resources in civic
education but there also needs to be access in appropriate language
and cultural ways because one of the elements here is the experience
of new Canadians. For example, Ethiopians in their home country or
in the country of origin and their political culture...political
participation has oftentimes a negative impact on the participation
of these new Canadians in the Canadian political system. Their
experience may not have been a positive one. That will leave them in
a situation where they always behave indifferently to the political
system. They think their voice wouldn't make a difference or
generally they are more reluctant to be part of any political
engagement.
The education process has to be customized in a way to address
the uniqueness of each community, and each voter as an individual
or as part of a group or community. It is at that level that an
organization like the Ethiopian Association could be a resource or a
potential partner with other existing resources to disseminate
education.
Again, first-time voters are also an issue. We need to work at the
early stages in engaging parents and young voters within the
community to get this education and awareness. That's actually
another element. We know that parents and schools are playing a
very significant role in the decision-making of their young children
in the voting process. So we need to spend resources and effort in
educating parents because it will have a compound effect. Although
children can get some basic civic education in the schools, which
also has an effect in educating their parents, we need to work at both
ends to make it really significant and meaningful.
I am aware of the time so this would be my opening remarks.
Thank you very much.
● (1915)
The Chair: Super. Thank you very much.
We'll go to Ms. Barr, for five minutes or less if you could, please.
Ms. Carolann Barr (Executive Director, Raising the Roof):
Thank you, everybody.
My name is Carolann Barr. I'm the executive director of Raising
the Roof. We're a national charity focused on long-term solutions to
homelessness. We do that through partnerships with front-line
agencies, research, and public education.
I want to thank the House of Commons Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs for inviting me today to speak on Bill
April 9, 2014
C-23 to amend the Canada Elections Act. There has been lots in the
news, and I was watching some of you being interviewed by Evan
Solomon just a little while ago. A lot of what I'm going to speak
about, I think, is what a lot of people are saying around this issue.
I'm going to focus my comments around my expertise around
working with vulnerable populations, and specifically the homeless.
I have over 20 years of experience working in this sector, working
in front-line agencies, managing programs. I'm in different health
and social service sector environments. I've worked with a diverse
group of people—youth, adults—who are facing different issues,
from mental health to addictions to homelessness to poverty. Really,
I have devoted my career to helping reduce barriers that people who
are disadvantaged face.
In fact, I was part of the original consultations; I remembered that
as I was being invited here. I believe it was in early 2000. It was by
Elections Canada and it was round table discussions about how to
help people who were struggling with accessing their identification
for various reasons, and how to help them vote. So I'm very pleased
to be here today.
Elections Canada accepts the voter identification cards as proof of
residence in specific locations, such as long-term care facilities, on
campuses for students, and it really is a common-sense initiative that
has worked. Certainly, I feel very proud to live in a country where
you can support your neighbour in this way to help them vote.
Ensuring that all Canadians can exercise their right to vote is what
makes the voting process a legitimate process. As we all know, the
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, section 3, guarantees that
all citizens have the right to be involved in the election of their
governments and the right to vote in federal, provincial, and
municipal elections.
Bill C-23 proposes to get rid of the cards and disallow them as
proof of identity or residence. This would certainly have a serious
repercussion, potentially, and infringe on the rights of individuals
under the charter. Some groups of electors, as I've mentioned,
seniors, students, first nations, people who have recently moved, the
homeless.... There's a recent report that estimates there are 200,000
homeless people in Canada. We know many of them struggle to keep
their ID and maintain their ID.
The government claims that eliminating the cards will cut down
on electoral fraud. I think we heard you talk about that, Wosen, and it
certainly is much more of an issue around voter participation. My
understanding is that there really isn't clear evidence about fraud. My
question, then, is: why, if this is working, is this being put forward at
this point?
At Raising the Roof we work closely with our partner agencies
and work directly with the homeless. From my experience in
working with these agencies, I know that we all feel that individuals
who face losing their housing should not be further marginalized by
being unable to exercise their right to vote. We need to ensure that
the voter information card is maintained as proof of identity.
April 9, 2014
PROC-31
The bill also revokes vouching. We know that 120,000 people in
the 2011 election relied on that to vote. So it was a significant
amount of people. Also, considering the number of homeless, we
know it's significant. The Chief Electoral Officer has indicated that
there was a 90% accuracy rate in evaluating these. So we don't want
to, as the chief is saying, take away the last safety net for those who
do not have the necessary documents.
● (1920)
3
an intimate environment, with strong internal communities, yet these
hotels often lack the security afforded to those who live in their own
apartments. In the emergency shelter system, many people share a
common large space with mats on the floor and little privacy.
We have a significant seniors population, making up over 21% of
our community, and urban first nations peoples, who constitute 10%
of our community.
I'll just quickly talk about homelessness.
Homeless Canadians were denied the right to vote, but measures
were put in place over the years whereby they could use a shelter as
an address. In terms of where we've come today with the voter
information card and vouching, I'm really hoping the government
will listen to everyone's comments and keep this in place.
People don't have ID because they're struggling with issues, not
because they don't want to follow the rules. I think it's really
important that we not revert to a time when the most marginalized in
our society were denied the right to vote. People who are otherwise
disadvantaged have already lost a great deal, and they should not
lose their charter right to vote.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Barr.
Ms. Remund, five minutes or less for you, if we can, please.
Ms. Leslie Remund (Associate Director, RainCity Housing and
Support Society): Thank you, Mr. Chair. Committee members,
thank you.
Thank you for inviting RainCity Housing and Support Society to
speak to the committee. l'm Leslie Remund. I have worked for
RainCity Housing for 18 years. I'm currently in the role of associate
director, responsible for the day-to-day operations of our programs.
Here's a little bit about our organization.
RainCity Housing is a service delivery organization, incorporated
in 1990. We offer a wide range of housing and support services to
the people in Vancouver. We have over 500 supported housing units,
100 emergency shelter beds, and a variety of specialized support
programs, including outreach and clinical health services. Our
primary operations are located in the Downtown Eastside of
Vancouver, one of the most vibrant and yet poorest neighbourhoods
in Canada.
I'm going to talk a bit about the community, because that's what I
have to offer here.
The Downtown Eastside of Vancouver is unique in its concentration of low-income housing, most of which is operated by non-profit
organizations like ours. The overwhelming majority of the 18,000
residents live below the poverty line. Eighty-eight per cent of our
community members are renters. In terms of housing security, onethird of those live in single-room occupancy hotels, one-third live in
non-market rental suites, and 6% live in community care facilities.
We have over 1,600 people who are homeless, living either in
shelters or on the streets in Vancouver.
As mentioned, single-room occupancy hotels comprise a substantial stock of low-income rentals. These units are small rooms,
most often with communal bathing and shared cooking facilities. It is
RainCity Housing and Support Society has issue with two aspects
of Bill C-23, the fair elections bill. These are the removal of
vouching and the removal of the use of voter identification cards as a
means to verify a person's address. My following statement will
focus on the practicalities of voter identification for our community
members, as this is the grounds for which we have expertise.
There are currently 38.... I've been hearing 35. But I went to the
website and counted. So I might be off a few.
The Chair: We had 39.
Ms. Leslie Remund: I went on the elections website. Math is not
my strong suit. Social work is more my deal.
The Chair: Don't go by me.
Ms. Leslie Remund: Okay.
We currently have 38 or 39 authorized documents listed by
Elections Canada. While this may appear to be substantial, it is
deceiving. As I examined the list through the lens of our community,
the number of real options for our citizens is substantially lower.
Many of the listed authorized identifications are attached to
housing, education, property ownership, or access to conventional
public services. Drivers' licences; Canadian passports; fishing,
trapping, or hunting licences; utility bills; vehicle ownership and
insurance; residential lease; mortgage documents; pension plan
statements of contribution; insurance policies; property tax assessment notices; outdoor wildlife cards or licences; firearms licences;
and employee cards are not compatible with poverty and for those
who have little economic or social mobility.
The use of cheque-cashing services rather than banks is
commonplace in low-income communities as the requirements to
show valid ID are replaced with other systems of verification. The
use of cheque-cashing stores means that the person will not have a
debit card, bank card, or a bank statement.
Other listed authorized identification are neither relevant nor
attainable, in our experience. ID related to education—student ID
cards, correspondence issued by a school, college, or university; or
Canadian Blood Services cards, as I have never known a blood drive
to happen in our community; or liquor identification cards, which are
non-existent in our province.
4
PROC-31
Some listed pieces of identification have been modernized and no
longer carry a person's name on the card, such as our public library
cards that contain only a bar code now and a signature.
Expecting citizens in our community to obtain and retain these
forms of ID is unreasonable.
As I stated earlier, RainCity Housing and Support Society works
with the reality of a person's current situation. Our work is not
abstract; it is practical. People arrive at our services with few or no
possessions. Large amounts of our front-line staff efforts go toward
helping people secure necessary resources, including ID.
We have collectively put thousands of hours into applying and
securing identification for people. The process is most often neither
quick nor simple. To get an ID, you often need an ID. The starting
place is a birth certificate. Birth certificates depend on the financial
resources to pay for the fee, knowledge of your mother's maiden
name, and your parents' places of birth. The wait time, depending on
the province of birth, can be four to six weeks or longer. These are
real barriers for the people we work with.
The unique circumstances of our community led the Province of
B.C. elections body to add identification options before our last
provincial election. In February 2013, prior to our provincial
election, Elections B.C. approved the use of prescription labels on
medication bottles as an acceptable form of authorized identification
for our community alone. This is recognition by our provincial
government that the citizens of our community require special
consideration to protect their inherent right to vote. We expect no
less from our federal government.
Deficits in communities are offset by their strengths. One of the
strengths of our community and other low-income communities is
the reliance we have on one another. This is where vouching has its
strength—one citizen helping another. We believe that vouching
should be retained unless or until some other acceptable method can
be found to ensure that all Canadians have the right to vote.
A core mission of RainCity Housing and Support Society is to
promote the social inclusion of our people, recognizing that most of
the people we work with are and have been excluded from
participating equally in society. The right to vote is a fundamental
right of citizenship and we ask that voter registration be broadened
rather than narrowed.
Thank you for your time.
● (1925)
The Chair: Thank you very much.
April 9, 2014
You both have organizations that deal with homeless or those who
are nearly in that situation. When we look at these issues that you're
here to talk about today I think everyone in this room would share
the goal that we all want to make, which is that every Canadian who
seeks to vote has the opportunity to vote. I think we also share the
goal of seeking to ensure that those votes are seen by all Canadians
to be done in a fair process. Some of the concerns that have come in
about the vouching, for example.... I also think it's important that we
ensure that we are giving everyone who wants to vote the
opportunity to do that.
I'd like to go through some possibilities with you and ask some
questions about the process you've used in the past to help those
clients you serve to be able to use their right to vote. I understand
that vouching is one of the things you have used in the past.
First, let me ask, because when I was doing a little bit of research
into this I discovered that in many cases shelters will in fact serve
their resident with more than just providing a roof over their head....
Obviously, you're doing a lot more for them. You're trying to help
them find a way to get back on their feet. That's something you
should be commended for.
One of the things you do is to try to help them get to a situation
where they have some ID and proof of who they are because they
require it for a lot of things. Even to be able to help find employment
and these kinds of things.... What I have been told by many of the
provincial governments is that in many cases shelters will help
someone get a birth certificate. That's the first and most basic form of
ID that allow for some of the other IDs to be had. You did mention,
Ms. Remund, the 39 pieces of ID. It is 39. There's a number of them
that must be used. Some of them can prove identity and others can
prove address. Some can prove all of course. So there are number of
options.
We'll move forward with questioning.
I have Mr. Richards, first. Let's do a seven-minute round and see
what we have left.
Mr. Richards, go ahead.
Mr. Blake Richards (Wild Rose, CPC): Thank you.
I appreciate both of you being here and also you, Mr. Beyene, by
video conference.
I would like to focus on you, Ms. Barr, and Ms. Remund.
You did go through some that wouldn't apply. You're absolutely
right that in many of the cases that you indicated, for the clients you
talk about it wouldn't probably apply. Certainly, the service that
shelters do provide for getting the birth certificate for someone, that
would obviously provide the first piece of ID that's required. They
would then require something to prove the address.
April 9, 2014
PROC-31
I assume that you're aware that one of those pieces that can be
used as identity to prove address is an attestation of residence from a
shelter or a soup kitchen. Obviously, if you were able to provide that
in addition to the service you already provide for obtaining a birth
certificate, it would give the necessary two pieces of ID. The reason I
point that out is because I think the vouching process would be a far
simpler way for you to be able to help clients...to serve in the
vouching process. The reason for the vouching process, as I'm sure
you're aware what's required there, is someone who lives in the same
poll can only vouch once for an individual. Obviously that becomes,
I would assume, complicated for you because if you had, say,
employees vouching, they would have to live in the poll where the
shelter is located. Second, you can only vouch for one person per
employee. I'm aware of some volunteer programs that exist to do
that, however those probably are in a bit of a grey area because we
don't know in fact whether there is that relationship. On Elections
Canada's website the examples they use is a neighbour or a
roommate. Obviously, that shows an ongoing relationship with
somebody to prove who they are.
I'm curious about your thoughts because of the fact that many
shelters do provide that birth certificate and are paying for that for
them. Also, there's the availability of the attestation of residence.
Whether that is something you feel might better facilitate enabling
you to help your clients to be able to vote in an election....
What are your thoughts on that?
● (1930)
Ms. Carolann Barr: I've been involved with ID clinics in
different services in and around the Toronto area. I certainly think,
yes, getting ID and getting help to get clients to get ID is always a
focus. We know it's very important for them to start to stabilize their
lives and hopefully look at some opportunities to get housing.
I know that those programs are always in jeopardy of shutting
down. On the one hand, yes, it's a good first step and it's important.
But there is limited funding. I was talking to an organization the
other day who was telling me the importance of their ID clinic, not
just for homeless in the community, but for other people who maybe
had a fire in their house and lost their ID. It can apply to a lot of
different people. Of course, the funding for that program is in
jeopardy. While someone is working on getting their ID, whether it's
through an ID clinic or having some—
● (1935)
Mr. Blake Richards: But I'm certain that, for a program like that,
there would be a lot of support among the community. I think you
would find there would be many civic-minded people who would be
more than inclined to support something like that, not only to allow
someone the right to vote, but there are so many reasons why that
basic idea is necessary. I'm sure you'd find much support—
Ms. Carolann Barr: I know. It hasn't been federal money, but it
has been provincial money for those programs. I know from working
in the sector for 20 years that they're always in jeopardy of shutting
down. So, yes, I agree. Getting ID is important. It's always a
responsibility of a social service worker to get people that kind of
help and get them on track.
Mr. Blake Richards: I haven't much time, so I'm going to
interrupt you. I apologize for that.
5
The other thing is the attestation of residence. Is that something
you feel you could provide to your clients as a service? Is that
something you would find difficult to provide?
Ms. Leslie Remund: We have provided those. You have to
understand that, when a person comes in, we're triaging a
multiplicity of issues with that person. What we have to do is
prioritize, often. We're adequately staffed, but the work is extremely
challenging. We have a triaging process, and often people aren't
staying long enough—
Mr. Blake Richards: I'm going to interrupt once again. Would
you find, though, that this attestation—
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Richards.
Mr. Blake Richards: —especially if you have a form, might be
an easier process than running a volunteer program to find people to
volunteer to vouch?
The Chair: I'm invisible again.
Thank you, Mr. Richards.
We'll get very quick answers from our witnesses, because we're
not going to make our second round if we don't meet—
Ms. Leslie Remund: I don't think one is better than another. I
think we need as many as possible.
The Chair: Super. Thank you.
Ms. Carolann Barr: I would agree.
The Chair: We'll go to Mr. Christopherson, and I think you're
splitting your time, but you'll tell me when.
Mr. David Christopherson (Hamilton Centre, NDP): Thank
you very much, Mr. Chair.
In fact, I'll be asking the initial question and then passing it off to
my colleagues.
The Chair: That's great.
Mr. David Christopherson: I join with my colleagues in
thanking all of you for being here tonight. It means a lot. This is
an important piece of Canadian business, and it really matters that
you're here. So thank you very much.
If I might, I'll swing over to Mr. Beyene. Sir, we appreciate very
much your presentation. I have to say at the outset that I'm very
fortunate that I've been to your beautiful country twice. The last time
I was there, I was in Addis Ababa, and I was there for the 50th
anniversary of the African Union and the grand opening of its new
headquarters. It's a beautiful country. In your area of the GTA and
surrounding areas in Hamilton, we have a very small Ethiopian
community, but very vibrant, and very interested in playing the full
citizen role.
6
PROC-31
My question to you is this, sir. Under the proposed legislation, the
Chief Electoral Officer would no longer be responsible for the
broader education programs and the broader education of Canadians,
not on matters of where you vote and how you vote and the ID, but
on what our electoral system is and how it works. They work with
communities, different groups in society, and the purpose of course
is to allow, in the case of your presentation, those from Ethiopia, for
whom Canada is a new country, to participate. The bill restricts the
Chief Electoral Officer from doing that, and leaves it to the political
parties, who say that they're educating people anyway, and it's in
their best interest.
We in the NDP are concerned that this is too narrow a focus.
Political parties are all about electing people, and we think the Chief
Electoral Officer should continue the work of educating the broader
community and working with communities. I just wondered if you
would expand on that, on how important it is for your community to
have that kind of education as to what our system is and the thinking
behind it, and that the Chief Electoral Officer should continue to play
the role he's playing, rather than cutting out the Chief Electoral
Officer and only relying on political parties.
Just what are your thoughts on that, sir?
Mr. Wosen Yitna Beyene: Thank you very much.
Again, thank you for the remark about my country of origin.
This is a very critical question in terms of who will be continuing
to educate new Canadians and all other Canadians to be actively
involved and meaningfully participate in the electoral process. From
my reading, until now the Chief Electoral Officer and Elections
Canada have been doing quite a significant amount of educational
processes and educational work, to the extent that I have seen a
budget of about $1.6 million for educational work in the year 201213. They have been making educational materials in different
languages. They have been partnering with community organizations
that have been working along these lines, and doing a lot of
promotion and advertising in various media to educate the
community. These are all critical things to really create meaningful
participation for newcomers.
Again, from my learning about Elections Canada, the parents in
the school play a significant and meaningful role in terms of
supporting their young voters, young children, in the voting and the
democratic process. Based on the data, about 46% of youth are
getting this education in the schools, and also the parents. This has
been part of the process through Elections Canada and the authority
that is given to the Chief Electoral Officer.
● (1940)
Mr. David Christopherson: Very good.
Mr. Wosen Yitna Beyene: So that will create a huge void. My
question would again go back to the committee. If not the Chief
Electoral Officer and Elections Canada, who will be doing that? Will
there be a commitment in terms of putting resources back in place to
make these educational processes happen?
Community organizations like the Ethiopian Association could be
a good partner in terms of the context and the customization of these
educational processes, making it very appropriate in the language,
culture, and more importantly, in really dealing with the political
April 9, 2014
culture and political experience of new Canadians to build on their
country of origin.
As you all know, most countries, say, in Africa have a very
troubled political process, and election and voting is quite a strange
or new concept per se for some people. So there should be a huge
educational process.
Mr. David Christopherson: Excellent. Thank you so very much,
sir.
The Chair: Just under two minutes, thank you.
Mr. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth, NDP): Exactly.
Mr. Beyene, thank you so much for coming, I think you've done
an excellent job briefing us all on the importance of public education
and outreach in new immigrant communities,.
I wanted to turn to Ms. Barr and Ms. Remund.
You've both emphasized something I thought was really quite
important; you both used an expression very similar or identical to
the idea of one citizen helping another. The idea of dignity that
evokes was really quite striking to me. I think it's quite important,
also, when Mr. Richards was maybe suggesting that there are some
kinds of limitations on who can vouch for whom. There are no
limitations at all in section 143, other than being a co-citizen in your
polling division.
So I'm wondering if you could speak a little more to the whole
question of the dignity of voting for the people you work with, and
why somehow or other we should not be losing sight of that.
Ms. Leslie Remund: The people we work with face oppressive
circumstances daily in their lives. Poverty is constantly seeking and
searching to get your needs met. One of the beauties of the
community I talk about is, when one person has groceries, for
example, what you'll see in the Downtown Eastside is that they'll
share those groceries with their neighbour. It's so someone is not
poor and hungry; they both have something.
I think when there's a natural deficit in the community, something
steps into that, and that's really the human spirit of kindness. One of
the things I see that people are fighting for in our community is
agency. I think there's nothing more that gives you agency in society
than placing a vote. I will say there are political buttons in our
community of all parties. There's political discussion that happens.
It's an equalizing factor for us all. It's one of the very few things
that's not based on economics or status in our society. Placing that
vote and having a say is the one place that we are all equal.
An hon. member: Hear, hear!
● (1945)
The Chair: Mr. Scott, thank you very much.
We'll go to Mr. Simms for seven minutes, please.
Mr. Scott Simms (Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, Lib.): Thank you.
Thanks for coming here and thanks for joining us through video
conference.
April 9, 2014
PROC-31
One of you said—and I apologize for forgetting who—to get an
ID, you need an ID, which are words I have not heard here yet, and
actually it's a valid point. Quite frankly, I think it's the most salient
way to say this.
When you hear about 38, 39, or it could be 100 pieces of ID, once
you get past the basic few, it becomes further out of reach for the
average citizen, certainly for those who are impoverished. There are
examples that you gave: leases; mortgages; the bills, provided they
come through the mail. The basic stuff now comes down to a health
card, and unfortunately, it does not contain the address, which makes
it that much more problematic. Let's assume they can get the
attestation that's being discussed here. How difficult do you think
that is to get?
Ms. Leslie Remund: I don't know that the attestation itself is that
difficult. We talked about cultural norms. I think the other thing we
have to talk about is community norms. We have seniors in our
community who have been going to the same cheque-cashing place
for 30 years, to the same bar—that's actually their living room
because they live in a little hotel room.
Identifications in our communities are also often because there's
history: “I've known you this long”, right? We have doctors who
don't ask for the care card because they've served that person for 20
years.
So I'm not sure if I'm answering your question. I think what I'm
trying to say is in the absence of identification, people have created
other norms and those norms are alive and strong in our community.
Certainly we don't have a lot of people ask for attestations. We
willingly provide attestations.
But not all of the people in poverty are living in a shelter either. So
I think that's the other thing. There are a lot of people in our
community who are what I would call under-housed. So they're
sharing small places, or they're living in the single-room occupancy
hotels that I'd talked about. So not all poor, homeless, or precariously
housed people have that option for the attestation. Did I answer your
question?
Mr. Scott Simms: But it's not a normal thing? Let's put it that
way. You don't see this happening too often?
Ms. Leslie Remund: No.
Mr. Scott Simms: And it's a new practice that will have to be
introduced.
Ms. Leslie Remund: And it has some complications to it, where
you have to be verified at the election. I can't just write a letter and
hand it to someone; there's a verification process. A certain person at
the shelter has to sign it.
Mr. Scott Simms: Right.
When I deal with seniors, one of the things they lean on heavily is
the voter information card. It is quite possibly one of the most
famous things we use, and it almost seems to me now that with the
new rules and the way they are, I don't even know if Elections
Canada can really communicate to the point where they can tell
people, “By the way, you can't use that anymore”.
So I don't know what kind of a public campaign will be in place to
do that, but you're familiar with that obviously because you both
7
mentioned it. But it is something that the population, the people you
deal with, rely on heavily when they go to vote.
Ms. Leslie Remund: Yes. Most of the people who I know who
are voting are using the voter identification card. It's a common
practice because they don't have ID.
Mr. Scott Simms: That's correct, obviously. But what's the most
common identification card that people would have that you deal
with?
Ms. Leslie Remund: I wouldn't have the answer to that.
Mr. Scott Simms: Can I venture to guess, say, the health card?
Ms. Leslie Remund: I wouldn't venture to guess the health card.
Mr. Scott Simms: Okay.
Ms. Leslie Remund: The community has created a lot of its own
ID mechanisms. We have a life skills centre that has a life skills card,
so there are community-formulated identifications that people use
more than government-issued ID, frankly.
Mr. Scott Simms: Yes. So I guess to say that vouching plays a
very important role come election time for the people you deal with
in order for them to vote...this is an essential part.
Ms. Leslie Remund: Yes. It's one of the things that we talk about,
come election time, the ability to vouch for your neighbour.
Mr. Scott Simms: Would you say there's widespread abuse?
Ms. Leslie Remund: I don't know if there's widespread abuse. I
can't see the rationale for abuse. I certainly have never heard of
anyone wanting to run from the homeless shelter to a poll to pretend
to be somebody else. They have quite a bit going on already. It
doesn't seem reasonable to me in our context.
● (1950)
Ms. Carolann Barr: Yes.
Mr. Scott Simms: Go ahead, Ms. Barr.
Ms. Carolann Barr: Yes, I would add to that. It's just that people
have so much going on that there is not the agenda to commit fraud.
It's a big deal to be able to get to a polling station and vote. And I
think when we're talking about this too, it's important for folks to be
able to vote for who they think is going to help them with some of
the issues they're facing as well. For them not to have that
opportunity or a range of opportunities—again, I think it's important
we get the ID and get that in place and have funding and programs to
do that. But while that's happening, we also need to have some kind
of mechanism.
Mr. Scott Simms: Mr. Beyene, sorry. I didn't mean to exclude you
here in this conversation.
Anything you've heard thus far that you'd like to add to?
8
PROC-31
April 9, 2014
Mr. Wosen Yitna Beyene: I was trying to be very specific in
terms of the civic engagement and the civic education part. But
again, voting to me seems also very critical. That's one of the ways
to empower even new Canadians, by avoiding barriers to and
challenges of freely participating in the electoral process. Again, that
context is that voting is like a privilege, and it's an honour for me.
When I first came to Canada, 15 years ago, and then I got my
citizenship and I went to vote, that was the first time that I voted in
my life. So that's a very honoured experience. And if there are
situations that will hinder that process, I think that's also another
question in the electoral process.
The Chair: Mr. Simms, you're over seven minutes. I do
apologize.
Mr. Scott Simms: Sorry.
The Chair: Just because I'm Canadian I guess I apologize.
and work to do. They are helping people who are at such a
disadvantage. Do you believe that the government is using resources
wisely by asking those organizations to now be wholly and
completely responsible for making sure that their people can vote?
We've got time I think if we do a one minute ask and answer kind
of thing.
● (1955)
I've got Mr. O'Toole.
You're next for one minute. Go.
Mr. Erin O'Toole (Durham, CPC): Okay, thank you all. Thank
you very much and Ms. Barr, I feel like I should have my toque on.
I've admired the work of Raising the Roof.
I'm going to make a quick statement and then get your comment.
Building on what my colleague Mr. Richards said, your participation
in 2000 or 2001 with Elections Canada actually led to the 39 pieces,
so thank you for getting us there. There's a lot of talk about
disenfranchisement but as it works now this form could be used by
all the groups you mentioned, seniors, students, first nations,
homeless, because the document prepared with your assistance and
others' has documentation on here that will satisfy the residency
requirements for those potentially disenfranchised groups.
So in the case of homelessness the letter, as we said, from the
shelter administrator.... If band councils, shelters, schools, seniors
residences, the day an election was called using a form provided by
Elections Canada, printed that off, then all you'd need is a
government check stub or a government benefit statement.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. O'Toole.
Mr. Erin O'Toole: All of it's satisfied. Could your group produce
those on the first day of the election and provide it for your
members?
The Chair: I know I've been cutting back on my food but I don't
think I'm invisible yet. When I do mention your name you should
probably stop and we'll move on to Ms. Latendresse.
One minute, so try to ask and answer in that time and we'll get as
much as we can.
[Translation]
Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent, NDP): I
will be really quick.
I am going to continue along the same lines as Mr. O'Toole. Do
you think it is reasonable for the government to ask homeless
shelters and soup kitchens to provide all this paperwork? Organizations like that already have a huge amount of responsibility to carry
[English]
Ms. Leslie Remund: I think the only people who think about
elections weeks and months ahead of time are politicians, frankly.
Ms. Carolann Barr: I do think shelters are under-resourced with
staff who may have little experience who are dealing with high crisis
situations. It is a lot to ask of them especially when there are not the
resources put to help people get the ID or help them get to the voting
stations. So it is a lot to ask.
Mr. Reid, one minute, asked and answered, if we could please.
Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington,
CPC): I just wanted to ask Ms. Remund something, please. British
Columbia at the provincial level has vouching, so that raises a
question for me. I gather vouching does not allow.... Vouching is the
sort of thing where you don't have to live in the same poll, as I
understand it. Nonetheless, I gather that this does not mean that
everybody can come in and vote. Some people still need some kind
of physical identification. I assume this based on the fact that British
Columbia said you can bring in a prescription bottle. Can you just
expand on that a little bit?
Ms. Leslie Remund: The prescription bottle piece?
Mr. Scott Reid: Yes. But first of all, why vouching? Clearly even
when it's made very general it doesn't seem to actually resolve all
problems, and then the problem the prescription bottle resolves.
Ms. Leslie Remund: There are lots of problems to getting out the
vote in low-income communities, especially given the high needs of
that community to start with. Our position is that vouching is not the
solution, nor is the voter identification card a solution to something.
But when you look at the list of all those options and what is realistic
in the hands of the people we know.... I went through the list and
among them there were eight or nine that I've regularly seen people
having versions of in my 18-year career. So our issue is that taking
two more reasonable options away from people limits the ability to
vote in our community. That's why the prescription bottle.... We
didn't expect everyone was going to go with the prescription bottle,
but it was one more realistic option that people had in their hands.
We're going to stop right there, and we'll suspend for a couple of
minutes.
April 9, 2014
PROC-31
We'll thank our guests. Thank you very much for your help tonight
and for the information you were able to share with us.
We will suspend for just a couple of minutes while we change to
our next panel.
● (1955)
(Pause)
● (2000)
The Chair: We'll come back to order, please. We'll go to our
second hour. We have two guests on video conference from
Vancouver, British Columbia, tonight. We have Wanda Mulholland,
a community development coordinator for the Burnaby Task Force
on Homelessness, and we have Nathan Allen from the Portland
Hotel Society.
Welcome to you both.
Then we have Abram Oudshoorn from the great city of London
and the London Homeless Coalition.
We welcome you all. We're going to start with opening statements
from our guests on video conference. I always like to do that, and
then if we lose the connection or something, we at least have your
opening statements in.
Ms. Mulholland, would you like to start off for us tonight?
Ms. Wanda Mulholland (Community Development Coordinator, Burnaby Task Force on Homelessness): Thank you very
much.
Thank you for the opportunity to present a submission to the
House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs regarding Bill C-23, an act to amend the Canada Elections
Act.
I specifically wish to speak to the importance of vouching in the
election process.
My name is Wanda Mulholland. I am the community development
coordinator for the Burnaby Task Force on Homelessness, which
was formed in January 2005. The task force is non-partisan and
comprises representatives from government agencies, the health
authority, RCMP, social service and community organizations,
business improvement associations, housing providers, faith communities, and concerned citizens, who are all committed to working
together to identify and address issues of homelessness in the city of
Burnaby.
The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights,
article 25, section (1) states:
Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and wellbeing of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical
care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of
unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of
livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.
I speak on behalf of Burnaby citizens who live in extreme poverty
and homelessness. These Canadian citizens do not benefit from
many of the basic rights proclaimed in the United Nations Universal
Declaration of Human Rights.
We know that poverty is the leading cause of homelessness.
Twenty per cent of the homeless are visible on the street. The other
9
80% are the hidden homeless, staying temporarily with friends or on
a couch.
Many of the men and women living in poverty are employed—the
working poor—or are students or citizens living on low income. All
are living in temporary and unsuitable locations, facing challenges
regarding safety, adequate sleep, clothing, food, access to medical
care, and access to suitable housing.
Each person has his or her own life circumstance that led to
homelessness. Some of the influencing factors include loss of
employment, fire, illness, traumatic incident, disability, family
issues, mental illness, drug addiction, or combinations thereof.
Many people who are currently homeless have led what others
would consider to be productive lives until something caused their
life to unravel. These are people who held careers that included
firefighter, teacher, business owner, successful university student,
published author, loving parent. Many have, through homelessness,
lost their families, their community, and their sense of self-worth.
At every turn the homeless are ostracized from mainstream
society. People living in poverty have obstacles in utilizing public
transportation because they do not have the funds for the transit fare.
People living in poverty are prevented from using washrooms in
businesses because those facilities are only for paying customers.
People living in extreme poverty are isolated and rejected because
they often do not conform to society's expectations of hygiene,
appearance, and behaviour. People living in poverty are often fearful
for their own safety because they do not have the security of a home
to protect themselves from the vengeance of others.
People who are homeless frequently are without identification
with which to access medical or government services. The lack of
identification also impedes a person's ability to vote. In municipal,
provincial, and federal elections, the Burnaby Task Force on
Homelessness has worked with a member agency to offer assistance
to marginalized people interested in voting. We have offered the use
of attestation forms to vouch for a person who is without all of the
proper identification required for voting.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms states that
every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the
House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for
membership therein.
Removing the option of vouching prevents marginalized people
from exercising their right to vote as Canadian citizens. It is yet
another way of ostracizing people from the rights of citizens in
mainstream society because they are poor.
10
PROC-31
On behalf of Canadian citizens all across the country who are
living in extreme poverty and homelessness, including citizens from
Burnaby, British Columbia, the Burnaby Task Force on Homelessness recommends that the House of Commons Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs view the proposed
amendments to the Elections Act as unconstitutional and undemocratic, and as a significant infringement on the basic rights of many
vulnerable Canadian citizens.
● (2005)
Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Ms. Mulholland.
We'll go to Mr. Allen now for an opening statement, if you could,
please.
Mr. Nathan Allen (Manager, Pigeon Park Savings, Portland
Hotel Society): Thank you.
Thank you to the committee for allowing this time to provide
some on-the-street information about some of the challenges faced
by low-income Canadians in providing identification credentials.
I've been a resident of Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside for more
than 12 years. Most of that time I've worked as a manager of Pigeon
Park Savings Credit Union, which is also branch 48 of Vancouver
City Savings Credit Union and run in partnership with the PHS
Community Services Society. Pigeon Park Savings opened more
than 10 years ago to provide financial services to low-income
residents of Vancouver’s Downtown Eastside, containing within it
the subdistricts of Gastown, Chinatown, and Strathcona.
The Downtown Eastside is Vancouver’s oldest neighbourhood and
was once a work camp with a high concentration of hundreds of
units in what are now called single-room occupancy hotels or SROs.
These rooms are 10 feet by 10 feet with shared bathrooms on each
floor, about six-storey buildings, and 100 years ago SRO hotels
provided working men a place to stay between jobs in the forest.
Some might be familiar with the Canadian country music legend Ian
Tyson's song Summer Wages, which is about life in Vancouver at that
time.
Over the years of course that resource-based work moved farther
away from the cities, services and businesses left the Downtown
Eastside, and these hotels became home to Vancouver's poorest
residents. Vancouver, with an important shipping port, major airport,
and close proximity to the United States, saw an increasing
availability of illicit narcotics, and these drugs flooded into the
Downtown Eastside, where alcoholism was already endemic.
Initially these narcotics were opiates like heroin, and now for the
last 20 years or so there's a high prevalence of crack cocaine and
more recently crystal methamphetamine.
While this influx of narcotics on the street increased, police
engaged in a containment strategy of herding drug dealing and
prostitution out of other more affluent areas of Vancouver and
concentrating the drug and sex trades in the Downtown Eastside. At
the same time, governments moved toward the deinstitutionalization
of mental health services, without providing sufficient alternative
resources in communities, resulting in an influx of unsupported
mentally ill people into the Downtown Eastside. Also, the legacy of
policies of residential schools is keenly felt in the neighbourhood,
April 9, 2014
where for example nearly one in four homeless people identify as
aboriginal. They're 2% of the population.
Meanwhile, senior levels of government got out of the business of
building housing, and increased development pressure in downtown
Vancouver has driven up housing costs, further decreasing affordable
housing stock. Additionally, as Vancouver does not have the freezing
cold winters of the rest of Canada, it also does not have the same
shelter infrastructure as eastern Canadian cities do.
What does this have to do with voting?
Because of all that I just referenced, Vancouver’s Downtown
Eastside has an exceptionally high number of eligible voters who do
not have the identification necessary to participate in a Canadian
election.
Pigeon Park Savings has served the Downtown Eastside
community since 2004. The bank was a necessary intervention, as
it is very difficult for low-income citizens to obtain financial
services. The biggest challenge in doing so is producing the adequate
identification required to open an account. This adequate identification is the same as is required to vote.
How do we open accounts for people without ID? As in the
Elections Act we rely on vouching. We rely on vouching from
neighbours, financial assistance workers, housing providers, clinical
workers, including doctors and nurses, and so on. In over 10 years of
operations, having opened accounts for more than 10,000 individuals, we have never had one case of fraud as a result of a falsified
identity.
Why is finding adequate identification a problem?
The number one reason is cost. Photo identification such as a B.C.
ID card or driver's licence costs at least $40, and for someone living
on income assistance of around $200 a month that cost is out of
reach for many people, and effectively acts as a poll tax on citizens.
Insecure housing and homelessness make it very difficult for
people to hold onto their possessions as well, and depressingly,
people who are found asleep outdoors will often have their pockets
picked, or if living in insecure housing like those SROs available to
very poor Downtown Eastside residents, their rooms are often
robbed.
Finally, mental health and addictions remain in a crisis situation in
Vancouver. My experience working with people who struggle with
mental illness is that it is often a challenge to navigate bureaucracies
like those required to acquire identification documents. Also, for
individuals struggling with acute mental health issues, it is difficult
to keep documents, as they are often misplaced or lost.
In conclusion, I can only state from my experience that voters
living on the margins of our society—people who I believe should
be voting, as public policy directly affects them—require another
mechanism to exercise their right to vote. For thousands of very
vulnerable citizens, producing the credentials required may be
impossible.
April 9, 2014
PROC-31
I urge the committee to think about the tens of thousands of
homeless Canadian voters when amending laws governing our
elections, and consider ways to ensure all eligible voters have access
to our democratic system.
Thank you again.
● (2010)
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Allen.
Mr. Oudshoorn, your opening statement, if you would, please....
Dr. Abram Oudshoorn (Chair, London Homeless Coalition): I
also extend my thanks to the committee for having me here today.
I present to you today on behalf of the London Homeless
Coalition and the London Community Advocates Network; however, my comments also draw heavily on my experience working
front-line as a nurse with people experiencing homelessness at the
London Intercommunity Health Centre and on my current position
as an assistant professor in the Arthur Labatt Family School of
Nursing, where my research and teaching focus on the intersections
of poverty, housing, and health.
There are two brief pictures I hope to paint for you, to in some
small way bring you the realities, as the other witnesses have, of
Canadian citizens experiencing homelessness. These are obtaining
identification and then a picture of what happens on typical election
day in London, Ontario.
Maintaining and obtaining identification is one of the key
challenges faced by people experiencing homelessness in terms of
barriers to exiting homelessness and exiting poverty in general. Both
qualitative and quantitative research studies have continually
highlighted the rapid decline of possessing current and accurate
identification starting from the date of first homelessness. That is to
say, the longer one is homeless, the exponentially less likely one is to
have current and accurate identification. This particularly impacts
those living with a mental health challenge as well as women fleeing
domestic violence.
How is identification lost? Unfortunately, as others have said, it's
frequently stolen along with one’s personal possessions. It's also lost
in the chaos of people's lives. At times it's left behind if a person is
unable to return to a shelter where their belongings are temporarily
stored or if women fleeing violence are unable to go back and access
their possessions.
Once identification is lost, as has been mentioned, the process to
replace it is laborious, expensive, and long. Individuals often have to
start right back at connecting with their community of birth to obtain
a birth certificate, then wait four to eight weeks for this to come in
before accessing the next piece of identification. This process is also
a challenge as one requires a permanent address throughout the
process for where that ID is going to. Fortunately, many agencies
that serve people who are homeless are well-equipped and used to
serving as a permanent address on a temporary basis. Unfortunately,
due again to the chaos in people’s lives, the process of replacing lost
identification is often interrupted. There are many times when pieces
of ID, after being ordered, end up sitting unclaimed as the person
enters a new cycle of distress. Therefore, on any given day a
significant number of people experiencing homelessness in Canada
find themselves without identification.
11
This is a challenge, but historically in London we've been able to
rise to that challenge. Health and social service agencies in London
mobilize every election day to ensure, as much as possible, that
citizens who want to vote are able to in spite of their housing status
and identification challenges. This community-wide mobilization
focuses firstly on ensuring that individuals are using an agency for
their permanent address and are thus able to obtain the voter ID card.
For those who have not received that or if it's gone to a different
place, the next level of mobilization is with the provisions under 143
(3) of the Canada Elections Act, known colloquially as the vouching
system.
As you are aware, under this section of the act, those with proper
identification are able to vouch for another citizen within their
polling area. Part of what we do is first make sure that the agencies
serving the homeless know how it works—so, workers across health
and social service agencies are made aware of these provisions and
people self-identify who live within polling areas where many
people who are homeless are located.
When a person experiencing homelessness but without identification enters an agency and expresses an interest in voting—often the
agencies have a sign that says, “Ask us how you can vote”—they are
connected with someone who can vouch for them, whether it's
someone who works in the agency or another person who's homeless
who's also said that they would like to vote. They will be
accompanied by someone who can vouch for them at the polling
station. This is made simpler in our community because one or more
of the serving agencies use our polling stations and it makes it a little
easier for everyone in terms of the walking.
So this gives you a bit of a picture of what we do.
To this statement I would like to add a bit of a clarification on the
letter of attestation because this is something that, unlike the
previous witnesses, we do use quite frequently within London.
Unfortunately, the wording is that the person ordinarily resides and
receives services at such-and-such agency. That works well for some
people. If people have been in a shelter for a while, that works. For
others, whether they're sleeping rough, transient from city to city,
couch surfing and their address is changing, or whether they're
recently admitted into social housing so their housing status is
changing, that doesn't work. Although we do use the letter of
attestation quite a bit, it still leaves a big gap, which is where the
vouching fills in.
12
PROC-31
● (2015)
Under Bill C-23 the provisions of subsection 143(3) are removed.
This will present a very real challenge to people experiencing
homelessness across Canada and disenfranchise them from a
significant part of the democratic process. Unfortunately, a full
identification replacement is simply not achievable on time, in most
cases. As hard as we try, it just often isn't there on time, and the
agencies do try their best. This means that if Bill C-23 proceeds as
written, a particular subset of the population would be adversely
impacted. In any policy analysis, when a particular subset is affected,
that is a red flag.
Thank you.
We're moving well on time.
I'll go to Mr. Reid, for seven minutes please.
Mr. Scott Reid: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
I'll start with you, Mr. Oudshoorn.
You talked about the attestation forms and your use of them. I
gather that if someone goes in to vote with an attestation form, they
also require another piece of identification. That form on its own is
not sufficient. Is that correct?
Dr. Abram Oudshoorn: I would have to defer to a social worker
to answer that question.
Mr. Scott Reid: The reason I ask is I was basing it on what the
Chief Electoral Officer puts out on his website about what you need
to have. He says that an original document with name and address is
required, but it's in a category that says “Show two pieces of
authorized identification. Both pieces must have your name and one
must also have your address”.
I gather that this is one of the two and it's the one with the address.
The reason I ask is, that piece of identification, if we treat it as
unique, one that would serve on its own, would it be helpful? I
gather you're not actually able to answer that question.
● (2020)
Dr. Abram Oudshoorn: One thing I do know from my
colleagues who provide the direct service, the social workers, is
that it's that “ordinarily reside and receive services from” that's the
bigger issue. They do give out the letters of attestation as people
request them. But they can do it only if they are able.
For example, if someone comes to the Intercommunity Health
Centre, which provides a lot of the services, the centre doesn’t
necessarily know where that person ordinarily resides. So it would
be dependent upon a shelter. it could be a shelter where the person
may have just come in that night or it could be a shelter that provides
a nightly service, like a managed alcohol drop-in or recovery
situation where people come and go.
Again, it's the “ordinarily reside” that becomes an issue. That
letter is helpful for some but not all.
Mr. Scott Reid: I was about to interrupt you. I hate it when people
do that, so I'm glad you finished because now I don't have to
interrupt you.
April 9, 2014
Wouldn't that be a problem with vouching anyway? If a person is
in a sense “in flux” as to where they reside that very day, then
finding someone who resides in the same poll to vouch for them
becomes an issue, I would think.
Dr. Abram Oudshoorn: It's different then because…say I'm the
nurse at a health centre and someone I know walks in. I've seen them
and I know their name. If it matches up with their file of providing
services and they happen to live in the poll that I live in, then that is a
requirement that is met.
I think what you'll see in these situations is that each part of the
system, whether it's the vouching or the letter of attestation, has a bit
of a different scenario for the individual, and the current suite of
options provides the most ability for everyone to vote.
Mr. Scott Reid: As you can see, one thing I'm trying to figure out
is whether that letter of attestation can be adjusted and made more
useful.
I don't know if you know the answer to this question. If you do, I'll
keep on asking you questions. But if you don't, I'll turn to one of the
other witnesses.
Does Elections Canada provide a standard blank form?
Dr. Abram Oudshoorn: Yes, it does.
Mr. Scott Reid: Then they do have one and that's what you use.
Dr. Abram Oudshoorn: We print it off, and there is a section for
the individual to fill out and a section for the service agency provider
to fill out.
Mr. Scott Reid: Right, and they keep a list of the authorized
signatures of people who have worked at the shelters, is that how it
operates?
Dr. Abram Oudshoorn: That's a detail I would not know.
Mr. Scott Reid: Maybe I can ask Ms. Mulholland, then.
You had said, and I actually wrote it down, that, “We've offered
the use of attestation forms to vouch for persons who have no ID”.
I want to ask you about something in that quote. But first, I'll ask
about the forms you're using. As I was asking Mr. Oudshoorn, do
you know the answer to that?
Ms. Wanda Mulholland: Yes, the forms we've used have been
provided by Elections Canada. The way we've been instructed to use
them, through our member agency, is that the address on those forms
would be the address of the agency, for people who are of no fixed
address. That's how we've been able to identify that we know the
person, that this is their address, and that it fits within that catchment.
April 9, 2014
PROC-31
Mr. Scott Reid: So you don't actually know their address, in the
sense that they are of no fixed address. But essentially you know
they're local and likely to be within that poll or couple of polls, that
sort of thing.
Ms. Wanda Mulholland: Burnaby is very large geographically.
There are lots of parks, and a number of our homeless folks live in
camps in the parks. It would be impossible to identify an address
other than the agency.
Mr. Scott Reid: Okay, I got that.
We have offered the use of attestation forms to vouch for persons
who have no ID. The way you phrased it, I assume you didn't mean
that literally because attestation forms are one thing and vouching is
a separate thing. I assume you can issue an attestation form for a
number of different people. You don't have to live in the same poll.
However, you must be someone who is in a responsible position at a
soup kitchen or a shelter, or one of a limited number of agencies.
Those are actually two separate things that you were talking about,
I assume. Is that right?
Ms. Wanda Mulholland: Yes.
The person who has filled out those forms has been the supervisor
at the homeless outreach program exclusively.
Mr. Scott Reid: Alright, that's helpful to me.
Mr. Allen, you mentioned how you have people vouch for
individuals to establish an account at Pigeon Park Savings. I'm
assuming that this is not quite the same as the vouching that is used
by Elections Canada. I could be wrong; it might be exactly the same.
I'm guessing that the individual who is doing the vouching is
effectively doing something more like the attestation. Would that be
true, or am I wrong?
● (2025)
Mr. Nathan Allen: Well, I mean it's a case-by-case basis.
However, I have personally opened accounts where a person moves
into a new housing project and there's a neighbour who's had an
account with us for awhile, similar to a voter who has voted for
awhile and is already on the voters list. They say, “He doesn't have
ID right now, but he needs to open an account, and I can vouch for
him”. I do open that account. We haven't experienced any fraud as a
result of that practice.
That accessibility has meant a great deal to a lot of people in the
neighbourhood.
Mr. Scott Reid: I can imagine.
They're putting money in, though. I assume they don't come in
and say, “I'll vouch for someone so he can now take money out”.
Is that right?
Mr. Nathan Allen: Of course, there's no money in the account
until they put money in.
Mr. Scott Reid: Right, okay.
I'm not sure how much I can pursue that because I'm still having
some trouble getting the mental picture.
Do I have any time left?
13
The Chair: You have zero time left.
Mr. Scott Reid: Well, I won't get to ask that question then.
Thank you very much. You've been helpful.
The Chair: We'll go to Madame Latendresse for seven minutes,
please.
[Translation]
Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to start by thanking the witnesses for being here today.
I would like to thank you especially for the work that you are
doing in general. You are helping the most disadvantaged people in
our society. Without people like you, they would have absolutely
nothing. You have my sincere thanks.
We are currently examining changes that are going to be made to
the Canada Elections Act. Among other things, people will no longer
be able to use the voter information card or be able to be vouched for
in order to vote, and that is a problem. It is true that not a lot of
people used those systems. We know that a great majority of
Canadians have a driver's license and that is all you need in order to
vote. In reality, however, those two measures were the safety net that
made sure that every Canadian citizen had the right to vote. It is a
basic right under our Constitution.
The people you are representing today are those we are discussing
here. Those whom, basically, society has forgotten. But they still
have the right to vote. The vouching system and the new system
using the voter information card are two measures that made sure
that no one was left by the wayside.
I have here figures showing that, depending on the way in which
you calculate the number, we presently have between 300,000 and
900,000 people in Canada considered homeless or with no fixed
address. That number is very high. I would not have believed that it
could be so high. It is people like you who have to run around to
provide the documentation those people need in order to be able to
vote. What you are doing already is super. But this measure gives
homeless shelters and soup kitchens the entire responsibility of
providing the documentation. In my opinion, that is putting an
enormous burden on resources that are already overused. You do not
have a lot of time and energy to be able to spend on it.
Could I hear your comments and thoughts on the matter?
Ms. Mulholland, you can answer first, if you like.
[English]
Ms. Wanda Mulholland: We're committed to assisting the people
who are in need. There has never been any concern on our part about
the time that it takes because our priority is to provide an opportunity
for people to vote if they wish.
14
PROC-31
The idea that this might be removed is of great concern to us.
Mr. Nathan Allen: I could add to that.
Some days, working in the neighbourhood, it's really hectic. There
are a lot of things going on. If we're wanting, on election day, to help
someone to vote—people who are disabled, in wheelchairs, have
trouble with mobility issues, to find the individual in their poll to
walk with them, to be the voucher for that individual—to organize
all of that takes a lot out of the day but that's still the only
opportunity that person would have to vote.
All of these things are good. The application forms are good.
What all of the political parties do in terms of trying to make sure
their own supporters have credentials ahead of election day is a good
thing that happens. But for folks who are exceptionally marginalized, without that other mechanism that allows someone to vouch
for them, effectively they do not have the right to vote.
I appreciate what you say. We're happy to try to enfranchise as
many people as possible, but it is a lot of work and we wish we had
more individuals to help people vote. We would probably increase
the homeless vote as a result, but we can only do so much on
election day and we go flat out.
The people I work with who attempt to help people in any way
they can—whether it be with transportation or help finding
credentials or through finding an individual to vouch for people—
go from eight until eight and we're always disappointed that we
haven't gotten to everybody. We never will get to everybody.
April 9, 2014
The Chief Electoral Officer is allowed to designate whatever ID,
except the law is now going to prohibit the voter identification card
from being used as a piece of ID. How is that going to impact the
people you're trying to help on election day? The fact that those
voter identification cards, if they've gone through all the hoops of
getting them and they're lucky enough to have them, aren't even
going to be ID at the polling station? How many Canadians stand to
be turned away because this document won't be recognized as ID in
your view?
Mr. Nathan Allen: That's almost the most depressing thing
because you're talking about someone who went out of their way
already to register to vote or they've voted in the past. They're an
active Canadian citizen, but for whatever reason they don't have
identification on election day. Likely a lot of people will assume that
card will allow them to vote and it will just be the most depressing
situation where someone takes that time, goes to vote, and then
something that allowed them to vote in the past no longer allows
them to vote. It's depressing. I don't want to see that happen.
The Chair: Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Christopherson.
Dr. Abram Oudshoorn: If I may.
The Chair: A quick answer, sure.
● (2030)
Dr. Abram Oudshoorn: I might highlight that these agencies
have limited budgets and they have a lot of important decisions that
they have to make in use of those budgets. Ultimately, all of the
homeless serving agencies want to end homelessness, which means
providing people with safe, secure, permanent, and affordable
housing. However, they provide other services along the way and
many will actually have an ID fund that will fund part of the
replacement fees of this identification.
The more time, energy, and resources that go into identification,
the less time, energy, and resources we have to truly end
homelessness by providing people with the housing supports that
they need.
[Translation]
Ms. Alexandrine Latendresse: I am going to give the rest of my
time to my colleague.
[English]
Mr. David Christopherson: I'd like to pick up a little, if I could,
on the voter information card. The government gets very upset when
we say voter identification card because that's what we think it
should be.
You've got a lot of experience with that. I even heard, maybe on
the previous panel, forgive me if that's the case, but someone gave
testimony and said the amount—I think it was one of you—of work
it takes to get the voter identification card because that, with
vouching, could get you a ballot and you'd be allowed to vote.
Dr. Abram Oudshoorn: I'll just paint a picture of individuals
who we see this with often. It might be some who do maintain some
kind of permanent address. We see this for example with people in
cyclical experiences of poverty where there may be a familial home,
but they themselves are experiencing homelessness, they've lost all
their identification and are able to come and go from the familial
home at times and to retain or obtain that voter ID card.
I would say it's a significant portion of people experiencing both
homelessness, but also poverty in general, who will be unable to
vote because of being unable to use that card.
Mr. David Christopherson: They said they wanted lots of people
to vote, and we're hearing they're not going to be able to.
The Chair: Mr. Simms, you have seven minutes, please.
Mr. Scott Simms: Thank you for joining us.
Thank you for joining us from British Columbia as well.
I want to go to Mr. Allen first, because I was very taken aback by
what you had said about how it works at Pigeon Park Savings. I'm
going to quote from what you said:
April 9, 2014
PROC-31
How do we open accounts for people without ID? As in the Elections Act, we rely
on vouching. We rely on vouching from neighbours, financial assistance workers,
housing providers, clinical workers including doctors and nurses, and so on.
This is where it's very important:
In over 10 years of operations, having opened accounts for more than 10,000
individuals, we have never had one case of fraud as a result of a falsified identity.
Mr. Allen, that's a pretty strong statement and we're talking about
banking; we're not talking about a constitutional right, which is
section 3 of our charter, when we talk about voting.
Our previous witnesses talked about not really seeing an incentive
to commit fraud. But for some reason in this debate that we're having
here, there is always this nefarious assumption that is tagged along
with vouching, as if it's something we should be suspicious of as
opposed to encouraging people to vote. Would you agree with that?
● (2035)
Mr. Nathan Allen: Yes absolutely. As I was saying before, if
someone has an account with us and we know their account history,
similar to someone being on the voter list, I believe that is enough
trust for me to allow an account to open and for that person to
deposit cheques, to deposit cash, to have money transfers go into the
account and then to receive an ATM card and continue to have
financial services.
We have to have this rule at Pigeon Park Savings Bank because
otherwise we wouldn't have any account holders. Initially almost all
of our accounts come from people who are very disenfranchised,
homeless individuals who have experienced financial exclusion from
other institutions, which have very strict identification requirements
of having current ID, similar to what the rules would be if Bill C-23
is able to pass.
We have files on thousands of people. We do what we can to help
people find identification, but as was mentioned by the other
panellists, it does take a lot of effort to find someone's birth
certificate, find someone's SIN card, find the money required to buy
a B.C. identification card. So for people with mental health issues,
it's very challenging to have the patience to do that. As you can
imagine, people with addiction issues have other concerns as well.
I don't want to argue that some folks don't deserve the right to
vote. I think that someone who is a mentally ill drug addict who's
homeless still deserves the right to vote, even if some people don't
think they are deserving of anything. I believe they can and should
participate in the democratic process. Without much conversation
saying what's at stake in some elections, people are very mobilized
around things, and to deny them that franchise I find depressing. It's
a great injustice when you see it at a systemic level where, in the
Downtown Eastside, it's a high concentration of poor people.
Already I think the rules are very restrictive for people, with a lot
of hoops to jump through in order to vote. To deny even the hoop to
jump through to vote is a tragedy.
Mr. Scott Simms: This is disenfranchising on a major scale to
you. This is going to be a real noticeable difference in this next
election if this legislation is carried through in its current form. Is
that correct?
Mr. Nathan Allen: I believe so, yes.
Mr. Scott Simms: Okay.
15
Mr. Oudshoorn, I'm going to ask you to comment on what I just
asked about vouching. But there is something else you said that
actually caught my attention. You said there was a big gap with the
attestation. We have heard a lot that attestation is going to be the cure
for most ills when it comes to vouching. Can you elaborate a bit
more on that big gap you're talking about?
Dr. Abram Oudshoorn: Sure. When you look at the terminology
“ordinarily reside” and you look at the definition of homelessness,
those two don't usually go hand in hand. Because of the services
we're able to provide with shelters, for some that works. But for the
majority, they're homeless because they have lost the place where
they “ordinarily reside”.
Mr. Scott Simms: Sorry, Ms. Mulholland, I didn't mean to
exclude you. Do you have any comment on what's been discussed?
Ms. Wanda Mulholland: I'll just add that the idea of people
being excluded from voting in their own country because of poverty
and the complications connected with it is very discouraging. It does
a disservice to everyone I work with.
Mr. Scott Simms: Thank you very much.
Do I have time or not?
The Chair: You have a minute and a half, Mr. Simms.
● (2040)
Mr. Scott Simms: Oh, goodness.
The Chair: There are others who would take it.
Mr. Scott Simms: Your generosity knows no bounds.
One of the issues we haven't discussed too much in this
conversation is that we're now restricting Elections Canada to only
provide the perfunctory information about where to vote and when to
vote, which is fine. But the role of enticing and inspiring people to
vote, to communicate, and to gather information will be hindered. Is
that something that concerns you as well, Mr. Oudshoorn?
16
PROC-31
Dr. Abram Oudshoorn: Yes. Obviously people need to be aware
of what's going on. I think one of the things, though, that stands to be
mentioned to this committee is that, in my experience, people
experiencing homelessness are quite aware. One of the things we do
see is very high uptake of consumption of local news, so you see lots
of access to newspapers in soup kitchens and shelters.
I would suggest that people experiencing homelessness are
actually quite political and quite informed. These issues are very
pertinent to them. It's their livelihood that is often at hand when we
compare different policies from different parties. I believe,
obviously, that the advertisement around elections is an important
piece, but perhaps not for the population that I'm most familiar with.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Simms.
We'll go to Mr. O'Toole for four minutes, please.
Mr. Erin O'Toole: Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
Thank you all for your work and for your appearance here.
I would suggest that the issue here, really, is voter participation.
Elections Canada, in a 2007 study, identified homelessness as one of
the areas where there's a significant barrier. They described it as one
of three groups of persons with special needs impacting voter
participation.
What you're saying, and what our previous witnesses said is that
so much is going on, turnout is extremely low. But we've also heard
from expert witnesses in both Canada and the U.S. who have said
that voter participation has very little to do with identification or
administration barriers and more with a variety of socio-economic
and other aspects.
Mr. Simms said there's a nefarious assumption associated with
vouching. The Neufeld report from Elections Canada said that 46%
to 80% of vouching transactions have errors or are done incorrectly.
Finally, Mr. Oudshoorn and Mr. Allen have both talked about how
challenging it is to work within vouching. Mr. Allen, you said it
takes a lot of the day. Mr. Oudshoorn said that when a person
experiencing homelessness but without identification enters an
agency and expresses an interest in voting, they are connected with
someone who can vouch for them. So this connecting people with
vouchers, as Mr. Reid said, seems extremely difficult, much more
than the burden of doing an attestation.
I've heard here the concerns about using attestations and whether
one is ordinarily residing within a polling area. What if Elections
Canada were to simplify a one-page attestation and make it much
more simple for someone to qualify as ordinarily a resident, even if
they haven't been seen in the shelter in some time? Would it not be
easier for groups like yours on the front lines to use these simplified
attestations to encourage more participation rather than matching
vouchers on election day with T-shirts? I'd like your thoughts on
that, please.
Dr. Abram Oudshoorn: I would agree. The vouching process is
more effort than the letter of attestation. Currently, it fills in a gap
when the letter of attestation doesn't work, so when someone comes
in and we can't provide that, we can work with the vouching. A
change to the letter of attestation would make it easier. So, for
example, if all that was required was proof that this person receives
April 9, 2014
services regularly rather than ordinarily resides, then that would
definitely make the letter of attestation easier to use. But in the
current structure with the letter of attestation not working for
everyone, then the vouching does definitely fill in for that.
Mr. Erin O'Toole: My colleague Ms. Latendresse said that using
the attestations is an enormous burden, but if we simplify it then
what I'm getting from you is that it could actually be easier, less of a
burden, than pairing up vouching people.
Dr. Abram Oudshoorn: I would highlight that it is just a onepager right now. The form itself is fairly simple. It just asks who I
am, where I work, who this person is, where he works, and where he
ordinarily resides and receives services. It would require a change of
the language to make it more effective.
● (2045)
Mr. Erin O'Toole: Mr. Allen or Ms. Mulholland, do you have any
thoughts? If we simplified this, would it make it easier to raise
participation rates?
Mr. Nathan Allen: I think doing anything to increase participation rates is a good thing. I don't think it's either/or though. I don't
know why it needs to be exclusive so that we'd do vouching or we'd
do attestation. Having both in place is probably for the best.
Mr. Erin O'Toole: If I can speak to that, I think participation—
The Chair: You could if you had more time, but you don't, so
we're going to move on to Mr. Scott for four minutes.
Mr. Craig Scott: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
What I would say to Mr. O'Toole's question is that if he and the
government side were willing to engage in a discussion on
redefining what “address” means in the act, so that the letter of
attestation...for people who are only receiving services and can't, in a
reasonable sense, be said to reside there—then sure, why not? Let's
do that.
At the same time, as Mr. Allen said, why not keep vouching as the
final safety net and not get rid of the voter information cards? They
do come from an intersection of databases that have not been shown
to be liable to produce fraud.
Professor Oudshoorn, I'd like to just compliment you and your
colleagues in London for what you do. The description of citizens
helping citizens and the way you do it is absolutely inspiring, and I
guess all I would do is echo Madame Alexandrine Latendresse's
comments that the idea of adding extra burdens by getting rid of
vouching, without anything that would be a sure replacement, does
not make sense.
April 9, 2014
PROC-31
Mr. Allen, you used another amazing metaphor. You said there are
already lots of hoops to jump through and that taking the hoop away
is just too much to accept. I thought that was an amazingly accurate
and poignant image, so thank you for that.
I did want to ask you just a little bit more, because Mr. Reid
started on this, and he asked some very good questions on the bank
account opening. I just want to point out an irony here. At some
level, vouching to open a bank account—and you said that in 10,000
or so cases there has been no instance of fraud as a result that you
know of. In the end, you're a bank, and presumably if paper forms of
the bank statement were available, those could turn into proof of
address within the current system, if you had a second piece of ID,
which people may not. So why not allow vouching in the first place
if that which produces a valid address in the system is vouching?
An hon. member: Hear, hear!
Mr. Craig Scott: It just strikes me that we're going around in
circles. We're not trusting people, and the example you have brought
to the table just shows that if we trust people.... Where is the
evidence? Do you see any evidence that people are more likely to
commit fraud on voting day than they were when they opened bank
accounts with you?
Mr. Nathan Allen: You mentioned results that I knew of. As
manager, I know there has not been any case of falsified
identification. I can imagine that if someone stole someone's cheque
out of a mailbox and wanted to get someone to vouch for them and
open an account and cash the cheque...but that doesn't happen. If we
have an account holder vouch for someone else, similar to how
someone on the voters list would vouch for someone else, just that
simple qualification has allowed thousands of people to achieve a
bank account or, in the case of elections, to vote. I've never
experienced a single case of false ID, ever, in the 10 years we have
been working in the neighbourhood.
Mr. Craig Scott: Thank you.
Ms. Mulholland, would you like to add anything at all? I think I
have only about 30 seconds.
Ms. Wanda Mulholland: I would just like to add that it is about
trusting people and providing mechanisms for people to participate.
It's also about recognizing that people shouldn't be punished because
of poverty, and it's because of poverty that there are the issues
around identification. Having the two of those things together in a
society that is democratic is crucial in order to be supportive of all
our citizens.
● (2050)
Mr. Craig Scott: Thank you.
The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Scott.
We'll go to Mr. O'Toole for four minutes, please.
Mr. Erin O'Toole: Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'd like to continue on my last line of questioning because I think
it's important, and I would refer any of you to the Electoral
Participation of Persons with Special Needs report from Elections
Canada, in 2007. That identifies areas of recommendations,
including mobile polls and assistance. Many Canadians may not
realize, but electoral reforms in 2000 actually provided that shelters
17
could be used to satisfy the residency provision. Before that, that
didn't exist. Ms. Barr, who was here before, from Raising the Roof,
was one of several participants in round tables with Elections
Canada, and perhaps you were as well.
That led to our famous list of 39 pieces of identification, and the
attestation letter is one of those. So thank you. Some of you might
have participated like Ms. Barr did. But it's important for us to
separate the challenges with vouching from voter participation.
Vouching happens when there is no identification. Mr. Neufeld's
study from the 2011 election and some byelections, including my
own, showed that not only was there trouble administering it, but it
led to a huge error rate—46% serious errors—which, in the opinion
of courts, could overturn a result. My suggestion would be that the
vouching errors that we're trying to eliminate here don't get to the
voter participation challenges facing the homeless.
Ms. Mulholland, you said poverty should not be a barrier. Along
the lines of what I was saying with attestation before, since 2000 to
the attestation now, have you seen an increase among people using
the shelters since the reforms in 2000? Have you seen more voter
participation?
Ms. Wanda Mulholland: In Burnaby, we do not have any
shelters, so we're not able to participate in the way that other
municipalities can.
Mr. Erin O'Toole: Any other thoughts on that? Have you seen
the changes in 2000 through to the attestation? Has that led to
increased voter turnout among the homeless or folks in shelters?
Dr. Abram Oudshoorn: I don't have the statistics available on
that. One of the things I would highlight...because I know that came
right from the homeless-serving sector to do that letter of attestation.
It was before my time. I had more hair, fewer degrees, and wasn't in
the sector yet. It was done in the context of also having the vouching.
So putting in that additional opportunity for identification still had
that other opportunity as well. When that was recommended, it
wasn't recommended in the context of a no-vouching alternative.
Mr. Erin O'Toole: In your experience with the vouching, and you
described the challenge connecting people, only one person—you,
for instance—could vouch for one other person.
Dr. Abram Oudshoorn: Yes.
Mr. Erin O'Toole: How do you identify those people, not the
people who need the vouching, but the people who can provide it?
18
PROC-31
Dr. Abram Oudshoorn: Part of it is just making everyone aware
it's election day. So, those signs, as I said, “Ask me how to vote”,
help people be aware of that. It's starting with all of the service
providers knowing that that's going on and that vouching is an
option for them. The second is having people maybe going together.
If you're at a service agency that is not a polling station, and there are
three or four people who have said they want to vote—some of them
have ID, some don't, they know each other, and they've lived in
shelters together—then people can vote together.
Mr. Erin O'Toole: Wouldn't it be easier for your volunteers to
have a pile of the attestations to just use when they recognize
someone?
Dr. Abram Oudshoorn: If that was available, but again, it goes
back to the wording of the attestation. You couldn't just hand out an
attestation to whoever came through there.
April 9, 2014
Mr. Erin O'Toole: Could you, if you recognize them as having
been in the shelter?
Dr. Abram Oudshoorn: If you can attest that they've ordinarily
resided, yes.
I'm going to thank all of our witnesses. Thank you, Professor
Oudshoorn, Ms. Mulholland, and Mr. Allen. Thank you for sharing
with us tonight and thank you for the work you do, too. Thank you
for being able to come tonight and help us out with this.
We are adjourned.
Published under the authority of the Speaker of
the House of Commons
Publié en conformité de l’autorité
du Président de la Chambre des communes
SPEAKER’S PERMISSION
PERMISSION DU PRÉSIDENT
Reproduction of the proceedings of the House of Commons
and its Committees, in whole or in part and in any medium, is
hereby permitted provided that the reproduction is accurate
and is not presented as official. This permission does not
extend to reproduction, distribution or use for commercial
purpose of financial gain. Reproduction or use outside this
permission or without authorization may be treated as
copyright infringement in accordance with the Copyright Act.
Authorization may be obtained on written application to the
Office of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
Il est permis de reproduire les délibérations de la Chambre et
de ses comités, en tout ou en partie, sur n’importe quel
support, pourvu que la reproduction soit exacte et qu’elle ne
soit pas présentée comme version officielle. Il n’est toutefois
pas permis de reproduire, de distribuer ou d’utiliser les
délibérations à des fins commerciales visant la réalisation d'un
profit financier. Toute reproduction ou utilisation non permise
ou non formellement autorisée peut être considérée comme
une violation du droit d’auteur aux termes de la Loi sur le
droit d’auteur. Une autorisation formelle peut être obtenue sur
présentation d’une demande écrite au Bureau du Président de
la Chambre.
Reproduction in accordance with this permission does not
constitute publication under the authority of the House of
Commons. The absolute privilege that applies to the
proceedings of the House of Commons does not extend to
these permitted reproductions. Where a reproduction includes
briefs to a Committee of the House of Commons, authorization for reproduction may be required from the authors in
accordance with the Copyright Act.
La reproduction conforme à la présente permission ne
constitue pas une publication sous l’autorité de la Chambre.
Le privilège absolu qui s’applique aux délibérations de la
Chambre ne s’étend pas aux reproductions permises. Lorsqu’une reproduction comprend des mémoires présentés à un
comité de la Chambre, il peut être nécessaire d’obtenir de
leurs auteurs l’autorisation de les reproduire, conformément à
la Loi sur le droit d’auteur.
Nothing in this permission abrogates or derogates from the
privileges, powers, immunities and rights of the House of
Commons and its Committees. For greater certainty, this
permission does not affect the prohibition against impeaching
or questioning the proceedings of the House of Commons in
courts or otherwise. The House of Commons retains the right
and privilege to find users in contempt of Parliament if a
reproduction or use is not in accordance with this permission.
La présente permission ne porte pas atteinte aux privilèges,
pouvoirs, immunités et droits de la Chambre et de ses comités.
Il est entendu que cette permission ne touche pas l’interdiction
de contester ou de mettre en cause les délibérations de la
Chambre devant les tribunaux ou autrement. La Chambre
conserve le droit et le privilège de déclarer l’utilisateur
coupable d’outrage au Parlement lorsque la reproduction ou
l’utilisation n’est pas conforme à la présente permission.
Also available on the Parliament of Canada Web Site at the
following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca
Aussi disponible sur le site Web du Parlement du Canada à
l’adresse suivante : http://www.parl.gc.ca
This is Exhibit C referred to in the
March, 2015
____________________________
A HOMELESS HUB RESEARCH PAPER
THE STATE OF
HOMELESSNESS
in
CANADA
2014
Canadian Observatory
on Homelessness
The State of Homelessness in Canada 2014
Stephen Gaetz, Tanya Gulliver, & Tim Richter
Editor: Allyson Marsolais
Homeless Hub Paper #5
ISBN: 978-1-77221-001-9
©2014 The Homeless Hub Press.
The author’s rights re this report are protected with a Creative Commons license that allows users to quote from, link
to, copy, transmit and distribute for non-commercial purposes, provided they attribute it to the authors and to the
report. The license does not allow users to alter, transform, or build upon the report. More details about this Creative
Commons license can be viewed at http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/2.5/ca/
How to cite this document:
Stephen Gaetz, Tanya Gulliver, & Tim Richter (2014): The State of Homelessness in Canada: 2014. Toronto: The
Homeless Hub Press.
The Homeless Hub (www.homelesshub.ca) is a web-based research library and resource centre, supported by the
Canadian Homelessness Research Network.
The Homeless Hub Paper Series is a Canadian Observatory on Homelessness initiative to highlight the work of top
Canadian researchers on homelessness. The goal of the Paper Series is to take homelessness research and relevant
policy findings to new audiences. Reports in this Paper Series constitute secondary research, involving summary,
collation and/or synthesis of existing research. For more information visit www.homelesshub.ca.
Layout & design by:
Steph Vasko & Patricia Lacroix
1
THE STATE OF HOMELESSNESS IN CANADA 2014
Content
Executive summary3
1 Introduction10
2 Addressing Homelessness in Canada – The Year in Review
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
Introduction13
Community progress on reducing homelessness
16
Addressing youth homelessness17
Research and data18
3 The Lack of Affordable Housing in Canada – Ottawa, We Have a Problem
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
13
22
What do we mean by affordable housing?
22
A short history of federal government support for affordable housing in Canada
24
The affordable housing supply in Canada: how are we doing today?
31
Conclusion36
4 Homelessness & the Lack of Affordable Housing. What is the Link? 37
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
4.5
Setting the stage: understanding homelessness in Canada
38
The number of people experiencing homelessness in Canada
41
At-risk of homelessness: the precariously housed
42
Where does housing fit into our response to homelessness? 45
Conclusion49
5 Investing in Affordable Housing to Help End Homelessness
50
6 Conclusion: We Can End Homelessness in Canada
63
6.1 Summary costs of proposals63
6.2 Outcomes of investment64
6.3 Can we afford this?65
Glossary67
References69
2
Executive Summary
“Homelessness may not be only a housing problem, but it is always a
housing problem; housing is necessary, although sometimes not sufficient,
to solve the problem of homelessness” (Dolbeare, 1996:34).
Canada is nearing an important crossroads in our response to homelessness. Since
homelessness emerged as a significant problem – in fact, as a crisis – in the 1990s, with the
withdrawal of the federal government’s investment in affordable housing, communities have
struggled to respond. Declining wages (even minimum wage has not kept up with inflation in
any jurisdiction in Canada), reduced benefit levels–including pensions and social assistance
– and a shrinking supply of affordable housing have placed more and more Canadians at risk
of homelessness. For a small, but significant group of Canadians facing physical and mental
health challenges, the lack of housing and supports is driving increases in homelessness.
Prevention measures – such as ‘rent banks’ and ‘energy banks’ that are designed to help people
maintain their housing – are not adequate in stemming the flow to homelessness. The result
has been an explosion in homelessness as a visible and seemingly ever present problem.
Over the past 10 years we have learned much about what to do to end homelessness – the
need to shift from a focus on managing the problem (through an over-reliance on emergency
services and supports) to a strategy that emphasizes prevention and, for those who do
become homeless, to move them quickly into housing with necessary supports. The success
of the At Home/Chez Soi project demonstrates that with housing and the right supports,
chronically homeless people can become and remain housed. While there are still areas that
need work – we need more robust solutions for youth homelessness, women fleeing violence
and Aboriginal homelessness – we are figuring out solutions on the intervention side.
The one missing piece of the puzzle, however, is affordable housing. The decline in availability
of low cost housing (and in particular, rental housing) affects many Canadians – young people
setting out on their own, single parents, people working for low wages and the elderly. It also
contributes to the homelessness problem in a significant way.
The State of Homelessness in Canada 2014 sets the course for ending homelessness in Canada.
We know quite well what factors have contributed to the dramatic increase in homelessness
over the past 25 years. Since we know what the problem is, we can propose the solution.
3
The making of a crisis
The rise of modern mass homelessness in Canada can be traced
directly back to the withdrawal of the Federal government’s
investment in affordable housing and pan-Canadian cuts to
welfare beginning in the 1980s. In 1982, all levels of government
combined funded 20,450 new social housing units annually. By
1995, the number dropped to around 1,000, with numbers slowly
climbing to 4,393 annually by 2006. Over the past 25 years, while
Canada’s population increased by almost 30%, annual national
investment in housing has decreased dramatically, by over 46%. In
1989, Canadians contributed, through taxation, an average of $115
per person1 to federal housing investments. By 2013, that figure
had dropped to just over $60 per person (in 2013 dollars2).
There are 544,000 social housing units receiving some form of
federal housing subsidy, most of them co-op, non-profit and
other forms of social housing from 1973 to 1993. Currently funded
by operating agreements between the federal and provincial/
territorial governments (administered through Canada Mortgage
and Housing Corporation – CMHC), more than two-thirds (365,000)
are low-income households paying on a rent-geared-to-income
(RGI) basis. Current spending from federal operating agreements,
which continues to decline annually, is approximately $1.7 billion;3
this represents a reduction in spending of almost one-third from
the 1990s (Londerville & Steele, 2014; CMHC, nd. D; CHRA, 2014).
These operating agreements are set to expire over the next 20
years, putting 365,000 Canadian households at risk.
Overall, federal housing investments have been declining over
the past two decades in line with the shrinking housing programs.
There have been some significant new investments in recent years
($1 billion for new affordable housing in 2010, $1.4 billion for
new affordable housing in 2006, $2 billion for new housing and
homelessness investments in the federal stimulus budget of 2009),
but they have been time-limited. Federal housing investments
continued their downward slide after a temporary uptick from
these time-limited measures.
1. Population figures are drawn from https://www.quandl.com/c/canada/canadapopulation-data and are based on a 34, 754, 312 total population in 2013.
2. The Bank of Canada inflation calculator (based on the CPI) has been used throughout
this report to convert to 2013 dollars.
3. Determining the exact number has been challenging for both operating agreements
and total government spending on housing and homelessness. CMHC uses $1.7
billion, CHRA uses $1.6 billion and Londerville and Steele (citing Treasury Board) use
$1.8 billion (rounded from $1.75 billion). For the purposes of this report we will be
using $1.7 billion as the current spending on operating agreements representing the
average of the three numbers.
4
OVER THE PAST 25 YEARS...
Canada’s population increased
by almost 30%
ANNUAL NATIONAL INVESTMENT
IN HOUSING HAS DECREASED
by OVER 46%
$$
$
$
$
$
$
$
$
FEDERAL SPENDING ON LOW-INCOME
HOUSING (PER CAPITA) DROPPED
$115 * TO $60
*figure adjusted for inflation
To put these numbers in perspective, consider that today 18% of all Canadian renter households (an
estimated 733,275 households) experience extreme housing affordability problems, meaning that
they have low incomes and are paying more than 50% of their income on rent, putting them at risk of
homelessness.
Moreover, homelessness, which emerged as an incredibly visible problem in the 1990s, continues to affect
many individuals and families. We now estimate that over 235,000 different Canadians will experience
homelessness in a year, with over 35,000 Canadians homeless on any given night. Outside of a few
communities that have made real progress in reducing the numbers of people experiencing homelessness,
we cannot say that major improvements have been made.
35,000
canadians
are homeless on a given night
13,000 - 33,000
are chronically or episodically homeless
OVER
235,000
canadians experience
HOMELESSNESS IN A YEAR
MOTEL
5,000
180,000
50,000
UNSHELTERED
STAYING IN
EMERGENCY SHELTERS
PROVISIONALLY
ACCOMMODATED
5
The unmaking of a crisis: what needs to be done
An adequate supply of safe, affordable and appropriate housing is a prerequisite to truly ending homelessness in
the long term. This includes ensuring that people who are chronically and episodically homeless are prioritized
and that systems are in place to enable such persons to receive housing and supports through Housing First
programs. In a tight housing market, implementing a Housing First agenda becomes that much more challenging. It is also important to address the supply of affordable housing, in order to broaden access for other priority
populations, including women fleeing violence, Aboriginal Peoples, families, seniors and youth, for instance.
In a tight housing market,
implementing a Housing
First agenda becomes that
much more challenging.
Ultimately, addressing Canada’s housing crisis comes down to money,
which then begs the question about our national priorities.
Canadian homeowners enjoy over $8.6 billion in annual tax and other benefits
(Londerville & Steele, 2014). This kind of investment in home ownership is
important because it benefits millions of middle-income households.
Spending on affordable housing for Canada’s poorest households however, is less than one quarter of that
invested in homeownership, approximately $2.1 billion4 per year and has declined quite dramatically over
the past 25 years (Londerville & Steele, 2014; CHRA, 2014; CMHC nd, A, B, C & D).
Ironically, it costs more to ignore our housing problem than it would to fix it. Consider the estimate that
homelessness alone costs the Canadian economy over $7 billion per year (Gaetz et al., 2013). While the
Government of Canada invests $119 million annually to address homelessness through the Homelessness
Partnering Strategy (provinces and municipalities also invest), this is not sufficient to address the problem
and as a result has not led to a noticeable reduction in homelessness.
By not investing adequately in housing for the
poorest Canadians, health care, justice and
other taxpayer-funded costs increase.
Put another way, as Canadians, we are spending
more money on people who do not need help
compared to those in greatest need. And by
not spending on those in greatest need, we are
not only creating hardship for many Canadian
families, we are creating a considerably larger
expense for the Canadian economy.
As Canadians, we are spending more money
on people who do not need help compared to
those in greatest need. And by not spending on
those in greatest need, we are not only creating
hardship for many Canadian families, we are
creating a considerably larger expense for the
Canadian economy.
We can do things differently. In this report, we propose a robust housing investment strategy that would
cost the economy much less than the current costs of homelessness. The key elements of our strategy,
which are outlined in Chapter 5, include the following proposals:
4. Government spending on social housing and housing supports is sometimes difficult to calculate. In this report we pull from
three different sources (CMHC reports, Londerville and Steele (2014) and CHRA (2014) to reach our number of $2.1 billion in annual
spending. This represents an average of the numbers suggested by the three sources.
6
What will this cost?
Our proposed investment in affordable housing represents an increase in annual federal spending, from the
projected commitments of $2.019 billion to $3.752 billion in 2015/16 with a total investment of $44 billion
over ten years. These proposals have been carefully costed, drawing from the work of Jane Londerville and
Marion Steele (2014) and the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association (CHRA, 2014).5
While this significantly increases the current federal investment, we feel that in addition
to it being the right thing to do, it is also something we can afford to do. Over the past
25 years, federal spending on low-income affordable housing (on a per capita basis)
dropped from over $115 annually, to slightly more than $60 (adjusted to 2013 dollars).
Our proposals would raise the per capita investment to approximately $106 per Canadian
annually, or $2.04 a week (currently per capita spending amounts to $1.16/week). While this
may seem like a significant increase over previous levels, it is still less than what we were
paying in 1989. Additionally, it is necessary to address the accumulated affordable housing
deficit built up over the past 25 years. Moreover, we propose that Canadians spend only an
additional 88 cents per week to contribute to a realistic solution to homelessness and to the
affordable housing crisis. To be clear, this proposal will not completely end homelessness in
Canada, but it will dramatically reduce chronic and episodic homelessness.
5. In preparing this report, we draw heavily on a report titled “Housing Policy Targeting Homelessness” by real estate scholar Jane Londerville
and economist Marion Steele of the University of Guelph, as well as the recent report by the Canadian Housing Renewal Association, titled:
“Housing For All: Sustaining and Renewing Social Housing for Low-Income Households”.
7
What will be the outcome
of this investment?
FOR A SMALL INVESTMENT...
Raise the per capita
INVESTMENT TO $106
PER CANADIAN ANNUALLY
2
an additional
88¢/week
D
ADA
RS
AN
C
$2/week
OLLA
Ending homelessness in Canada:
AN End TO chronic homelessness
$
10
$
=
$
20
For years we have been investing in a
response to homelessness that, while
meeting the immediate needs of people
in crisis, has arguably had no impact in
reducing the scale and scope of the problem.
Our proposal will contribute to an end
to chronic homelessness and reduce the
likelihood that many others will fall into
homelessness in the future. A summary of
the outcomes of our investment includes:
$
The New federal, provincial and territorial
framework agreement on housing (Proposal 1)
and the Investments to target chronically and
episodically homeless people (Proposal 2) will:
•
Eliminate chronic homelessness
in Canada. More than 20,000
chronically and episodically
homeless Canadians will obtain
and maintain housing with
necessary supports.
•
Shorten the average
time people experience
homelessness to less than two
weeks. Our emergency services
will no longer provide long-term
housing, but will return to their
original mandate – to help people
through a short-term crisis.
Homelessness in Canada will
become a rare, brief and one-time
experience.
•
Bring all three levels of
government – as well as
Aboriginal governments – to
the table to support local plans
to end homelessness, develop
coordinated local homelessness
systems of care and ensure
housing investment matches
unique local priorities and
support.
every $10 SPENT ON HOUSING & SUPPORTS
FOR CHRONICALLY HOMELESS INDIVIDUALS
AN increase in the affordable
housing supply
8
The biggest reason for this investment is the contribution it will make
towards ending homelessness for tens of thousands of individuals and
families. In a country as prosperous as Canada, with a broadly shared
and strong commitment to social justice, there is no need to accept or
tolerate the experiences of poverty, hardship and homelessness. We
can end homelessness, if we want to.
Reducing the number of precariously housed people
•
Renewal of operating agreements for social housing, co-ops and non-profits (Proposal 3.1) will
maintain our current supply of social housing and greatly reduce the risk that 365,000 Canadians
who currently live in rent-geared-to-income housing will lose their homes.
•
The housing benefit (Proposal 4) will dramatically reduce the number of Canadian households
living with an extreme affordability problem and the number of households experiencing core
housing need, by providing direct financial support to 836,000 Canadians per year.
•
A clear process to review and expand Investment in Aboriginal housing both on and off reserve
(proposal 6) will contribute to addressing the historic injustices that have led to a dramatic overrepresentation of Aboriginal Peoples amongst those experiencing homelessness in communities
across the country.
Increasing the Affordable Housing Supply
•
Renewed investment in the Investment in Affordable Housing program (IAH) (Proposal 3.2)
will produce 4,000+ new units annually of affordable housing for very low-income households,
prioritizing permanent supportive housing for those with complex needs living in extreme poverty,
for a ten-year total of 40,000 units.
•
An Affordable housing tax credit (Proposal 5) will produce 4,800 new units of housing annually,
The proposed investment in affordable housing in Canada presents an opportunity to put in place infrastructure and supports that will benefit communities across the country. These investments will potentially
be recouped by offsetting the costs associated with homelessness. Moreover, the biggest reason for this
investment is the contribution it will make towards ending homelessness for tens of thousands of individuals and families. In a country as prosperous as Canada, with a broadly shared and strong commitment to
social justice, there is no need to accept or tolerate the experiences of poverty, hardship and homelessness.
We can end homelessness, if we want to.
9
1 Introduction
Canada is nearing an important crossroads in our response to homelessness. Since
homelessness emerged as a significant problem – in fact, as a crisis – in the 1990s, with the
withdrawal of the federal government’s investment in affordable housing, communities have
struggled to respond. Declining wages (even minimum wage has not kept up with inflation in
any jurisdiction in Canada), reduced benefit levels – including pensions and social assistance
– and a shrinking supply of affordable housing have placed more and more Canadians at risk
of homelessness. The result has been an explosion in homelessness as a visible and seemingly
ever present problem. Our primary response has been to manage the crisis through the
provision of emergency services, such as shelters and soup kitchens. Billions of dollars have
been invested with little or no appreciable improvements to the situation.
PLAN
TO END
HOMELESSNESS
In the last five years, things have begun to change. Beginning largely in Alberta,
but now spreading more broadly across the country, several communities have
shifted their focus to ending homelessness via Plans to End Homelessness that
set aggressive targets, priorities and strategies for the reduction and elimination of
homelessness. At the heart of all these plans is Housing First as both a philosophy
and a transformational intervention. In several Alberta communities, real and
meaningful reductions in homelessness have been achieved.
Building on these accomplishments, the Mental Health Commission of Canada competed the highly successful
At Home/Chez Soi project – the world’s largest research demonstration project of Housing First – and the
Government of Canada mandated Housing First programs through the Homelessness Partnering Strategy.
While we now understand a lot about what needs to be done to end homelessness and are taking important
steps in the right direction, there remains one critical hurdle: Canada’s dire affordable housing crisis.
The inability of people to afford and maintain housing underlies much of our national
problem. Chronically homeless individuals, many of whom have the additional
complications of mental health and addictions challenges, are unable to find and afford
$?
housing that would provide a platform for recovery. Other Canadians continue to slide
into homelessness because of the lack of affordable housing and we know that too high
a percentage of Canadian households are in core housing need (paying more than 30%
of their income on housing), leaving little room for other necessities. Poverty, lack of
opportunity, discrimination and an inadequate and declining housing supply mean that many Aboriginal
people continue to fall into homelessness.
If we want to truly address the problem of homelessness, then we most certainly need to increase the
supply of affordable housing for all Canadians. This would be reversing a trend that began in the late 1980s
and was a major contributor to the homelessness problem that we experience today. At that time, direct
government spending on new social and affordable housing projects declined dramatically. Policy shifts,
10
Building new housing is key to solving homelessness
including tax changes, favoured home ownership. The result has been a steep decline in the building of
rental housing (or investment units intended to be rental properties) and a massive investment in the
building of private homes and condominiums in Canada since the late 1980s.6 While this housing supply is
important and benefits many Canadians, the overall shift away from building affordable rental housing has
had a major impact on the lives of low-income Canadians and has most certainly contributed to the rise of
homelessness and the seemingly intractable problems we are dealing with to this day.
In this second State of Homelessness in Canada report, we tackle
this issue head on. We argue that there are mechanisms that
will increase the affordable housing supply and that all levels
of government, as well as the private sector, have a role to play.
This, combined with effective strategies, such as coordinated
and strategic Plans to End Homelessness and successful and
evidence-based interventions, such as Housing First, can lead to
a real reduction in homelessness. This report looks at what we
need to do to get there.
Effective strategies, such as
coordinated and strategic Plans to
End Homelessness and successful
and evidence-based interventions,
such as Housing First, can lead to a
real reduction in homelessness.
Chapter 2 of the report provides an update and overview of key events over the past year. Significant here is
the five-year renewal of the Homelessness Partnering Strategy.
Next, we provide an overview of the affordable housing situation. This chapter brings together what
we know from recent history about the development (or lack) of affordable housing for low-income
Canadians. It serves as a useful backgrounder for anyone who is interested in understanding the factors that
contributed to the acute shortage of affordable housing in Canada today.
We then look at homelessness in Canada and its connection to the lack of affordable housing. While this link should
be obvious to most people, we review the degree to which an inadequate housing supply creates the conditions for
chronic homelessness and for an ongoing flow of people into homelessness. Too many Canadians are precariously
housed, paying too high a percentage of their income on rent. They are acutely at risk of becoming homeless. We
close this chapter with an overview of the role of Housing First in addressing chronic and episodic homelessness, as
well as the need to prioritize other sub-populations.
6. While some condos have been purchased as investment opportunities and are rented out, they tend to be at the higher end of market
rent rather than affordable rental housing.
11
In the concluding chapter, we address what needs to be done. Here, we outline a series of key
recommendation that we feel will a) expand affordable housing supply in Canada and b) allow communities
to target resources effectively in their efforts to end homelessness in Canada.
The key elements of our strategy, which will be outlined below, include the following proposals:
1.
2.
3.
4.
A new federal, provincial and territorial affordable housing framework agreement.
Investments to target chronically and episodically homeless people.
Direct investment in affordable housing programs.
A housing benefit – a new program to assist those who face a severe affordability problem in
their current accommodation.
5. Create an affordable housing tax credit.
6. Review and expand investment in Aboriginal housing both on and off reserve.
In preparing this report, we drew heavily on a report titled “Housing Policy Targeting Homelessness” by
real estate scholar Jane Londerville and economist Marion Steele of the University of Guelph (2014). Londerville and Steele’s report, commissioned by the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness, informs many of
our recommendations and their associated costs. The detailed analysis that leads to these estimates can be
found in that backgrounder. In addition, we draw from the recent report by the Canadian Housing Renewal
Association, titled: “Housing For All: Sustaining and Renewing Social Housing for Low-Income Households”.
While Canada has struggled for decades with the problem of homelessness, we are now in a position to
make significant progress. In the State of Homelessness in Canada: 2014, we outline key strategies and
investments that can make an end to homelessness possible.
12
2 Addressing Homelessness in
Canada – The Year in Review
2.1 Introduction
The State of Homelessness in Canada: 2013 documented the status of homelessness across the
country, as well as the many challenges we face in ending this crisis. Additionally, the authors
recommended several potential solutions. In the past year, a lot of promising work was undertaken
in the fight to end homelessness. Unfortunately, we can find no evidence that a meaningful
national reduction in homelessness has been achieved. In this report we highlight achievements
from the past year and look at new ways of understanding and solving the problem.
2.1 Housing First becomes a priority
In the past year, several developments contributed to the
prioritization of Housing First (HF) at the national, regional and
local levels. Key initiatives included:
2.1.1 Federal Government’s Homelessness
Partnering Strategy renewal shifts to
Housing First
In 2013, when the Government of Canada announced nearly $600M for the five-year renewal of the
Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS), Housing First was identified as a key focus and priority. The 61
Designated Communities across Canada that receive funding from HPS are now mandated to integrate
Housing First into their array of existing housing, homelessness and prevention services. In many cases
this means replacing existing investments with Housing First interventions.
According to an Employment and Social Development Canada (ESDC) press release:
• Starting April 1, 2015, the largest Designated Communities will be required to invest at least 65
percent of HPS Designated Communities funding in Housing First activities.
• Starting April 1, 2016, other Designated Communities receiving at least $200,000 in HPS funding
will be required to invest at least 40 percent of HPS Designated Communities funding in Housing
First activities.
• Designated Communities that receive under $200,000 in HPS funding or are located in the North will
be encouraged to implement Housing First but will not be required to meet set targets (CNW, 2014).
Prioritizing Chronic Homelessness: The first State of Homelessness in Canada report showed that while
the number of people experiencing chronic or episodic homelessness is relatively low (4,000-8,000 and
13
6,000-22,000 respectively), the system incurs great expenses in providing care to these groups. As a result,
most communities prioritize ending chronic and episodic homelessness. Once these populations receive
housing and supports, only a minimal emergency homelessness support structure will be needed to assist
people who suffer from very short-term, emergency homelessness.
As part of its focus on Housing First, HPS is expecting
its 61 Designated Communities to prioritize
chronically and episodically homeless persons.
According to Directive 1 of the Homelessness
Partnering Strategy Directives 2014-2019, after
a community has managed to house “90% of its
chronic and episodic homeless population, it may
focus the Housing First interventions on the group
with the next highest needs (Employment and Social
Development Canada, 2014b).”
The federal implementation of Housing First is
easily the most important development in homeless
services in Canada this year, and could usher in
transformational change to Canada’s response to
homelessness. There remain, however, challenges
ahead to ensure success:
• The restrictiveness of HPS program funding
(for example, lack of funding for clinical
support, inability to carry over funding
from year-to-year, or to use funds for
transitional housing for youth) may hinder
implementation and/or provision of housing
and supports to the most vulnerable
chronically homeless Canadians.
• There is a steep Housing First learning curve
both for the federal government, but also
communities and provinces/territories that
invariably have to support these efforts. As
such, the new direction presents an incredible
change management challenge at a time when
HPS staffing has been drastically reduced.
• Some Community Entities (CE) and Com-
munity Advisory Boards (CABs) may not be
sufficiently resourced to manage the new
focus on Housing First. For example, Housing
First demands that CEs take on a critical role
in program performance management. Many
CEs, especially in smaller communities, do not
yet have the capacity to take on this new role.
14
MEDICINE HAT, ALBERTA
Although a small city, Medicine Hat faces
challenges in its fight to end homelessness similar
to most other Alberta cities, including a lack of new
affordable housing, low vacancy rates (impacted
further by the 2013 Alberta flood) and increasing
rental rates due to the influx of workers attracted
by the province’s strong labour market. Led by the
Medicine Hat Community Housing Society, it will
likely end chronic homelessness in 2015*, becoming
the first city in Canada to do so. Over the past year,
Medicine Hat has made significant strides towards
implementing a systems-wide response to ending
homelessness. By opening up existing policies and
practices to critical examination by experts in the
field, including a full review of data and performance
management at both systems and programmatic
levels, the city was able to refocus its local Plan to
End Homelessness and is now realistically close to
its goal of ending homelessness in 2015.
“Ending homelessness is achievable. It
demands a systems response to a systems
level issue that impacts individuals,
families and communities so deeply.
The benefits of ending homelessness are
evident from an economic and social
standpoint. Though we must analyze
data, monitor efficiencies in program
and systems delivery, we must also never
forget the human impact. Every number
in a report is a story and those in the
sector play key roles in helping those
stories have a happier ending.”
Jaime Rogers - Manager, Homeless &
Housing Development Department,
Medicine Hat Community Housing Society
* The Medicine Hat plan set a goal of reducing the average
length of stay in a shelter to 10 days. This treats homeless
shelters and services as an emergency solution, rather than a
response to the problem; thus, effectively eliminating chronic
homelessness.
• Many communities will require provincial/
territorial support to implement federallyfunded Housing First programs (for health
supports and rent supplements, for
instance). This has yet to be operationalized
in many jurisdictions.
• The specific needs of sub-populations, such
as youth and women fleeing violence, have
not been addressed by the current strategy.
• The HPS renewal is a 5-year program. This
time frame may not be adequate to produce
the results the government expects. Housing
First programs typically take 18 months,
from inception and the signing of contracts,
before people are ready to move in. Year
one of the HPS program has been largely
lost as a transition year. Optimistically, the
government will only begin to see results in
late 2015 or early 2016. All of the concerns
noted above could delay implementation
and the generation of positive results.
It is also important to note that these efforts are
occurring in the context of a lack of affordable
housing supply in Canada. The fact that so many
Canadians lack sufficient income to obtain
and maintain housing means that addressing
homelessness will continue to be a problem.
2.1.2 At Home/Chez Soi final report
RED DEER, ALBERTA
Red Deer is another Alberta city on the right track
to ending homelessness. Their 2012 Point-In-Time
(PIT) count found 279 homeless people in the
city; 34% in sheltered living accommodation and
66% unsheltered. From April 1, 2013 - March 31,
2014 programs within the city housed or provided
continued ongoing support to 443 individuals.
A unique aspect of the Red Deer Housing Team is
the partnership between Central Alberta Women’s
Outreach Society, Safe Harbour Society (wet and
dry shelter), Canadian Mental Health Association
and Central Alberta Women’s Emergency Shelter.
The Housing First program in Red Deer is a scattered
site model augmented by permanent supportive
housing and the partnership supports an integrated
system of service for clients. Each partner has
different strengths. From a funder’s perspective
having one “team” with one fiscal agent is helpful.
The partnership and collaboration that this model
provides saves resources, both in time and money.
“The change in shelter staff in supporting
clients into their own homes has been a
key shift this year. Staff want something
better for their clients than just a mat
on the floor or a bed for the night and
this is reflected in the conversations they
are having with the clients “yes, you are
welcomed here, but when you are ready,
let’s talk about finding you a place of
your own.” Or simple statements like
“wouldn’t you feel better waking up hung
over in your own bed instead of waking
up here in the wet shelter?” Instead of
being cautious and nervous about ending
homelessness, the workers are committed
to the concept.” Providing a strong evidentiary basis for Housing
First, the Mental Health Commission of Canada’s
Roxana Nielsen Stewart, Social Planning
(MHCC) At Home/Chez Soi team continued to release
Supervisor, The City of Red Deer
research results from its pilot project. Earlier this
year, the final report of the At Home/Chez Soi project
highlighted the tremendous success it had in housing people with mental illness who were experiencing homelessness. With three years of comprehensive
data on everything from housing, health and social outcomes of project participants, to practices engaging landlords and the perspectives of people who experience homelessness, this project has substantially
advanced our knowledge about the effectiveness of Housing First and how to support its implementation.
This research has also highlighted the cost effectiveness of this approach, particularly when we are housing
persons with complex mental health and addictions problems.
15
2.1.3 New resources to support Housing First
Designed to support communities in the planning and implementation of Housing First (HF), a new range
of resources have become available, including:
• Canadian Housing First Tool Kit – This web-based resource was produced by the Mental Health
Commission of Canada, in partnership with the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness/Homeless
Hub. Based on the extensive experience of the Canadian At Home/Chez Soi project, which used
the Pathways to Housing model of Housing First for homeless people with mental illness, the
toolkit assembles a range of tools and resources that are practical and user-friendly for groups and
communities interested in the Housing First approach.
• “Housing First in Canada: Supporting Communities to End Homelessness”, a free eBook
published by researchers at the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness, provides a Framework for
Housing First and 8 case studies highlighting successful HF initiatives across the country, including
key lessons about implementation.
• A Safe and Decent Place to Live: Towards a Housing First Framework for Youth, a report
published by researchers at the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness, helps communities and
policy makers understand how to adapt Housing First to meet the unique needs of adolescents and
young adults.
• The federal government also produced a range of documents and resources to support
communities, including the Housing First Myths and Facts guide.
2.2 Community progress on reducing homelessness
While at a national level, it is difficult to argue that we are effectively reducing
homelessness, there are in fact several communities that are making significant
progress in the area. In most cases, this is an outcome of effective implementation
of community plans that outline strategies and set clear targets to reduce and
eventually end homelessness. The biggest champion in Canada of such plans has
been the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness whose document “A Plan Not A
Dream” provides communities with a guide to creating local plans.
PROGRESS
ON REDUCING
HOMELESSNESS
All 61 of the Homelessness Partnering Strategies’ Designated Communities are expected to submit
community plans as a condition of their funding. Over the past year, community plans focused on the
use funds to shift their programming to Housing First and in doing so prioritize chronic and episodic
homelessness.
Winnipeg and Saskatoon released new plans to end homelessness. Ontario mandated the development of
plans for 47 different regions or communities. Lethbridge and Medicine Hat released updates to their plans
and in their final year are on target to end homelessness in their communities.
At the provincial level, Ontario recently released its poverty reduction strategy, in which it announced its
intention to end homelessness via an outcomes-based strategy that incorporates key interventions such as
Housing First. Ideally the province will draw on key learnings from the Province of Alberta, which has been a
leader in the implementation of a provincial strategy to address homelessness.
16
2.3 Addressing youth homelessness
In 2014, the need to address youth homelessness in Canada
came into sharper focus. Many communities, ranging from
Fredericton, NB, to St. John’s, NL, to Victoria, BC, to Lanark
County, ON, began to argue for more targeted and strategic
responses to youth homelessness. The reasoning is simple:
if the causes and conditions of youth homelessness are
distinct, so must be the solutions. A number of important
initiatives are underway to support this focus.
2.3.1 National Learning Community on Youth
Homelessness
If the causes and conditions of
youth homelessness are distinct,
so must be the solutions.
Based on international models of ‘communities of practice’, the
National Learning Community on Youth Homelessness (NLCYH) has evolved into a strong pan-Canadian
network and forum for youth organizations and experts from across the country to share knowledge and
strategies and to create action and momentum to end youth homelessness. It is supported by Eva’s National
Initiatives, which is known for its annual Awards for Ending Youth Homelessness, a National Map that helps
communities connect and share knowledge and the development of toolkits that support communities in
their work. A forthcoming toolkit will focus on the implementation of effective policies and practices for
working with Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans*, Queer, 2-Spirited (LGBTQ2S) youth.
At the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness’ second National Conference on Ending Homelessness
(November 2014) there will be a pre-conference workshop and conference session devoted to youth
homelessness. This session has been coordinated by the NLCYH.
2.3.2 Community plans to end youth homelessness
Operated by Eva’s National Initiatives (in partnership with the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association,
the Catherine Donnelly Foundation, the National Learning Community on Youth Homelessness, the
Canadian Observatory on Homelessness, Raising the Roof, and the Home Depot Canada Foundation), the
Mobilizing Local Capacity program (MLC) works with communities to bring key stakeholders together,
to develop community plans to end youth homelessness, and more broadly, to support national efforts
that shift public policy towards solutions that contribute to an end to youth homelessness. The first two
communities supported by the MLC include Kamloops, BC and Kingston, ON, which are currently releasing
and implementing their Plans to End Youth Homelessness. Now in its third year, the MLC is supporting
Wellington County, ON, St. John, NB and Yellowknife, NWT.
Finally, Alberta will soon release its provincial Plan to Prevent and End Youth Homelessness.
2.3.3 New resources on youth homelessness
In 2013-14, the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness released three major resources designed to
support communities with their work on youth homelessness. These include:
17
Youth Homelessness in Canada
An edited volume highlighting
top research in Canada. Each
author was asked reflect on the
implications of their work for
policy and practice.
Coming of Age: Reimagining our
Response to Youth Homelessness
This report draws on international
research to highlight key policy
and practice shifts necessary to end
youth homelessness.
A Safe and Decent Place to
Live: Towards a Framework for
Housing First for Youth
This report demonstrates how
Housing First can be adapted to
meet the needs of the developing
adolescent and young adult.
2.4 Research and data
Research is a key component of ending homelessness and this is increasingly
recognized at the community level. An analysis of commonalities amongst plans
from the 61 HPS Designated Communities revealed that improved data gathering
and research was not just a key
An analysis of commonalities amongst priority, but the top priority.
In last year’s State of Homelessness in Canada: 2013
plans from the 61 HPS Designated
report, we recommended that communities: “Introduce
Communities revealed that improved
more comprehensive data collection, performance
data gathering and research was not
monitoring, analysis and research” (Recommendation
#6). Below are key developments from the past year in
just a key priority, but the top priority.
support of data management and research.
2.4.1 Federal government
The new Homelessness Partnering Strategy Terms and Conditions state, “The HPS also promotes data
collection, partnerships, practical and applied research, and innovative initiatives to support evidencebased decision-making and to better target HPS investments for the greatest impact” (Employment and
Social Development Canada, 2014a). Initiatives supporting research and data include:
• Implementation of key performance measures for relevance, effectiveness and efficiency of
programming and to support progress monitoring, reporting by management and evaluation.
• Research outputs including a book on Housing First and a range of research reports aimed at
increasing our understanding of homelessness and supporting communities in the development of
initiatives that address the problem.
18
• The National Homelessness Information System, a key HPS initiative, is designed to facilitate the
collection of data from homeless sheltering agencies and service providers in support of creating
a national portrait of homelessness. Central to this initiative is the Homeless Individuals and
Families Information System (HIFIS) software, which the Government of Canada does not mandate
but strongly recommends. HIFIS is a free, electronic records management system developed and
supported by the federal government. The HIFIS Training Centre offers free, 24-7 online training for
staff and administrators.
Homelessness Management Information Systems (HMIS)7 have the potential to transform community responses to homelessness by becoming the IT backbone of a coordinated homelessness ‘system of care’. This will
require that governments, funders and communities change the way they think about data and data systems.
Today, most data systems, like the Federal government’s HIFIS system, are designed to collect
demographic data and produce program reports. HMIS systems have the potential to do all that and
support homeless system coordination, performance management and outcome tracking. The HMIS
implemented by the Calgary Homeless Foundation models what is possible. There, the HMIS can:
• collect system-wide, standardized data for accurate, real-time reporting on the number of
people who are homeless, the length and causes of their homelessness and their demographic
characteristics and needs.
• better understand people’s homeless experiences by tracking the services they receive and the
duration of their homeless episode(s).
• help agencies better meet clients’ needs by improving service co-ordination, determining client
outcomes, providing more informed program referrals and reducing their administrative burden.
• improve research for evidence-based decision making, such as program design and policy proposals.
• help shorten the length of time people are homeless and direct them through the System of Care
more efficiently and with more understanding.
In an age of ‘Big Data’ and advanced technology, we should be able to know in real time exactly how
many Canadians are homeless, who they are and whether the interventions they receive are effective. We
should be able to respond to their needs with a coordinated system of care that is simple for clients to
navigate. And we should be able target resources in the homeless system to those who need it the most.
It should also be possible to reduce the administrative burden faced by front-line agencies, by streamlining reporting to multiple funders and referrals to partner agencies.
The Calgary Homeless Foundation now offers an excellent toolkit that
outlines the strategic planning needs and hurdles for implementing
and maintaining an HMIS.
This is a community capacity issue in some ways, but it also needs to
be stated that local leaders need better access to HIFIS data to support
their strategies and help target their Housing First programs.
Local leaders need better
access to HIFIS data to
support their strategies and
help target their Housing
First programs.
7. The term ‘Homelessness Management Information System’ does not refer to a specific product or software application, but rather to a
more general category of information management systems to track and manage homelessness within a community.
19
2.4.2 The Canadian Observatory on Homelessness
In 2014, the Canadian Homelessness Research Network (CHRN) re-launched as the Canadian Observatory
on Homelessness (COH). The COH takes the work of the CHRN an important step further with an
ambitious program of research that includes local, provincial and national monitoring activities, as well as
original research that not only contributes to the scholarship on homelessness, but enhances the impact
of research on solutions to homelessness by establishing an evidence base and knowledge mobilization
strategy. The key communications vehicle of the COH is the Homeless Hub.
The current Research Priority Areas of the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness are:
1. Exploring Effective “Systems Responses” to Homelessness
2. Understanding and Facilitating the Implementation of Effective Models of Housing and
Support
3. Addressing Aboriginal Homelessness in Canada
4. Developing a Framework for Homelessness Prevention
5. Identifying Effective Responses to Youth Homelessness
6. Understanding the Legal and Justice Issues Experienced by People who are Homeless
7. Measuring Progress towards Ending Homelessness
8. Advancing Knowledge Mobilization and Research Impact strategies in the Homelessness
Sector
As the project evolves, Research Priority Areas may be added or removed based on changing policy and
practice climates.
2.4.3 Point-in-Time counts
A Point-in-Time (PiT) count is a count of sheltered and unsheltered homeless persons typically conducted during a single day. Point-in-Time counts allow you to measure the extent
of the problem at the community level, identify trends, needs and priorities and, if conducted more than once, progress on reducing homelessness. Prior to 2014, only a small number
of Canadian communities have conducted Point-in-Time counts, meaning that we lack
solid data on the nature and extent of the homelessness problem in Canada. In the State of
Homelessness Report: 2013, we recommended that: “The Government of Canada should
institute a national Point-in-Time Count of Homelessness” (recommendation #6.1).
With the renewal of HPS in 2013, the federal government has in fact strongly encouraged Designated
Communities to conduct Point-in-Time counts, as this will assist communities that are implementing
Housing First to not only measure progress, but identify chronic and episodically homeless populations.
HPS has also expressed that it supports a common methodology.
Bolstering this direction was the passing of Bill M-455 which stated “That, in
the opinion of the House, one nationally standardized ‘point in time’ [count]
should be recommended for use in all municipalities in carrying out homeless counts, with (a) nationally recognized definitions of who is homeless; (b)
nationally recognized methodology on how the count takes place; and (c) the
same agreed-upon criteria and methodology in determining who is considered to be homeless.” This motion was agreed to on May 7th with a vote 266-5.
20
We lack solid data on
the nature and extent
of the homelessness
problem in Canada.
In response, the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness has developed the Canadian Point-in-Time
Count Methodology. This resource will be freely available and the COH will provide technical assistance to
communities that are doing this work. A key goal of this effort is to align data collection measures across
the country, in order to enhance comparability, rigour of analysis and enable us to better understand the
nature of homelessness at a pan-Canadian level. By measuring our successes, we can determine what
remains to be accomplished.
The Canadian Point-in-Time Count Methodology will be released in November 2014.
In October of this year the seven Designated Communities of Alberta conducted a coordinated Pointin-Time count on the same night (October 16th), using the common methodology developed by the
Canadian Observatory on Homelessness. This was the first coordinated point-in-time count ever to be
conducted in Canada.
21
3 The Lack of Affordable
Housing in Canada –
Ottawa, We Have a Problem
A key focus of this report is an examination of the affordable housing situation in Canada. By
exploring shifts in government priorities over the past several decades we can see a very significant
decline in investment – both public and private – in affordable rental housing. Combined with
significant changes in the Canadian economy we are left with a shrinking and more expensive
rental housing market. It is challenging for many Canadians to obtain and maintain the housing
they need for their families. We also suggest a number of program responses that can reverse this
trend. By returning housing programs to their rightful place, -embedded in federal government
policy and expenditures – we can ensure that there is not only enough housing for everyone, but
that it is affordable. The goal should be a sufficient supply of affordable housing for all.
3.1 What do we mean by affordable housing?
While the cost of housing is perhaps an issue for all Canadians at some point in their lives, when we discuss
housing affordability here, we are referring to the needs of specific groups of Canadians. Affordable housing
refers to permanent housing that costs less than 30% of total household income for low- and moderateincome Canadians. The notion of affordable housing not exceeding 30% of gross household income
means that individuals and families are also able to afford food, clothing, taxes, transportation and other
necessities that promote health and well-being. This definition is an established norm and one accepted by
the Government of Canada through the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CHMC).
In thinking about the 30% income threshold, it is important to take income levels into account. While higher
income earners may choose to pay more of their income on housing and still have plenty left over for basic
necessities, for low-income Canadians, exceeding this threshold is rarely a choice. It most definitely impacts
the amount of money left for other necessities.
The term ‘affordable housing’ covers a wide range of housing types and circumstances. This is based on
individual differences and need, ability to generate income, family size and composition and, importantly,
characteristics of the local housing market.
Importantly, throughout the life course of an individual, the kind of housing needed may shift and change.
A young person first leaving home is unlikely to desire (or be able to afford) a three-bedroom house in the
suburbs. Families have different needs than single adults. Seniors may wish to move into smaller and more
appropriate and accessible, housing as they age.
22
The amount an individual or family is willing to pay – or more importantly, can afford to pay – impacts the
kind of housing they can access, its quality and suitability and the choice of neighbourhood. The range of
affordable housing options include:
Privately owned homes
Over two thirds (69%) of households in Canada are owner-occupied, meaning 9.2 million out of 13.2 million
homes (Statistics Canada, 2013). Eighty percent of couple-led households own their own home, compared
to just 55.6% of single-parent households, the vast majority of which are headed by women. Due to a range
of government policies and incentives, home ownership rates increased from around 62.5% in the early
1990s and levelled off around 69% in 2006 (ibid).
An important point to note about homeowners in Canada is that the median family income in 2012 was $74,540;
approximately double the average earnings of people living in rental housing (Statistics Canada, 2014).
Home ownership is an important component of the overall housing market. It is supported by tax expenditures
and funding programs, including CMHC Mortgage Loan Insurance, use of RRSPs for down payments, capital
gains exemptions on primary residences, Green Energy/Energy retrofit programs and residential repair programs.
Private rental housing
When people with lower
incomes pay a higher
percentage of their income
on housing they have less to
spend on basic needs.
Of the approximately 3.4 million private rental units in Canada, about 1.5
million are rented single-family homes, doubles or duplexes (Canadian
Federation of Apartment Associations, private communication, 2014)
while the remaining 1.87 million units are purpose-built rental housing in
buildings of 3 or more units. Size of the individual units in the purposebuilt housing ranges from bachelor apartments (132,120) to units with
more than three bedrooms (166,676) (CMHC, 2014). The median income of rental households in 2011 was
$37,100, slightly less than in 1991 (figures adjusted for inflation). Importantly, a much larger proportion of
rental households (40.1%) were paying more than 30% of their income on housing, compared to those who
owned their homes (18.5%) (Government of Canada, 2013). Again, when people with lower incomes pay a
higher percentage of their income on housing they have less to spend on basic needs.
23
Social housing8
Recognizing that the private market does not always produce an adequate supply of affordable housing
for low-income persons, in most western countries governments attempt to fill the gap by building social
housing. In Canada this includes non-profit, publicly owned and co-op housing, generally administrated by
provincial/territorial and municipal governments, but currently funded by all levels of government. Social
housing takes many forms, from large-scale multi-unit buildings, to smaller buildings and even scattered
site housing. In the majority of cases, the housing is made available at below market rents, and tends to be
used for low-income individuals and families and in some cases sub-populations, such as seniors and people with disabilities. By 1993 – after the height of the golden years of federal housing development – more
than 700,000 units of social housing had been developed; this represented about 5% of the total housing
stock in the country (Pomeroy, 2014). While subsidies have ended for a number of units, approximately
544,000 units of social housing are still funded by operating agreements between the federal and provincial
governments. Of these units, more than two-thirds (365,000) are low-income households paying on a rentgeared-to-income (RGI) basis. The rest (179,000) pay closer to the low end of market rent, sometimes determined by the operating costs of the provider (CHRA, 2014). Market rent is often not affordable for those
living on social assistance, pensions or other fixed incomes, or even for those working minimum wage jobs.
Permanent supportive housing
Supportive housing (PSH) combines deeply subsidized rental or housing assistance with individualized, flexible and voluntary support services targeted to high-needs individuals and families with serious, persistent
and complex needs that can include addiction, mental health, HIV/AIDS, disabilities (intellectual, physical,
etc.), or other serious challenges. Supportive housing involves long-term housing and supports. It is difficult
to estimate exactly how much permanent supportive housing currently exists in Canada, as it is provided
provincially/territorially and locally through a wide range of governmental ministries and services, some
public and some privately funded. We do know, however, that communities that have implemented Housing First interventions typically report an inadequate supply of permanent supportive housing.
3.2 A short history of federal government support for affordable
housing in Canada
In communities across the country, people are aware of the growing affordable housing crisis. In many
places the cost of renting has gone up much faster than wages and many people – young and old – simply
cannot afford market rent. This has not always been the case. In fact, as David Hulchanski has convincingly
argued, the federal and provincial/territorial governments demonstrated, both through policy and practice,
a strong commitment to providing adequate housing and supports for low-income and vulnerable
Canadians for much of the latter part of the 20th century. Beginning in the 1930s and accelerating in the
post-World War II period, the Canadian government increased the housing supply through key program
investments, including government insured mortgages, direct investment in social housing, as well as
tax incentives and subsidies for development of rental and co-op housing (see Hulchanski, et al., 2009).
The Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was created in 1946 to address the post-war housing
shortage.9 Housing affordability was not a big issue although the inadequacy or poor conditions of housing
8. According to CMHC, “in Canada, housing is considered affordable if shelter costs account for less than 30 per cent of before-tax household
income. The term “affordable housing” is often used interchangeably with “social housing”; however, social housing is just one category
of affordable housing and usually refers to rental housing subsidized by the government. Affordable housing is a much broader term and
includes housing provided by the private, public and not-for-profit sectors as well as all forms of housing tenure (ie. rental, ownership and
cooperative ownership). It also includes temporary as well as permanent housing” (CMHC website).
9. Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) is Canada’s national housing agency. Established as a government-owned
corporation in 1946 to address Canada’s post-war housing shortage, the agency has grown into a major national institution. CMHC is
Canada’s premier provider of mortgage loan insurance, mortgage-backed securities, housing policy and programs, and housing research.
https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/corp/about/index.cfm
24
was certainly a consideration, including a lack of heating and plumbing, overcrowding, etc. (Fallis, 2010).
Largely in response to critiques of public housing (large projects, destruction of inner city neighbourhoods,
stigmatization of tenants, crime, etc.) innovative mixed-income programs, including subsidies for non-profit
and co-operative housing were launched (Fallis, 2010; Londerville & Steele, 2014).
According to Pomeroy, “the vast majority of social housing was developed under joint federal-provincial/
territorial funding agreements, which provided both loans and operating subsidies” (2014, np). The amount
of contribution by each level of government varied, but for 59% of the units there was joint federal/
provincial/territorial funding even though the federal government’s contribution was significantly larger
(50-75%). These investments and supports ensured that well into the 1980s there was a decent supply of
fairly affordable housing in most communities across the country. While there were still households in core
housing need, homelessness was minimal and tended to be transitory rather than chronic.
However, beginning in the 1980s the federal government began to draw down its investment in affordable
housing. The elimination of our national housing strategy “began with the gradual reduction in spending on
affordable and social housing (including support for co-op housing) in the 1980s, culminating in the termination of spending on new affordable housing stock by the federal government in 1993” (Gaetz, 2010:22).
The federal government did commit to long-term operating agreements, which provide subsidies to existing housing units (including non-profit, public and co-op housing) to support rent subsidies and mortgage
payments for capital costs. The operating agreements are supposed to support rent subsidies and mortgage
payments for capital costs, but it should be noted that for one third of social housing units under long-term
agreements only mortgage payments were covered (CHRA, 2014a). The disinvestment in new social housing stock was quite profound. According to Shapcott, in 1982, all levels of government combined funded
20,450 new social housing units annually. By 1995, the number dropped to around 1,000, with numbers
slowly climbing to 4,393 annually by 2006 (Shapcott, 2008).
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation manages the operating agreements which (in real dollars) have
been decreasing since new investment was halted at $1.9 billion10 in 1993 (equivalent to $2.8 billion in 2013
dollars11). While there was a slight increase in funds in 2009/10 and 2010/11, the current investment is only $1.7
billion for 2013-2014.12 This investment needs to be put into perspective. Because the operating agreements
do not take into account inflation, this actually represents, over time, a reduction in spending of over one-third
(see Figure 1). Moreover, since 1993, the population of Canada has increased by 22%, meaning the per capita
amount has declined dramatically.
10. In the fiscal year 1993-94 expenditures totalled $1.9 billion.
11. The Bank of Canada inflation calculator (based on the CPI) has been used throughout this report to convert to 2013 dollars.
12. Determining the exact number for both operating agreements and total government spending on housing and homelessness has been
challenging. CMHC uses $1.7 billion, CHRA uses $1.6 billion and Londerville and Steele (citing Treasury Board) use $1.8 billion (rounded
from $1.75 billion). For the purposes of this report we will be using $1.7 billion as the current spending on operating agreements
representing the average of the three numbers.
25
Investment in Affordable Housing
Agreement
FIGURE 1
Beginning in 2001, there was a renewed investment
in housing through a federal program known as the
Affordable Housing Initiative (AHI). This program
required cost-matching by the provinces/territories
through either direct funding or funding from
another body, including municipalities, private
sector, donations. Funding could be financial or
in-kind (i.e. land). The 2001 program included $680
million in funding over two years aimed at the
creation of new rental housing, major renovations
and conversions. There was a cap on federal
funding of $25,000/unit and units had to rent at or
below market.
Federal government subsidies for affordable housing, 1993 and 2013
(billions of 2013 dollars)
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
1993
2013
Source: Londerville and Steele, 2014:10.
The program was renewed in 2003 with $320
million for the development of housing to address
low-income households (i.e. must qualify for the
local social housing wait list). Aimed at prioritizing immigrants, persons with disabilities and Aboriginal Peoples this funding stream allowed up to $75,000 for the federal share of capital costs per unit.
In 2004/2005 no new funding was added, however new program flexibilities were created. In 2008, the government announced $1.9 billion over five years, extending the AHI to the end of March 2011 (CHMC, n.d. B)
In 2008, to help reduce the impact of the economic crisis, the Government of Canada renewed investment
in housing as part of its stimulus package. However, this surge in investment in reality only amounted to a
17% increase above what were normal levels of spending a decade and a half earlier, which does not even
account for the population increase since that time. In current dollars the total was $3.028 billion in 20091013 and just slightly less in the following year. However, after the period of stimulus, spending dropped
once again. In total, between 2001 and 2011, the federal government contributed $1.2 billion towards the
development of 52,397 units of housing (CMHC, n.d, C). Funding for housing is often matched by the
provinces and territories. For 2013-14, the estimates of CMHC’s social housing spending and support are
$2.054 billion,14 37% less in real terms than two decades earlier.
Per capita spending on housing over
the past two decades has declined
from almost $100 per Canadian,
to just over $60 - even when
accounting for population growth.
In terms of per capita spending (adjusting for inflation and
population growth over the same period), the amount of
spending has declined from over $115 per Canadian in 1989,
to just over $60 in 2013, with the biggest declines coming
over the past several years since stimulus spending ended.
Overall, then, one can see a dramatic decline in spending
on low-income affordable housing over the past 25 years, as
illustrated in Figure 2.
13. This includes $46 million for research and income transfer, items not separately identified in the 1993-94 numbers.
14. Computed from the CMHC entry in the Treasury Board document, Table 20 at doc http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/ems-sgd/20132014/me-bpd/
me-bpd02-eng.asp (accessed March 28, 2014).
26
FIGURE 2
Per Capita Federal government subsidies for affordable housing, 1989-2013, (billions of 2013 dollars)
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
Sources: Canadian Housing Statistics. Data collected from 1988/1989-1992/1993 was from Table 58 in CHS 1993; data from
93/94-95/96 was from Table 57 in CHS 1996; data for 96/97 was from Table 57 in CHS 1997; data from 97/98-99/00 was from Table
52 in CHS 2000; 00/01-03/04 was from Table 50 in CHS 2004; data from 04/05-07/08 was from Table 50 in CHS 2008; and data
from 08/09-12/13 was from Table 38 in CHS 2013.
In 2011, a new program was announced. The Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) agreement between
the federal and provincial/territorial governments committed $1.4 billion (combined) to reduce the number
of households in housing need. The federal government’s share was $716 million over three years.
The Economic Action Plan 2013 extended the IAH for an additional 5 years (until March 2019) with an
investment of $1.25 billion ($253 million/year). New bilateral agreements with the provinces/territories,
including matching funds, are being developed. Individual plans established by each province/territory will
provide jurisdictional focus.
The goal of the IAH, to “reduce the number of Canadians in housing need
by improving access to affordable housing that is sound, suitable and
sustainable,” is an important one. What the goal is not, however, is a plan
to build new affordable housing to house people who are homeless.
What the goal is not, however,
is a plan to build new
affordable housing to house
people who are homeless.
As of March 31st 2014, the federal government reports that 183,642
households were no longer in “housing need” (CMHC, 2014) – see Table 1. The majority of these households
were in Quebec (137,481 units). It is important to look at what this means. Approximately 110,000 of the
households assisted in 2010-2011 in Quebec were helped by the province’s small although laudable housing benefit, Allocation Logement. The maximum amount per household is currently $80 per month, but the
average in 2010-2011 was just $56 (Société D’Habitation Du Québec, 2011; 2014).
These numbers also include units that were funded under renovations programs and therefore are not new
units of housing (although improvement of poor housing conditions is certainly an important and admira-
27
ble goal, which may lead to the prevention of homelessness). In British Columbia between 2012-2013, while
a total of 813 households were assisted under this program, 165 were new builds and 609 were existing
units that were “renovated, rehabilitated or repaired” and therefore do not contribute to an increase in the
amount of available housing stock (BC Housing, 2013).
Table 1
Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) framework
Federal funding by province/territory
Province or Territory
Annual Federal
Funds Allocated
(M)
3-Year Federal
Allocation
2011-2014 (M)
Funding Claimed1
to Date (M)
as at March 31, 2014
Households/
Units2
as at March 31, 2014
Newfoundland and Labrador
$6.810
$20.430
$20.430
6,398
Prince Edward Island
$1.480
$4.440
$4.440
1,461
$10.205
$30.615
$30.615
7,374
$7.800
$23.400
$23.400
5,195
$57.685
$173.055
$173.055
137,481
Ontario
$80.130
$240.390
$240.390
17,776
Manitoba
$10.350
$31.050
$31.050
2,153
$9.190
$27.570
$27.570
1,673
Alberta
$20.190
$60.570
$60.570
952
British Columbia
$30.020
$90.060
$90.060
2,598
Northwest Territories
$1.840
$5.520
$5.520
284
Yukon Territory
$1.575
$4.725
$4.725
203
Nunavut
$1.465
$4.395
$4.395
94
$238.740
$716.220
$716.220
183,642
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
1
Saskatchewan
1
NATIONAL TOTAL
1. “Funding Claimed to Date” is the amount of federal funding claimed by a P/T under the IAH. It also includes new commitments (post
April 1, 2011) where CMHC continued new delivery of the existing Renovation Programs in Ontarion (2011/12), PEI (2011/12 and
2012/13) and Yukon (2011/12 - 2013/14).
2. “Households/Units” is equal to the number of units identified in P/T claims. Households/units in 2013/14 fiscal year claims related to
P/T shelter allowance programs will be included at a later date. Where CMHC continued the delivery of existing Renovation Programs,
the number of households/units also includes the number of households assisted under the Renovation Programs.
Shifting priorities for housing expenditures
The declining investment in affordable housing over the past two decades – an investment that largely
benefited low-income earners – paints a misleading picture of overall government support for housing and
home ownership. The following points summarize the shift in government policy regarding housing investments in Canada:
• Direct investment in building affordable housing dramatically declined and spending levels have
never recovered.
• Reduced commitment to the building of social housing resulted in stagnation of the supply – new
units are not being built.
• Market solutions to housing supply were prioritized through the use of tax incentives to support
private home ownership and to spur the private sector to build new housing.
These shifts in policy and expenditures were driven by the larger goals of balancing the federal budget and
28
shifting state responsibility for housing from the federal government
to provincial/territorial governments. Relying on a market solution
was seen as a way of meeting the need for housing while reducing
federal responsibility.
It is important to note that these shifts do not mean that there is an
absence of federal investment in housing, but rather that the focus of
that investment has shifted.
Relying on a market solution
was seen as a way of meeting
the need for housing while
reducing federal responsibility.
The argument that in times of austerity we cannot afford government investment in affordable housing
is belied by the fact that the Government of Canada, through its taxation policy, has shifted massively to
favour investment in private home ownership.
The point being that homeowners in Canada – which includes the majority of Canadians – benefit from
our taxation policies in ways that renters do not. While this is most certainly a welcomed benefit for many
Canadians, home ownership is clearly out of reach for most low-income earners. More specifically, a key
benefit that Canadian homeowners are able to avail themselves of is the non-taxation of capital gains on
principal residences, a benefit that reduces government revenues by $4.0 billion (2013 figures) (Government
of Canada, 2013; Government of Canada, 1995). Assuming that 5% of this benefit goes to people earning
less than $30,000, the expenditure is still $3.8 billion annually. Such tax breaks offered to homeowners do
not generally benefit low-income earners and because of the nature of these policies, the higher the income
(and investment in housing) the larger the tax saving (Londerville & Steele, 2014).
A second benefit to homeowners is what economists refer to as ‘imputed rent’. This principle is based on
the idea that real estate owners essentially rent their property to themselves. Imputed rent is what one
would have to pay in rent for an equivalent property, if one did not own a home. This foregone ‘imputed
rent’, which does not have to be paid to a landlord, minus expenses, is surely the same as income you would
earn if you had made other investments instead of buying a home. Londerville and Steele estimate this tax
expenditure very conservatively at $4.75 billion annually for non-low-income households.15
Consider then, that the tax expenditures of the Government of Canada that support home ownership far
outstrip their annual investment in affordable housing. The total tax expenditures for non-taxation of capital
gains of a principal residence and imputed rent is $8.6 billion in forgone tax revenue.16
This number could potentially be even higher. Clayton, for example, reported much greater tax
expenditures for homeowners in 2009, including the temporary Home Renovation Tax Credit worth $3.0
billion. He also included GST/HST-related tax expenditures estimated at $3.9 billion for homeowners
compared to $1.2 billion for renters (Londerville & Steele, 2014). This would bring the annual tax
expenditure total for homeowners to well over $12 billion annually (not including the Home Renovation Tax
Credit) compared to just over $3 billion for renters.
This investment in home ownership is very important because it supports many Canadian individuals and
15. Londerville and Steele conservatively estimate the tax expenditure at $5 billion for 2013. Assuming that the amount accruing to
homeowners with an income less than $30,000 is 5 percent of this, we get over $4.75 billion in tax expenditures received by homeowners
who are not low-income.
16. The estimated tax expenditure resulting from the lack of taxation on imputed rents is 56% of the total tax expenditures benefitting
homeowners; for the US the ratio is 62%. The 5% deduction to adjust for low-income households was also applied to the 1993 values. See
Londerville and Steele (2014) for more a detailed explanation.
29
families. However, there is a question of balance. Including the
We are failing low- and middleoperating agreements and spending on affordable housing for
income earners who are unable to
low-income Canadians, the total federal contribution for nonpurchase a home. What we do not
homeowners is only one-quarter the amount of that of
homeowners, or $2.1 billion in 201317 (Londerville & Steele, 2014;
pay in housing costs we pay for in
CHRA, 2014; CMHC n.d B & C). The question then is not one of
health care, social services, child
affordability for government, but rather, of priority. To be clear, we
welfare, corrections etc.
are not opposed to government spending for homeowners. But,
despite being known for our social safety net, we are failing
low- and middle-income earners who are unable to purchase a home. What we do not pay in housing costs we
pay for in health care, social services, child welfare, corrections etc.
FIGURE 3.
Estimates of federal government subsidies for affordable housing compared to tax expenditures for non-poor homeowners (billions of 2013 dollars)
10
Subsidies for
affordable
housing
8
6
Tax expenditure
for non-poor
homeowners
4
2
0
1993
2013
Source: Londerville & Steele, 2014:55.
It is worth asking whether Canada is simply following an international trend in spending cuts. After all, we
are living in austere times, especially post-recession. A comparison with the United States, with regards to
spending on subsidized and low-income housing, reveals that our national self-image as a ‘kinder, gentler
nation’ is perhaps misleading (Londerville and Steele, 2014). As Figure 4 illustrates, US spending is about two
and a half times greater than Canada (ibid). This includes the US budgetary expenditure, which alone is more
than twice that of Canada. US homelessness grants (adjusted for comparability with Canadian population and
dollar) are far greater than grants through Canada’s Homelessness Partnering Strategy (HPS) – and the latter
includes many non-housing subsidies. This also includes the Housing Choice Voucher – often referred to as
“Section 8”– a program that offers the kind of deep housing assistance needed by people who are homeless.
This alone amounts to over $19 billion (US), which when adjusted for the Canadian context (population and
dollar) is valued at $2.3 billion, more than the total CMHC budgetary spending on affordable housing.
17. Government spending on social housing and housing supports is sometimes difficult to calculate. In this report we pull from three
different sources (Government of Canada reports, Londerville and Steele (2014) and CHRA (2014) to reach our number of $2.1 billion in
annual spending. This represents an average of the numbers suggested by the three sources.
30
3.3 The affordable housing
supply in Canada: how are we
doing today?
FIGURE 4
Canadian federal expenditures versus
adjusted US federal government
expenditure on affordable housing
(billions of Canadian dollars with US
expenditure adjusted to a Canadian
population basis)
Housing affordability continues to be an issue
in Canada. It is important to assess the impact
of the shifts in government policy and investment on affordability and supply. The need
6
for affordable housing is also shaped by other
5
contextual factors. For instance, the restructuring of the Canadian economy over the
4
last two decades has resulted in the growth
3
of the energy sector in Western Canada and
Newfoundland and this puts new pressure
2
on affordable housing supply. At the same
1
time, the hollowing out of our industrial core
in central Canada means lower incomes and
0
Canadian
US total
US
US
benefits, affecting the ability of people to pay
budgetary
budgetary
tax
subsidies
subsidies expenditure
for adequate housing. Finally, key demographic shifts also present challenges. Young people
Source: Londerville & Steele, 2014: 11.
under the age of 30, even those with higher
levels of education, are finding it more and
more difficult to obtain full-time living wage
employment and are relying on part-time, minimum wage jobs. At the same time, a large number of baby
boomers are moving into retirement, with lower incomes (fewer have private pension plans) and housing
needs that differ from when they raised families. Finally, as a consequence of the aging population and the
increased tendency to live alone, one-person households “are expected to show the fastest pace of growth
to 2036, making it the single biggest type of household by the 2020s” (CMHC, 2013a: I-9). Many of the new
houses built during the past two decades, however, are single detached family homes. The question then
becomes, do we have the right mix of housing to meet the needs of Canadians?
Private home ownership
There is no doubt that shifts in government investment and taxation policy have resulted in a transformation of our housing supply in Canada. The table below shows the changes in types of housing built between
1990 and 2010. The key transformations began after government policy changed in the mid-90s. In 1990,
almost one-third of investment was in private multi-unit rental housing. From 1995 on, that percentage declined dramatically to less than 10% most years, with an ever-growing investment in condominiums and private homes. It should also be noted that during this period, the existing supply of multi-unit rental housing
declined, as many units were converted to condominiums. The percentage of new housing built in Canada
that is either freehold (home ownership) or condominiums now dwarfs the amount of new rental housing
built. All of this has happened during a period when the population of Canada increased by over 20%.
31
FIGURE 5
Housing Starts by Type 1990-2010, Canada Centres 10,000+
(Rental starts, including social, average less than 10%)
250,000
210,000
170,000
130,000
90,000
50,000
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010
Rental
H/O - Condominium
H/O - Freehold
Figures generated by the author from CMHC Socio-economic Series Issue 69 Economic Impacts of Residential Construction,
by deflating multipliers from 1986 dollars to 2010 dollars). (Source: FCM, 2012:6)
Private rental housing supply
Alongside disinvestment in publicly funded affordable housing, is a decline in the construction of new
private rental housing since the 1980s and in particular multi-unit rental housing. The reasons for this are
complex, including a greater and quicker return on investment for building privately owned homes and
condominiums. However, tax policy has also played a role. From the 1970s on, culminating in a major tax
reform in 1988, a progressively increasing tax burden was placed on rental real estate and in particular
multi-unit housing. The Multiple Residential Building Program (MURB), which began in 1974 as a way to
support the development of rental housing, was eliminated by the mid-1980s (Fallis, 2010). As a result, the
annual number of rental housing starts plunged from approximately 20,000 annually prior to 1991, to under
10,000 units in 1992.
The lack of rental housing supply has a direct impact on cost to renters. In 2013, CMHC reported that the
average rental apartment (purpose-built rental housing) vacancy rate in Canada’s 35 major cities was 2.7%,
which is generally considered an acceptable rate.18 However, this does not take into account the cost and
availability of low rent, smaller units.
18. CMHC considers a 3% vacancy rate to be healthy.
32
FIGURE 6
Average Rents in Selected CMAs in Canada, October 2013
2 bedrooms, new and existing structures
1,000
800
Vi
ct
or
600
ia
Va
nc
ou
ve
r
Ed
m
on
to
n
Ca
lg
ar
y
Sa
sk
at
oo
n
Re
gi
na
To
ro
nt
o
Ot
ta
w
a
M
on
tre
al
Qu
eb
ec
Ha
lif
ax
Ca
na
da
Average Rent ($)
1,200
2012
2013
Source: CMHC, 2013 b
The average rent for two-bedroom units was $920 in October 2013, with averages ranging from $555 in
Trois- Rivières to $1,281 in Vancouver. This represents a 2.5% increase over the previous year, which is above
inflation. The secondary rental market includes condominiums (which are not purpose-built rental housing).
Condos are often more expensive to rent because they usually have preferred locations, luxury features and
are in buildings with amenities. The average monthly rent for two-bedroom condos was lowest in Québec
City ($980) and highest in Toronto ($1,752). In the coming months, the Homeless Hub will release a housing
report with a more detailed breakdown of the availability of low cost rental units and how this market has
changed in recent years.
Condo or strata conversions are popular in communities where there is a limit on available land, especially
in urban centers. By purchasing a previously rented building and applying for a condo conversion, developers are able to create new condominium developments in urban market centers. Some communities
have moratoriums or restrictions on condo conversions unless the vacancy rate achieves a certain level. This
allows a municipal government to ensure that there is sufficient availability of rental housing. For example,
in North Vancouver, Victoria, Coquitlam and the District of Saanich, strata conversions are prohibited if the
vacancy rate is below 4% (Casorso & Genshorek, 2013).
Social housing
The impact of the 1993 cancellation of the federal government’s national housing strategy and the devolution
of social housing to the provincial/territorial level (and in many cases the municipal level) has been tremendous. In January of this year, the Advocacy Centre for Tenants Ontario stated “Between 1985 and 1989, the
federal government helped fund 5,356 units of social housing per year. If Ottawa had continued to fund social
housing at this rate, between 1994 and 2013, some 107,120 homes could have been built” (Brownlee, 2014).
Funding for social housing has declined steadily since 1993. This funding is primarily aimed at housing
that has already been developed and consists of mortgage payments on those units or rent supplements.
As that mortgage debt is retired very little new money is being added and very few new builds are being
funded. The Canadian Housing and Renewal Association recently released a report titled: Housing for All:
33
Sustaining and Renewing Social Housing for Low-Income Households (2014). In the report, it is argued that
the expiration of the operating agreements will have a direct impact on communities across Canada; while a
portion of the federal funding through CMHC goes towards mortgage payments (which will eventually wind
down), two-thirds of the funds go towards subsidized rents and operating costs. The withdrawal of federal funding will increase pressure on rents and reduce the number of rent-geared-to-income units (see Figure 7 below).
FIGURE 7
Homes under operating agreements and loss of rent-geared-to-income units, 2014-2040
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
Total households
9
/3
7
38
/3
20
20
36
/3
5
3
34
/3
20
1
32
9
/3
20
30
/2
20
28
20
/2
7
5
26
/2
20
3
24
/2
20
1
22
9
/2
20
20
/1
20
7
18
/1
20
16
20
20
14
/1
5
0
Lost targeted homes
(Source: CHRA, 2014:9)
According to CHRA, these operating agreements funded 593,000 units of housing beginning in 1993. That
number has fallen to 544,000 in 2014 (CHRA, 2014:7). The Government of Canada has indicated that it will
let these agreements expire, beginning in 2014. CHRA predicts that this will potentially mean the loss of
rent-geared-to-income housing for over 365,000 Canadians by the end of the agreements (CHRA, 2014).
Aboriginal housing
The inadequacy of on- and off-reserve housing for Aboriginal peoples continues to be a problem, one that
directly contributes to homelessness. Depending on the community, on-reserve housing is often described as unsafe (lack of clean water and proper sanitation, as well as mold problems), inadequate (poorly
constructed and often in need of major repairs) and overcrowded (not designed to meet the needs of
larger families). Distasio and others have pointed out that the poor quality and suitability of this housing
combined with other economic and social pressures (extreme poverty, lack of employment, health issues)
contribute to migration to towns and cities in search of better housing, as well as employment and education opportunities (Disastio et al., 2005). The Government of Canada, supports Aboriginal housing through
a variety of programs that fund the building and renovation of on- and off-reserve housing, including the
“On-Reserve Non-Profit Housing Program”, loans for housing through the Direct Lending program and a
series of renovation and rehabilitation programs. The total amount of this spending is $303 million annually. While this funding does go to new builds and the renovation of properties in need of repair, questions
remain regarding the adequacy. Over the years, a wide range of Aboriginal organizations, including the
Assembly of First Nations (AFN), have consistently called attention to the inadequate supply and quality of
on- and off-reserve housing (repairs, maintenance and overcrowding) (see AFN 2013 for more information).
The fact that the existing housing stock is inadequate, combined with the rapid birth rates in Aboriginal
communities suggests the need to develop a very targeted Aboriginal housing investment strategy (this
will be discussed in greater detail in Chapter 5).
34
Role of the provinces/territories
The provincial and territorial governments (P/Ts) have a few distinct roles to play. These include landlord/
tenant legislation, social housing administration/management, funding (including subsidies and transfers
to municipalities) and delivery of homeless and housing services. It is important to note that under the
Canadian Constitution housing is a provincial/territorial responsibility. The provinces and territories (Quebec
in particular) have distinct rights and independence in terms of funding and legislation. As a result, each
program is individually negotiated with the respective jurisdiction.
It should also be noted that the provincial/territorial and municipal prioritization and eligibility criteria create huge issue for access to social housing and one of the principal holdups to housing homeless people.
Landlord/tenant legislation
Across the country, provinces and territories can develop their own landlord/tenant legislation. This can
govern dispute processes, eviction procedures and rent increases/controls. It may also address building
repair, although that tends to be a municipal issue under by-laws and property standards. The independence of the P/Ts, however, means that there is great variance across the country. For example, Ontario has
guidelines and procedures for annual rent increases; Newfoundland does not. This means that tenants are
vulnerable to significant rent increases at a landlord’s whim.
In Ontario, for instance, the guideline for annual rent increases is announced each June to take effect January
1st of the following year. It is based on the average percent change in the Ontario Consumer Price Index in
the previous 12 months and is capped at 2.5%. About 85% of private rental residences are covered by this
guideline, although few units built since 1998 are covered. Ontario capped 2015 rent increases at 1.6%.
Landlords have the ability to apply for an above guideline increase –determined on an individual property
basis – if their municipal costs (including utilities) have increased by the guideline plus 50% (i.e. 2.4% for 2015),
they have eligible capital expenditures or they have increased security-related operating costs (Landlord and
Tenant Board, 2014). Alberta landlords, on the other hand, face no limits on rent increases.
Repairs and habitability standards
Another issue of concern is the significant backlog in repairs that resulted from the downloading of housing
responsibility to the provinces/territories and municipal governments (in some areas). In Toronto alone, the
58,500 Toronto Community Housing Corporation units require an estimated $751 million to address immediate capital repairs. Additional money will be required to address an aging infrastructure (Brennan, 2014).
The disrepair of social housing, as well as private market housing, means that moving people out of shelters or off the streets into housing might not always improve their housing situation in any significant way.
There are no “habitability standards” similar to the US’s Housing and Urban Development housing programs
to ensure that rent supplements, housing allowances and other subsidies are only given to private (or even
public) landlords that meet these guidelines. While municipalities have bylaws to legislate habitability
standards these often apply to common areas and infrastructure including elevators, garbage management,
utilities, lighting and security (City of Toronto, 2014). Individual units are addressed on a case-by-case basis,
usually following complaints. However, these bylaws are often ineffectual or ignored altogether. Volume of
work is often higher than the number of inspectors available causing considerable delays in investigations.
As a result, enforcement is difficult and landlords – even public housing providers – ignore or are unable to
comply with necessary repairs. In the case of public housing specifically, the lack of funding for infrastructure and repairs has caused tremendous backlog and units are often in poor condition. In municipalities
with tight vacancy rates and especially for those with strict rent control or rent-increase guidelines, land-
35
lords may try to force tenants out by withholding maintenance and repairs thus allowing conditions to fall
into severe disrepair. When tenants finally leave, landlords are able to increase rents or more easily apply for
condo conversions (Spurr, 2014).
3.4 Conclusion
The shifts in housing and tax policy, particularly as they relate
to affordable housing, over the past 30-40 years have resulted
in a crisis in affordable housing in Canada. While we often
talk about the ‘homelessness crisis’, there is less discussion
about the ‘housing crisis’. People are homeless primarily due to
structural and systemic issues. The biggest of these is the lack
of safe, secure and affordable housing in this country.
The shifts in housing and tax
policy, particularly as they relate to
affordable housing, over the past
30-40 years have resulted in a crisis
in affordable housing in Canada.
With each policy shift, with the elimination of yet another program to support building rental housing, with
a lack of investment in new housing, the threads of the social safety net have been cut. When combined with
a lack of income supports, the poorest Canadians are being left out of the housing market. But the crisis has
grown to the extent that it now affects working poor, and in many cases lower- and middle-income families.
When families with two wage earners are living in core housing need, we know the problem is severe.
Policy shifts have also benefited homeowners, especially through tax expenditures. As mentioned, we do
not object to these programs and indeed, support the use of revenue tools to enable Canadians to achieve
homeownership. It is not fair, however, to privilege one group of people over another, particularly a group,
that by nature of their housing status, is already wealthier and faces many advantages compared to tenants.
We are advocating for a more equitable status for renter households and low-income individuals and families. Moreover, the lack of safe and adequate housing produces costs in other areas, including health and
law enforcement.
It is important to note that when there is a lack of new housing being built, rent supplements and housing
allowances are key methods of housing someone experiencing homelessness.19 A few provinces use this
method to address the issue under the IAH, but making housing affordable through subsidies is only effective if there is enough housing stock to be rented.
In the last 20 years, over 100,000 housing
units have not been built because of the
cancellation of programs that support
affordable housing. Building new housing
is a key component to solving the
homelessness crisis.
While programs that support housing renovation or
sustain emergency services are important, they do
not address the underlying lack of affordable housing
that exists in many municipalities across the country.
In the last 20 years, over 100,000 housing units have
not been built because of the cancellation of programs
that support affordable housing. Building new housing
is a key component to solving the homelessness crisis.
19.A rent supplement is paid directly to the landlord on behalf of the household, whereas a housing allowance is paid to the individual/
family. Both rent supplements and housing allowances can be portable (assigned to the household not to the unit) although rent
supplements are sometimes tied to the unit.
36
4 Homelessness and the
Lack of Affordable Housing.
What is the Link?
The one thing all homeless people have in common is a lack of housing.
Whatever other problems they face, adequate, stable, affordable
housing is a prerequisite to solving them. Homelessness may not be
only a housing problem, but it is always a housing problem; housing is
necessary, although sometimes not sufficient, to solve the problem of
homelessness (Dolbeare, 1996:34).
The claim that homelessness is not only a housing problem, but at the same time is always a housing problem, is one that leading scholars such as David Hulchanski (2009), Cushing Dolbeare (1996) and others have
made repeatedly over the past two decades. In the wake of the success of Housing First and the At Home/
Chez Soi project, the link between housing and solutions to homelessness grows stronger. However, this
notion is often resisted because of the common myths about homelessness that circulate broadly amongst
the public and which are embraced by many politicians.
The first myth is that most people who are homeless choose to be, or want to be. Canadians have contradictory feelings about homelessness. A national survey by the Salvation Army found that while 87% of Canadians believe housing should be a right, 40% believe that people on the streets choose to be homeless and
are not interested in obtaining housing (Salvation Army, 2011). However, research demonstrates that the
overwhelming majority of people who are homeless do not choose to be without housing, but rather, find
themselves thrust into circumstances beyond their control, with no easy way out. The successful At Home/
Chez Soi project demonstrates that if you place even the most seemingly entrenched homeless people, including those with severe mental health and addictions issues, in housing with the necessary supports, they
generally stay housed and exhibit improvements in health and well-being (Goering et al., 2014).
The second myth, related to the first, is that homelessness is about individual problems and personal
failures. While individual and relational factors may underlie many of the crises that lead people to become
homeless, research on the causes of homelessness suggests that structural factors also play a role. These
include most significantly, the lack of affordable housing, the fact that people lack necessary income to
retain housing and discrimination in obtaining housing. If a person is unable to obtain a job, rent housing,
or stay in school because they are Aboriginal, a racialized minority, or for youth, LGBTQ2S, then we need to
acknowledge the role of discrimination. We also have to understand the significant systems failures that
lead people to become homeless. If people are discharged from either hospital or prison into homelessness, their chance of recovery is lessened. If youth in care do not get sufficient support to plan and prepare
for their transition to independent living as adults, they may not be able to cope after they age out of the
system. If people do not get adequate supports in terms of mental health, addictions, addressing family
37
violence, accessing educational supports, then their chance of homelessness increases. Homelessness, then,
is not simply about individuals and the things that happen to them; homelessness is a result of a society’s
response to marginalized populations.
The final myth that gets in the way of a strategic response to homelessness is that it is a complex problem
that is hard to solve. As David Hulchanski identifies, addressing homelessness means simply ensuring
people have access to adequate housing, income and supports:
“An adequate standard of living means that a good society not only ensures that good‐quality
health care is available to everyone, but also access to adequate housing, employment at a
living wage, and essential support services must also be available for everyone, not just those
who can afford them – and that systemic inequities are addressed in social policy” (Hulchanski
et al., 2009:10).
Dramatic shifts that pick up on this notion are taking place in Canada. Strategic and coordinated plans to
address homelessness (five/ten year plans), coordinated ‘systems of care’ approaches, and perhaps most
importantly, the ascendancy of Housing First as a humane AND evidence-based intervention, all highlight
the fact that solving homelessness is not complex or impossible.
Our current understanding of homelessness suggests that we need to pay more attention to housing. A key
piece of the puzzle is addressing the lack of affordable housing in Canada. For all the work we do to help
people while they are homeless, including the innovative and successful strategies and interventions such
as Housing First, we will have to account for the availability of housing – particularly appropriate and
affordable housing – in order to give people the opportunity to leave homelessness.
The link between homelessness and the lack of affordable
The inability of many individuals and
housing is well established. As mentioned, while many
families in Canada to obtain and
people focus on individual or relational factors when
pay for housing, and to maintain the
discussing the causes of homelessness, the reality is that
people do not choose to be homeless. The inability of
housing they have, underlies much of
many individuals and families in Canada to obtain and pay
the homelessness problem in Canada.
for housing, and to maintain the housing they have, underlies much of the homelessness problem in Canada. In this
chapter, we look at the housing affordability situation in Canada and its relation to homelessness.
4.1 Setting the stage: understanding homelessness in Canada
In understanding the link between homelessness and housing, it is best to begin with a definition of
homelessness and the range of shelter and housing circumstances exist.
Canadian Definition of Homelessness
“Homelessness describes the situation of an individual or family without stable, permanent, appropriate housing,
or the immediate prospect, means and ability of acquiring it. It is the result of systemic or societal barriers, a lack of
affordable and appropriate housing, the individual/household’s financial, mental, cognitive, behavioural or physical challenges, and/or racism and discrimination. Most people do not choose to be homeless, and the experience
is generally negative, unpleasant, stressful and distressing” (CHRN, 2012: Canadian Definition of Homelessness).
38
The Canadian Definition of Homelessness and accompanying typology (see Figure 8) highlight the broad
degree of circumstances that people can find themselves in. While a substantial portion of the homeless
population is unsheltered or staying in homeless shelters, others are not. Some stay temporarily with
acquaintances, friends or family, with no immediate prospect of getting their own place, knowing they
might be kicked out at any time – what is known as ‘couch surfing’ or hidden homelessness. Others remain
precariously housed and are at-risk becoming homeless:
FIGURE 8
Canadian Definition of Homelessness Typology
4 AT RISK OF HOMELESSNESS
3 PROVISIONALLY ACCOMMODATED
2 EMERGENCY SHELTERED 1 UNSHELTERED
OPERATIONAL CATEGORY
This includes people who
lack housing and are not
accessing emergency shelters or
accommodation, except during
extreme weather conditions. In most
cases, people are staying in places
LIVING SITUATION
People living in public or
private spaces without consent
or contract
• Public space, such as sidewalks, squares, parks,
forests, etc.
• Private space and vacant buildings (squatting)
1.2
People living in places not
intended for permanent human
habitation
• Living in cars or other vehicles
• Living in garages, attics, closets or buildings not
designed for habitation
• People in makeshift shelters, shacks or tents
2.1
Emergency overnight shelters
for people who are homeless
2.2
Shelters for individuals/families
impacted by family violence
2.3
Emergency shelter for people
human habitation.
This refers to people who, because
they cannot secure permanent
housing, are accessing emergency
shelter and system supports,
generally provided at no cost or
minimal cost to the user. Such
accommodation represents
an institutional response to
homelessness provided by
GENERIC DEFINITION
1.1
destruction of accommodation
organizations and / or volunteers.
These facilities are designed to meet the immediate needs
of people who are homeless. Such short-term emergency
women, families, youth or Aboriginal persons, for instance.
These shelters typically have minimal eligibility criteria,
expect clients to leave in the morning. They may or may
shelters allow people to stay on an ongoing basis while
others are short term and are set up to respond to special
circumstances, such as extreme weather.
This describes situations in which
people, who are technically
homeless and without permanent
shelter, access accommodation that
3.1
Interim Housing for people who
are homeless
Interim housing is a systems-supported form of housing
that is meant to bridge the gap between unsheltered
homelessness or emergency accommodation and
permanent housing.
Those who are provisionally
accommodated may be accessing
temporary housing provided by
3.2
People living temporarily with
others, but without guarantee
of continued residency or
immediate prospects for
accessing permanent housing
Often referred to as ‘couch surfers’ or the ‘hidden homeless’,
this describes people who stay with friends, family, or even
strangers.
3.3
People accessing short term,
temporary rental accommodations without security of tenure
In some cases people who are homeless make temporary
rental arrangements, such as staying in motels, hostels,
rooming houses, etc.
3.4
People in institutional care
who lack permanent housing
arrangements
People who may transition into homelessness upon release
from: Penal institutions; Medical / mental health institutions;
Residential treatment programs or withdrawal management
centers; Children’s institutions / group homes.
3.5
Accommodation / reception
centers for recently arrived
immigrants and refugees
Prior to securing their own housing, recently arrived
immigrants and refugees may be temporarily housed while
receiving settlement support and orientation to life in Canada.
4.1
People at imminent risk of
homelessness
4.2
Individuals and families who
are precariously housed
sector, or may have independently
made arrangements for short-term
accommodation.
Although not technically homeless,
this includes individuals or families
whose current housing situations
are dangerously lacking security or
stability, and so are considered to be
at-risk of homelessness. They are
living in housing that is intended for
permanent human habitation, and
could potentially be permanent (as
opposed to those who are provisionally accommodated). However, as a
result of external hardship, poverty,
personal crisis, discrimination, a lack
housing, and / or the inappropriateness of their current housing
(which may be overcrowded or does
not meet public health and safety
standards) residents may be “at risk”
of homelessness.
•
•
•
•
Those whose employment is precarious
Those experiencing sudden unemployment
Households facing eviction
Housing with transitional supports about to be
discontinued
• People with severe and persistent mental illness, active
addictions, substance use, and / or behavioural issues
• Breakdown in family relations
• People facing, or living in direct fear, of violence / abuse
Those who face challenges that may or may not leave them
a household as being in core housing need if its housing:
“falls below at least one of the
or suitability standards and would have to spend 30% or
more of its total before-tax income to pay the median rent
of alternative local housing that is acceptable (meets all
three housing standards).”
Source: Homeless Hub, http://www.homelesshub.ca/CHRNhomelessdefinition
39
Who is homeless?
The homeless population is diverse. Adult males aged 25-55 (47.5% of the
sample) make up the largest group. Other key sub-populations include
youth aged 16-24 (20%) and families (4% of all individuals, but accounting
for 14% of total bed nights in shelters) (Gaetz et al., 2013). Aboriginal
Peoples are over-represented in the homeless population in virtually every
community in Canada and this over-representation increases as one moves
west or into northern communities (Belanger et al., 2012).
47.5%
single adult
males between
25 & 55
years old
Length and severity of homelessness
There is no doubt that the experience of homelessness is difficult and troubling for anyone who
experiences it. Having said that, it is also necessary to differentiate the homeless population in terms of
length and severity of experience. A useful way of differentiating the population is to consider those who
are Chronically Homeless (individuals who are homeless for a year or more, usually for a long time),
Episodically Homeless (those who move in and out of homelessness) and Transitionally Homeless (shortterm, usually less than a month).
We know from research in both Canada and the United States that while many Canadians may experience
homelessness at one time or another, for most it usually lasts for only a short time. Many get through their
homeless experience while being provisionally accommodated, that is, while staying with friends or relatives.
Even if we consider the ‘emergency sheltered’ population, the majority are homeless for a short time. As
reported in the State of Homelessness in Canada: 2013, the median length of stay in emergency shelter is
approximately 50 days, most people are homeless for less than a month (24-29% stay only one night) and
they generally manage to leave homelessness on their own, usually with little support (Segaert, 2012). This
group, considered to be transitionally homeless, makes up 88-94% of the homeless population (Aubry et
al., 2013) and for most of these people homelessness is usually a one-time event.
For a smaller but significant percentage of the population, homelessness is considered a longer-term
problem. People considered to be episodically homeless (3-11% of the population) move in and out of
homelessness, have been continually homeless for under a year but may have experienced several episodes
over the previous three years. This includes between 6,000 and 22,000 individuals annually in Canada.
Chronically homeless refers to individuals who have been on the streets
for a long time, potentially years. Interestingly, the number of chronically
homeless people in Canada, as a percentage of the homeless population is
between 2-4% and is considerably lower than in the United States (10%). We
estimate that 4,000-8,000 Canadians are chronically homeless.
We estimate that 4,0008,000 Canadians are
chronically homeless.
Why is it necessary to distinguish between duration and type of homelessness? Although episodically and
chronically homeless individuals and families account for less than 15% of the homeless population, their
personal struggles – mental and physical health issues, addictions, legal and justice issues, discrimination –
tend to be much more severe. Moreover, in spite of their smaller numbers, they, in fact, consume more than
half of the resources in the homelessness system, including emergency shelter beds and day programs.
Because of the rigours of life on the streets, this group is much more likely to experience catastrophic health
crises requiring medical intervention and a high level of run-ins with law enforcement. The flip side of this
40
of course is that for over 90% of the people who experience homelessness in a year, their homelessness is
almost entirely the result of poverty and housing availability and affordability (Gaetz et. al, 2013).
Since homelessness emerged as a major social and economic problem in the 1980s and 1990s, many
communities have responded by providing emergency shelters, day programs and meal programs.
This response was driven by a humane desire to protect people who experience homelessness from
the elements; people who would otherwise be sleeping outdoors, in abandoned buildings or in cars for
instance. While emergency services will always be important, they are not a substitute for a proper home. As
Londerville and Steele argue, shelters should be but a temporary solution, because:
“The lives of the homeless are only slightly less miserable than when they are on the street,
and indeed some prefer the street or a park to a shelter except in extremely cold weather. They
have no privacy and quiet and often have no place to keep their possessions safe. They have
little chance of success in dealing with mental health and addiction problems or in searching
for employment in this setting” (Londerville & Steele, 2014:17).
Allowing people to languish in homelessness – either living on the streets, or staying in shelters – is not a
solution at all. People’s health and wellness are undermined, they become more and more marginalized,
and the struggle to get off the streets becomes that much harder. One can argue that housing people who
are homeless is not only the right thing to do, but it also makes economic sense (Gaetz, 2012).
4.2 The number of people experiencing homelessness in Canada
In the State of Homelessness in Canada: 2013 report, we provided the first evidence-based estimate of
the number of people who experience homelessness in Canada. We suggested the number of individual
Canadians who experience homelessness and access emergency shelters of some kind to be at least
200,000 annually, based on data drawn from both the Segaert study of homeless shelters (146,726 unique
individuals in 2009), and the Burczycka and Carter study of Violence Against Women shelters (64,500
admissions in 2009).20 This was a very cautious estimate in that it referred to shelter users only and did
not include individuals who are considered unsheltered (who sleep outside or in other situations not fit
for human habitation), people accessing extreme weather emergency shelters in churches or community
centers (‘Out of the Cold’ programs, cooling centers), and provisionally accommodated individuals who
are in temporary accommodation (in prisons, hospitals, halfway houses, etc.) or who are ‘couch surfing’ –
(staying temporarily with friends or family with no immediate prospect of permanent housing).
Our 2013 figures have been adjusted for the current report. Based on rough estimates calculated in the
Londerville and Steele background report, we now suggest the homeless population in Canada in a
given year to be in the range of 235,000.
20. We put forward this estimate with some caution, because while both the Segaert and the Burczycka & Carter studies draw from 2009
data and are considered highly reliable, the methodologies of these studies are significantly different. For instance, the kinds of shelter
situations investigated in each study are not the same (Segaert uses a more narrow definition of emergency shelter). There may be
some degree of overlap between the two studies in terms of shelter stays included (that is, women with families are counted in both). In
addition, the 64,500 figure quoted in the Burczycka & Carter does not mean that there were that many unique individuals in the shelter
system (which is the case with the Segaert study), because almost one-third (31%) of these women had stayed at the same shelter some
time in the past and some might have stayed at another shelter in the same year.
41
TABLE 2
Category of Homelessness
Living Situation
Annual Number
Unsheltered
• Sleeping rough, out of doors
5,000
Emergency Sheltered
• Homeless emergency shelters
• Violence against women shelters
180,000
Provisionally
Accommodated
• In institutional settings (prison, hospital)
• In interim housing
• Temporarily with friends or relatives, with no
immediate prospect of housing.
50,000
TOTAL 235,000
More rigorous data collection – including Point-in-Time counts in communities across the country – will
allow us to more accurately assess the nature and scope of the problem.
Homelessness over a five-year period
A survey of 2,097 individuals 18 years of age or older conducted by Ipsos Reid (March, 2013) suggests that
the numbers may be considerably higher than the annual estimate cited above. They found that 4% of the
sample reported that over the past five years they had, on at least one occasion, either been unsheltered
(absolutely homeless), had stayed in an emergency shelter, or in some other form of insecure accommodation (e.g. unsafe housing, under threat of eviction, couch surfing with a friend or relative, etc.). This means
that over 1.3 million Canadians have experienced homelessness or extremely insecure housing at some
point during the past five years. What is particularly interesting is what we learned about gender and age.
We know from shelter studies that (adult) males are much more likely to present as homeless, yet in this
survey slightly more females (7%) than males (6.3%) reported an episode of homelessness. Moreover, the
differences between age groupings were quite dramatic. Young people between 18-24 (15.7%) were almost
twice as likely to report being homeless at some time compared to adults aged 25-65 (7%) and exponentially higher when compared to seniors (0.9%). All of this suggests that both women and youth are much more
likely to experience ‘hidden homelessness’ and not necessarily engage our emergency support systems.
4.3 At-risk of homelessness: the precariously housed
When discussing an end to homelessness, we must not only consider the needs of people who are currently
experiencing homelessness, but those who may become homeless in the future. If we fail to do this, we will
continuously respond to an influx of individuals into the homelessness system. While many will find their
way out of homelessness quickly, the lack of affordable housing and accompanying supports also suggest
that many will continue to remain homeless and potentially become chronically homeless.
The Canadian Definition of Homelessness (CHRN, 2012) defines individuals and families to be ‘at-risk’ of
homelessness if their current housing situation lacks security or stability.
“They are living in housing that is intended for permanent human habitation, and could
potentially be permanent (as opposed to those who are provisionally accommodated).
However, as a result of external hardship, poverty, personal crisis, discrimination, a lack of
other available and affordable housing, insecurity of tenure and/or the inappropriateness of
their current housing (which may be overcrowded or does not meet public health and safety
standards) residents may be “at risk” of homelessness” (CHRN, 2012: 4).
42
A distinction can be made between people at risk generally and those who are at imminent risk
of homelessness because of sudden unemployment, eviction, severe and persistent mental illness
and/or active addictions, the break-up of households or because of violence or abuse in current
housing situations, for instance.
Many people are at-risk of homelessness because they are precariously housed - in other words, economic
and structural factors make it difficult for people to maintain their housing, if not immediately, at some
point in the future. There are numerous reasons why people may be precariously housed, including eviction
or the break-up of a relationship. However, the primary reason for housing precarity is affordability; the
intersection of low incomes and high housing costs – which includes rent/mortgage payments, but also
utilities, and in some cases, maintenance and taxes. A standard measure of housing precarity, provided by
CMHC, defines a household as being in core housing need if it: “falls below at least one of the adequacy,
affordability or suitability standards and would have to spend 30% or more of its total before-tax income
to pay the median rent of alternative local housing that is acceptable (meets all three housing standards)”
(CMHC, 2012a). Extreme core housing need applies to those households paying more than 50% of their
income on housing.
• Adequate housing does not require any major repairs, as reported by residents. Housing that is
inadequate may have excessive mold, inadequate heating or water supply, significant damage, etc.
• Affordable dwellings cost less than 30% of total before-tax household income. Those in extreme
core housing need pay 50% or more of their income on housing. It should be noted that the lower the household income, the more onerous this expense becomes.
• Suitable housing has enough bedrooms for the size and composition of the resident household,
according to National Occupancy Standard (NOS) requirements.
How many people are in extreme core housing need in Canada?
Thirty percent of all Canadians are renters (CHRA, 2014). Based on data from
the 2011 National Housing Survey, we estimate that 18% of all Canadian renter
Thirty percent of all
households (an estimated 733,275 households) experience extreme affordability
Canadians are renters
problems, meaning that they have low incomes and are paying more than 50%
(CHRA, 2014).
of their income on rent (Londerville & Steele, 2014). In comparing cities, the rates
are highest in Vancouver at 22%, in Halifax at 21%, in Toronto, Edmonton and
St. John’s at 20%, and Montreal at 19%.21 A much smaller percentage of homeowners live in core housing
need, though it is worth pointing out that in large cities where house prices are high, the problem is more
serious. In this case, Vancouver (8%) and Toronto (7%) are highest while every other CMA is well below 6%.
Thousands more households are in core housing need, paying more than 30% but less than 50% of their
income on housing.
Who is fairing the worst?
For those earning between $10,000 and $20,000 annually and who are spending more than 50% of their
income on housing, the picture is very stark. This includes people earning at or below minimum wage, who
may be singles or couples, single parents, families, youth and seniors.22 In Figure 9, it can be seen that across
major Canadian cities, a high percentage of individuals and families earning at or below minimum wage
21. “Cities” refers to Census Metropolitan Areas (CMAs)
22. Couples with both spouses over 65 are not included in this list as they would have a minimum income over $20,000.
43
FIGURE 9
Extreme affordability problems by CMA
Bars show percentage of households who have income less than $30,000 and pay more than 50% of
income on rent or owner housing costs . Computation uses National Household Survey, 2011 data.
(Source: Londerville and Steele, 2014:14)
fit in this category. For instance, 70% of renters in this income class in Edmonton pay more than 50% of
their income on housing costs (including essential housing expenses such as rent and heating costs); other
high ratios are 63% in Calgary, 59% in Vancouver and 56% in both Toronto and Halifax. Individuals in this
situation are much less likely to be able to afford an adequate amount of food and are vulnerable to crisis
events that may result in homelessness such as sickness, the loss of a job or incarceration.
FIGURE 10
Extreme affordability problems among renters with income $10,000 to $30,000 by CMA
Bars show percentage of renting households having income between $10,000 and $30,000 who pay more than 50% of income
on housing costs; computation uses data from the National Household Survey, 2011. (Source: Londerville and Steele, 2014:15)
44
4.4 Where does housing fit into our response to homelessness?
There are three main things one can do to address homelessness. The first is to focus on prevention – to
ensure that people have the necessary income, adequate housing and supports that will enable them to
avoid homelessness in the first place. Second, there is a need for emergency services intended to provide
temporary support for individuals and families who lose their housing and are waiting to be rehoused.
Finally, housing and supports are needed to ensure that people can move out of homelessness and back
into the community. For too many years in Canada, we have been ‘managing homelessness’ by focusing our
investment on emergency services, such as homeless shelters and day programs.
In the past several years there has been a considerable shift in how we respond, recognizing that it is better to
prevent homelessness and to ensure that people experiencing homelessness get housed as quickly as possible.
The role of Housing First
Housing First (HF) is considered a humane and pragmatic approach to addressing homelessness. It demonstrates that chronically homeless people can successfully be housed. It began in the United States as a housing response for chronically homeless people suffering from chronic and persistent mental illness. It has
grown and evolved over the last twenty years into as a philosophy around which homeless systems can be
organized and has proven to be a very effective housing intervention for a wide range of homeless populations. Housing First as a program model and increasingly as a system philosophy is now being implemented
throughout the western world.
Moreover, when adopted on a mass scale, HF can lead to real reductions in homelessness. The Mental
Health Commission of Canada, as part of the At Home/Chez Soi study, implemented Housing First in five sites
(Moncton, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver) and proved without a doubt that it is an effective
intervention for chronically homeless populations.
In Alberta, the seven major urban centres (Calgary, Edmonton, Red Deer, Lethbridge, Medicine Hat, the
Regional Municipality of Wood Buffalo and Grande Prairie) have taken Housing First to scale as a provincial systemic response to homelessness. There, communities have housed over 9,000 people in a range of
HF programs achieving some remarkable reductions in homelessness. The City of Edmonton has reduced
homelessness by over 30%, Lethbridge has reduced homelessness by nearly 60% and Medicine Hat is on
the cusp of becoming the first city in Canada to actually end homelessness.
Housing First is also now a central focus of the Government of Canada’s renewed Homelessness Partnering
Strategy.
“Housing First is a recovery-oriented approach to homelessness that involves moving people
who experience homelessness into independent and permanent housing as quickly as possible, with no preconditions, and then providing them with additional services and supports as
needed. The underlying principle of Housing First is that people are more successful in moving
forward with their lives if they are first housed. This is as true for homeless people and those
with mental health and addiction issues as it is for anyone. Housing is not contingent upon
readiness, or on ‘compliance’ (for instance, sobriety). Rather, it is a rights-based intervention
rooted in the philosophy that all people deserve housing and that adequate housing is a precondition for recovery.” (Gaetz, 2013:8)
45
Housing First does not simply mean putting people into housing and forgetting about them. It means
housing with supports, in an effort to enhance recovery, wellness and community engagement. The core
principles of Housing First include:
1. Immediate access to housing with no preconditions
2. Consumer choice and self-determination
3. Recovery orientation
4. Individualized and client-driven supports
5. Social and community integration
The evidence for the effectiveness of Housing First, including research from Canada, is compelling,
convincingly demonstrating Housing First’s general effectiveness, when compared to ‘treatment first’
approaches (City of Toronto, 2007; Culhane et al., 2002; Falvo, 2008; 2009; Rosenheck et al., 2003; Tsemberis
& Eisenberg, 2000; Tsemberis et al., 2004; Goering et al., 2012; 2014; Gaetz et al., 2013). The At Home/Chez
Soi project, funded by the Mental Health Commission of Canada, is the world’s most extensive examination
of Housing First and provides perhaps the best evidence to date. The team conducted a randomized control
trial where 1,000 people participated in Housing First, and 1,000 received ‘treatment as usual’. The results
demonstrated that you can take the most hard-core, chronically homeless person with complex mental
health and addictions issues, put them in housing with supports and they will stay housed. Over 80% of
those who received Housing First remained housed after the first year. More importantly, for most their
well-being also improved. The use of health services declined as health improved and involvement with law
enforcement decreased. Part of the recovery orientation of Housing First focuses on social and community
engagement and many people were helped to make new linkages and to develop a stronger sense of self. Setting priorities for Housing First
In seeking to end homelessness, communities must set priorities, as resources are not sufficiently abundant
to provide every person who experiences homelessness with housing and supports. Many communities
have chosen to prioritize chronically and episodically homeless individuals because they may be high
service users. This priority is also outlined in the Homelessness Partnering Strategy’s renewal, which
emphasizes a requirement for most Designated Communities to focus on Housing First. Other communities
prioritize individuals with severe mental health and addictions issues, families with children or homeless
youth. Finally, given the scope and extent of Aboriginal homelessness, many communities may want to
focus their resources in that area.
There are compelling reasons to prioritize chronically and episodically homeless persons and give them first
claim on permanent housing, despite the fact that they make up less than 20% of the homeless population.
First, it is they who suffer the most. We know from research that the longer one is homeless, the more one’s
health and well-being decline. There is a greater likelihood of experiencing criminal victimization and
trauma and addictions can worsen as people seek to self-medicate. Run-ins with the law become more
common and incarceration becomes an increasing possibility. Social and economic isolation increases,
making it much more challenging to get off the streets and reintegrate into the community.
There is also an economic argument to be made. Keeping people in a continuous state of homelessness is
extremely costly. Contrary to popular views that relying on emergency services is cheap compared to the
alternative, is the reality that those supports on their own are expensive. Though small in numbers, these
46
individuals utilize a large portion of emergency services across the homeless sector but also in health,
criminal justice and social services. In terms of shelter use:
“In the case of Toronto and Ottawa, individuals in these two clusters occupied over half of
the shelter beds during the four-year period of the study even though they represented only
between 12 per cent and 13 per cent of the shelter population” (Aubry et al., 2013:910).
Moreover, beyond the costs associated with emergency services for homeless people, we must consider
that chronically homeless people are more likely to utilize expensive health services (such as more
emergency room visits) - because their health becomes extremely compromised while living on the streets
(Gaetz, 2012; Hwang and Henderson, 2010; Hwang et al., 2011). In addition, because of law enforcement
strategies that essentially criminalize homelessness, considerable resources are spent policing and
incarcerating homeless individuals (Kellen et al., 2010; Novac et al., 2006; 2007; Gaetz & O’Grady, 2006; 2009;
O’Grady et al., 2011). Keeping people in an ongoing state of homelessness then is not ‘doing things on the
cheap’, but rather, is quite expensive.
Does housing chronically homeless persons actually save
money? The best evidence for this is, again, the recent At
Home/Chez Soi final report (Mental Health Commission of
Canada, 2014) which found that spending $10 on housing
and supports for chronically homeless individuals with
the highest needs, resulted in $21.72 in savings related
to health care, social supports, housing and involvement
in the justice system. As the “Real Cost of Homelessness”
report concludes: “Solving homelessness makes sense.
Not only are we saving money, we are also doing the right
thing” (Gaetz, 2012:15).
How many chronically homeless people would we need to house?
In the State of Homelessness in Canada: 2013 we estimated the annual number of chronic and episodically
homeless shelter users to be 10,000 to 30,000 nationally. The Londerville and Steele study estimates the
number of absolutely homeless (rough sleepers) to be 5,000, of which 3,000 are chronically or episodically
homeless. Combining the two figures, the total number of chronically or episodically homeless individuals
in Canada is estimated to be somewhere between 13,000 to 33,000 people. It can be argued that while a
large number of people to house, the challenge will be to house as many as possible up front to release
pent-up demand. Five years is an aggressive, but not impossible goal.
Prioritizing other sub-populations and the case for Prevention and Early Intervention
While there is no doubt that addressing chronic homelessness should be a top priority for communities,
a compelling case can be made for interventions with other sub-populations. For instance, individuals
who would technically be considered ‘transitionally homeless’ but who may be at high-risk of becoming
chronically homeless may become a prevention priority. While most transitionally homeless people
will never become chronically homeless, there are those for whom the path is much more predictable.
This includes individuals living in extreme poverty who have complicated mental health and addictions
issues who do not have access to necessary social, health, income and housing supports. It also includes
individuals discharged into homelessness from inpatient mental health facilities, corrections facilities and
young people making transitions from child protection care. When we discharge people with disabling
47
conditions (e.g. mental illness, trauma, addiction) into homelessness, their health and mental health tends
to worsen and the likelihood that they will require expensive hospitalization increases. Forchuk, for instance,
found that those experiencing their first incidence of mental illness were much more likely to attend
follow-up treatment if they found a place to live and were put on Ontario Works (social assistance) while in
hospital, than if they were dropped off at a homeless shelter with an appointment card (Forchuk et al., 2006;
2008; 2011). Some people may need supported housing, especially if they have been recently discharged
from psychiatric institutions, detoxification programs or the corrections system (as suggested in Aubry et
al., 2013). Many are likely to need assistance obtaining employment. There are some interesting pilots in the
Province of Alberta and Forchuk’s work in London, Ontario that demonstrate the effectiveness of discharge
planning and support.
The lack of effective discharge planning and supports for people leaving corrections is also linked to
homelessness, which in turn results in recidivism and criminality, leading to further involvement with the
justice system (DeLisi, 2000; Gowan, 2002; Kushel et al., 2005; Metraux & Culhane, 2004). Addressing this
population’s housing and support needs means not only tackling homelessness, but also potentially
reducing crime.
Homeless youth under 25 are also a priority for many communities.
Making up only 20% of the homeless population, they are nevertheless
over-represented. Moreover, there is evidence in Canada and the United
States (Baker-Collins, 2013; Nino et al., 2010; Stein et al., 2002) that for
many chronically homeless individuals, their pathway into homelessness
of the HOMELESS POPULATION.
began when they were youth and young adults. The causes and
conditions of youth homelessness are distinct from those that beset
adults and therefore the solutions should be different as well. Addressing youth homelessness effectively –
with age appropriate models of accommodation and supports – may be a chronic homelessness prevention
strategy (Gaetz, 2014).
YOUNG PEOPLE
aged 16-24
MAKE UP ABOUT 20%
Women fleeing violence, often accompanied by children, are a significant segment of the homeless
population. Often transitioning between home, shelters and ‘couch surfing’ this population is often severely
under-counted. In some jurisdictions (such as Ontario), children witnessing violence is considered to be
child abuse. As a result, there is a prioritization on obtaining safe, permanent housing for these families.
Ontario’s social housing waiting lists, although municipally administered, prioritize female-led households
exiting violence.23
Finally, as we will see in the final chapter, there is a significant crisis in Canada in terms of Aboriginal
housing. There is an inadequate supply of on-reserve housing and that which does exist is often unsafe and
in poor repair. Extreme poverty on reserves compounds matters, and means many people migrate from
reserves to cities looking for a better life, where many will face ongoing discrimination and exclusion. With
a rapidly growing youth population, it will be important from a prevention perspective to actively deal with
the Aboriginal housing crisis in Canada.
23. Under the Housing Services Act, 2011, Part VI, Section 54 (1): A household is eligible to be included in the special priority household
category if,
(a) a member of the household has been abused by another individual;
(b) the abusing individual is or was living with the abused member or is sponsoring the abused member as an immigrant; and
(c) the abused member intends to live permanently apart from the abusing individual.
48
OVER
35,000
canadians
are homeless on a given night
235,000
canadians experience
HOMELESSNESS IN A YEAR
4.5 Conclusion
Homelessness continues to be a major problem in Canada. Despite all of our best efforts and despite noted
improvements in many communities – most particularly in Alberta – there is no evidence that we are seeing
a significant reduction in homelessness in Canada. The new research by Londerville and Steele has allowed
us to more accurately estimate the number of homeless people at around 235,000 annually; 35,000 higher
than we estimated in the State of Homelessness in Canada: 2013 report.
The changing number is also a reflection of the poor quality and quantity of existing data. While these are
snapshots of the homelessness crisis, they provide the best possible estimate of the extent of the problem.
Until we have mandatory, national Point-in-Time counts, like the United States, we will need to cobble
together data to the best of our ability, but it will only ever be an informed estimate.
The numbers however, are startlingly clear. Canada faces a national disaster, an epidemic, a crisis; whatever
the term, homelessness is an issue that needs to be addressed through a multi-faceted approach that
includes housing and supports. It is an issue that needs both a preventative approach and a reactive
response. Until we stem the tide of people entering into homelessness – especially, those exiting child
welfare, corrections and health care systems – we will never solve the problem.
Expanding the supply of affordable housing, combined with effective interventions, such as Housing First,
will no doubt reduce overall homelessness in all categories. This will facilitate effective prevention and early
intervention strategies that target people at imminent risk of homelessness, or who have recently become
homeless. While it is necessary to prioritize high-risk groups such as the chronically homeless, a case can be
made that addressing homelessness as a broader social problem requires a more comprehensive approach.
49
5 Investing in Affordable
Housing to Help End
Homelessness
We began the State of Homelessness in Canada: 2014 with a question: What investment
in affordable housing in Canada would be required to end homelessness? We asked this
question with a full understanding of the complexity involved in assessing the affordable
housing situation across Canada and the degree to
which blurred responsibilities between different levels
In a tight housing market,
of government make identifying a solution not the most
implementing a Housing First
straightforward proposition. In Chapter 2 of this report we
agenda becomes that much
examined progress and initiatives that have been working
more challenging.
towards ending homelessness, while recognizing how far
we have yet to go. In Chapter 3, we provided an overview of
affordable housing investments in Canada and put this in the context of shifting priorities and
policies over the past several decades, all of which have contributed to a dramatic reduction
in the affordable housing supply in Canada. In Chapter 4, we looked more closely at the issue
of homelessness and its relationship with affordable housing. Here we emphasized the degree
to which an adequate supply of safe, affordable and appropriate housing is a prerequisite to
truly ending homelessness in the long-term. This includes ensuring that those people who are
chronically and episodically homeless are prioritized and that systems are in place to enable
such persons to receive housing and supports through Housing First programs. In a tight
housing market, implementing a Housing First agenda becomes that much more challenging.
It is also important to address the supply of affordable housing in order to broaden access for
other priority populations, including women fleeing violence, Aboriginal Peoples, families,
seniors and youth, for instance.
What would it take to get there; to ensure that there is enough housing for all Canadians? In order to answer
this question, we commissioned estate scholar Jane Londerville and economist Marion Steele to write the
report, Housing Policy Targeting Homelessness. They provide a thorough analysis of how quite dramatic changes
in policy and levels of investment in affordable housing over the last several decades have led to an immense
decline in availability. Key to their report are the proposed programs and investment strategies designed to:
“reverse course and return housing programs to their rightful place in federal government policy
and expenditure. Not only would this be the right thing to do for the homeless who live in such
miserable circumstances, it also would be cost effective” (Londerville & Steele, 2014:9).
50
In the concluding chapter of this report, we consolidate the findings from Londerville and Steele and
combine them with other programs and strategies to identify key priorities for ending homelessness.
These priorities include: a) specific strategies to address the needs of the chronic and episodically homeless
population and b) a basket of strategies to provide Canadians with a greater supply of affordable housing to
reduce the risk of losing housing and to ensure a thriving housing market. All of this is intended to reduce
the risk of people becoming homeless and ensuring that when they do, they have housing options available
that will enable them to move out of homelessness rapidly.
While the proposals acknowledge the need for investment and active strategies of implementation at the
community and regional (provincial/territorial) levels, we are putting forward proposals that call for an
active role for the Government of Canada. As a recent report by the Mowat Centre suggests:
“The federal government set the precedent for government involvement in the housing sector and is
largely responsible for the development of Canada’s existing affordable and social housing stock. To
withdraw federal funding for social housing despite ongoing need is an abrogation of responsibility
and a form of downloading by stealth to the province and municipalities.” (Zon et al., 2014:2)
We put forward key proposals recognizing that there will still need to be a range of services and supports
in place to ensure that people who experience homelessness have access to housing. Simply expanding
the supply does not necessarily lead to housing homeless people as new supply can be absorbed by
market demand elsewhere in the economy. Unless specifically reserved for people exiting homelessness,
individuals and families with more resources and greater access and who are less likely to face
discrimination, will monopolize any new housing supply.
The key elements of our strategy, which will be outlined below, include the following proposals:
1. A new federal, provincial and territorial affordable housing framework agreement
2. Investments to target chronically and episodically homeless people.
3. Direct investment in affordable housing programs.
4. A housing benefit – a new program to assist those who face a severe affordability problem in
their current accommodation.
5. Create an affordable housing tax credit.
6. Review and expand investment in Aboriginal housing both on and off reserve.
1. A new federal, provincial and territorial affordable housing
framework agreement
In order to achieve meaningful reductions in homelessness and get value for
money with a significant new federal investment in housing, the Government
of Canada should set clear priorities and expectations for their investment. It
is critical that the provinces and territories are invested in these new housing
priorities as they have principal jurisdiction over many of the critical systems
of care that impact homelessness and, in the end, will be the net financial
beneficiaries of reduced homelessness. Finally, any new federal investment in
51
housing has to reflect the reality that homelessness and homeless systems are ultimately local or regional in
nature and as a result investment planning and allocation must also be local or regional.
To these ends, we recommend that a federal, provincial and territorial framework agreement on housing be
developed. At a minimum, this framework agreement should:
a. Include an agreed, time-bound and measurable national objective to end homelessness. One approach to measuring this national outcome could be that an end to homelessness in Canada will be
achieved when no Canadian individual or family stays in an emergency homeless shelter or sleeps
outside longer than one week before moving into a safe, decent, affordable home with the support
needed to sustain it.
b. Specify agreed milestones, outcomes and performance expectations along with an agreement on
regular evaluation and reporting.
c. Ensure all federal investment would be directed by local or regional plans to end homelessness.
Those plans should at a minimum:
i. Include the participation of the three levels of government, relevant Aboriginal
governments, homeless serving agencies, local funders of homeless services and people
with lived experience of homelessness.
ii. Develop targeted strategies and plans to address youth homelessness, violence against
women and Aboriginal homelessness.
iii. Articulate a vision and plan to achieve a coordinated homelessness system of care focused
on ending homelessness guided by a Housing First philosophy.
iv. Include participation in a national Homelessness Management Information System that:
1. has a means of collecting local system-wide, standardized data for accurate, realtime reporting on the number of people who are homeless, the length and causes
of their homelessness, and their demographic characteristics and needs.
2. tracks the performance of the different programs in the system of care.
3. tracks the services homeless people receive and the duration of their homeless
episode(s).
4. is locally available to facilitate planning and intervention.
v. Plans for an annual Point-in-Time count of homelessness using a consistent national
methodology.
vi. Articulate the housing needs and priorities in the planning area.
vii. Articulate the process for allocation of housing and homelessness funding.
d. Ensure direct federal investment in housing prioritizes chronic and episodically homeless individuals
and families; homeless individuals and families who are deemed to be ‘high acuity’ based on an agreed
evidence based assessment; and/or those living in extreme housing need (below area median income,
spending more than 50% of income on rental housing. Federal investment should first be used for permanent supportive housing and deep subsidy affordable housing (up to 60% below market).
e. Ensure that for deep subsidy & permanent supportive rental housing the federal investment could
be used for up to 75% of capital cost. The provinces/territories would be expected to contribute the
remaining 25% so 100% of capital cost is covered by public investment.
f. Ensure that the provinces cover 100% of support costs relating to supportive housing and match
federal investment in Housing First programs.
g. Where provincial investments in rent supports or rent supplements are displaced by a new federal
housing benefit, the provinces/territories would need to agree to reinvest 100% of that funding into
housing support or affordable housing capital until median length of stay in homeless shelters is
reduced to less than 2 weeks.
52
2. Investments to target chronically and
episodically homeless people
Extend renewal and expand scope of the
Homelessness Partnering Strategy
In 1999, the federal government initiated the National Homeless Initiative (now
the HPS) with a three-year investment of $753 million ($251 million annually, or
$365 million in inflation-adjusted dollars24). The program has evolved over time both in
name and in function and has been renewed on an annual or semi-annual basis. Funding goes directly to 61
community entities (funds do not go to provincial or territorial governments and there are no cost-sharing
agreements), which are empowered to determine local priorities within the context of HPS guidelines and
through mandated community plans.
In 2013, the Government of Canada announced a five-year renewal, at $119 million annually, which
represented a reduction from the $134 million annual expenditure from the previous HPS renewal (it should
be noted that this did not mean a reduction in funding that goes directly to communities).
While historically most of this funding went to support emergency services, the new agreement stipulates
that 65% of funds must go directly to support Housing First services and supports (conditions on what
constitute allowable expenditures are outlined in HPS directives). It also directs communities to prioritize
chronic and episodic homeless persons because: a) they experience extremely negative consequences of
homelessness over a prolonged period, b) while a minority of the homeless population, they use up to 50%
of services (Aubry, 2013), c) it is cheaper to provide them housing with supports, than to keep them in a
state of homelessness (Goering et al., 2014), not to mention it is more humane. Communities are expected
to transition in year one of the renewal, with expected reductions in chronic homelessness to be realized in
the coming years. This is designed to be a phased-in approach, where larger urban communities with higher
numbers of homeless people and where there is a greater investment by HPS are expected to implement
Housing First initiatives first.
The idea is that with a limited amount of money, priority should first be placed on those in greatest need
(chronically homeless persons with mental health and addictions challenges) and that once those numbers
begin to decline, resources can be reallocate to other needs. While it is
important to prioritize, we need to be mindful of other issues that need
While it is important to
to be addressed simultaneously. For some communities, the shift in HPS
prioritize, we need to be
priorities and directives means cuts to non-Housing First programming
mindful of other issues
that may address other community priorities, such as prevention, youth
that need to be addressed homelessness, Aboriginal homelessness, women who experience violence,
people recently discharged from prison or hospital who are high-risk but not
simultaneously.
chronically homeless, etc. The problem is that the Housing First investment
is required more or less up front, but the savings may not be seen for several
years. While it is acknowledged that in many communities (particularly larger ones) HPS funding accounts for
only a portion of the investment in homelessness services, this is not the case in all communities.
In response, we are advocating an extension of the HPS renewal to cover a ten-year period, indexed to
inflation, with a 50% increase in allocation in years one through five.
24. Annual average inflation rates calculated using: http://www.inflation.eu/inflation-rates/canada/historic-inflation/cpi-inflation-canada.aspx
53
These additional funds can be used to invest in rent subsidies to support the implementation of Housing First.
Once people are stably housed, they will then be able to access the Housing Benefit (Proposal 4, below) and
provincial housing supports, including social housing or affordable housing. While a deep rent subsidy will be
necessary at the beginning, over time the level of rent subsidy may be reduced or eliminated.
It must be acknowledged that while the proposed housing subsidy will reduce precarity for people who
are already housed, it may not necessarily meet the needs of many people trying to exit homelessness.
For a person exiting chronic homelessness an extended rent supplement – which provides a higher rate of
support than the Housing Benefit – will be necessary. On the flip side however, “The housing benefit will
reduce the flow into homelessness. Its cost will also, like the child tax benefits introduced some years ago,
reduce the flow of people forced to apply for social assistance” (Londerville & Steele, 2014).
This new investment will also allow communities to adjust to the new Housing First orientation prioritizing
chronically and episodically homeless persons, while also enabling communities to set their own priorities in
other strategic areas, including youth homelessness, victims of family violence, and Aboriginal homelessness, as
long as those other strategic areas are consistent with the plans specified under the new framework agreement.
If and when reductions in homelessness are achieved, most likely after year five, the federal government
could begin to draw down its HPS investment.
RECOMMENDATION: $186 million (2015/16); $2.071 billion over ten years.
3. Direct Investment in affordable housing programs
Proposal 3.1
Reinvestment in federal funding for Social
Housing, Co-ops and Non-Profits, as operating
agreements wind down.
Many low-income Canadians live in public housing and/or co-ops and get by
because they are paying rent-geared-to-income (RGI). The 620,000 units of social
housing, including co-op housing, built across Canada in the 1970s and 1980s were
made possible through an ongoing investment by the federal government and were
covered by 25-40-year operating agreements to support capital costs and operating expenses.
When administrative responsibility was devolved to the provinces and territories in 1993, the Government of
Canada agreed to continue their share of funding only at 1994-95 levels and only until those agreements expired.
According to the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association (CHRA) (2014), an assumption behind the
agreements was that federal funding could eventually end once mortgages on properties were paid off,
with RGI rents covering the operating costs for these complexes. However, the reality is that rising utility
costs combined with the increased costs that go with maintaining an aging housing stock mean that
those rents no longer cover expenses and that providers would have to either raise rents substantially
or otherwise come up with new funding. Because funding was not indexed to inflation and because of
funding pressures experienced at other levels of government, in many communities there is a backlog of
maintenance expenses. For instance, Toronto Community Housing, with over 58,000 units, projects delayed
maintenance and repair costs will amount to $2.6 billion over the next ten years.
54
Unfortunately, for communities across Canada, the 25-40-year operating agreements are all coming to an
end; by 2020 the majority will have expired. Moreover, there has been no indication to date by Canada
Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) that these agreements will be renewed; in fact, CMHC budget
projections show their funding commitments ending over time:
“When all new funding except for on-reserve social housing stopped in 1993 and existing
agreements started to expire, total federal funding began its annual decline: to $1.6 billion
this year, $1.2 billion in 2020, $604 million in 2025 and $35 million in 2035. By 2040, the
federal investment in social housing will be zero” (CHRA, 2014:6).
Without this funding, provinces/territories and municipalities will either have to compromise the principle of
rent-geared-to-income housing by raising rents, or divert more government spending to cover the shortfall.
Our recommendation is that the operating agreements be renewed to cover shortfalls in ongoing
operating and maintenance expenses and that these be indexed to inflation. Here, we are in support of
the CHRA proposal for new agreements and reinvestment as outlined in their recent report: Housing For
All: Sustaining and Renewing Social Housing for Low-Income Households. In that report they propose a
“Housing For All Plan” that will be phased in to replace the existing operating agreements. The proposal
includes three recommendations:
Recommendation 1: Maintaining Safe, Quality Social Housing Assets: “The 3R Capital Renewal Fund”. This
recommendation transfers monies currently used to pay mortgage costs or meet operating agreements
into a new program to fund repairs and capital expenditures. As existing agreements wind down, this
phased-in investment would increase annually over the ensuing years. They suggest a cost of $3,000 per
unit for 320,000 total units, in order to maintain the safety and security of their occupants. They argue for a
phased in approach so that as existing agreements wind down, new federal dollars would increase annually
over the ensuing years, for an average annual capital expenditure of $969 million (see Figure 11).
FIGURE 11
Projected Spending with the new 3R Capital Renewal
1800.00
1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.0
400.0
200.0
0
New Capital
CMHC existing
55
Their second recommendation is for the development of an “Affordability Account” for low-income
households with special provisions for:
• Off-reserve Aboriginal households,
• Households in the Northern Territories, and
• Households in need of supportive housing.
This proposal is designed to ensure jurisdictions are able to continue to pursue their mission of providing
rent-geared-to-income housing for low-income residents. The proposal outlines a flexible strategy whereby
different jurisdictions can take into consideration current market rents, the configuration of units and the
needs of different families. As with the previous proposal, funding will be phased in in greater amounts as
current operating agreements expire, with spending at approximately $1.15B by 2040 (see Figure 12).
FIGURE 12
CMHC Projected Spending and new Affordability Account
1800.00
1600.00
1400.00
1200.00
1000.00
800.00
600.0
400.0
200.0
0
New Affordability Account
CMHC existing
The third recommendation is for a Sector Transformation Initiative. Budgeted at only $1.25 million annually
over ten years, the initiative is designed to support providers, particularly smaller ones, as they make the
transition to the post-operating agreements world.
The combined cost of the 3R Capital Renewal Fund would be $13.5 million in the first year, in addition to the
existing CMHC commitment, making a total investment of $1.397 billion in 2015/16, and accumulating to
$2.1 billion annually by 2044, an amount “considerably less than the $3.1 billion apportioned from today’s
federal-provincial-territorial budgets” (CHRA, 2014:21).
While we support this proposal, we would add the proviso that the renewed agreement requires that
provinces/territories prioritize chronically and episodically homeless people for access to social housing.
RECOMMENDATION: $1.397 Billion (2015/16); $13.84 Billion over ten years.
56
Proposal 3.2 Renew funding for the Investment in Affordable Housing initiative (IAH)
As outlined in Chapter 3, the Affordable Housing Initiative (AHI) was launched in 2001 as a cost/shared
(50/50) funding program for affordable housing, involving the federal government and the provinces/
territories. For the first eight years, the total investment was $125 million per year ($1 billion, total), to be
shared amongst provinces and territories on a per capita basis. These funds were made available to both
private sector and non-profit developers to build affordable housing, amongst other uses (see Chapter
3, section 3.2) for more information). Capital funds were provided for ‘new builds’, but not for ongoing
operating expenses. To preserve affordability of these units (rent-geared-to-income, for instance) funds had
to be provided by lower levels of government or other partners. Each province and territory developed its
own implementation plan for the AHI.
During a period where there was a dearth of new privately built affordable rental housing, the AHI led to the
development of 27,000 new units across Canada since 2001 (CHRA, 2014). This is arguably a small amount
given the heyday of 20,000+ units annually in the 1980s, but as Londerville and Steele point out, this was
“better than no new units” (2014:39). Since that time, new AHI investments have included $418 million in 2012
and $298 million in 2013 (CMHC, 2013).
The Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) is another federal government program designed to
provide financial assistance to qualifying low-income homeowners, as well as owners of rental properties for
renovations or repairs designed to bring housing up to basic health and safety standards and to convert nonresidential properties into affordable housing. This is also a particularly important program given the state of
disrepair of many private homes and rental units, which contributes to housing precarity across the country.
The Economic Action Plan 2013 announced the renewal of both plans under a re-titled and combined
“Investment in Affordable Housing” (IAH) program, with a commitment of more than $1.25 billion over
five years, beginning in April 2014, to extend the Investment in Affordable Housing to March 31, 2019.
Agreements for this program are being negotiated with each province/territory to set goals, program
criteria and funding commitments. As per the previous agreements, the provinces and territories design
and implement these programs. However, as CHRA has pointed out: “While an important source of federal
funding, the IAH is limited at $253 million annually – an amount unchanged since 2007 – compared to the
much greater, but declining, $1.6 billion currently spent annually for social housing” (CHRA, 2014:5).
As noted in Chapter 3, much of the money in this program has been used for repairs and has not resulted in
the building of new housing. Londerville and Steele recommend renewing and extending this agreement over
ten years (an additional five years), at $253 million annually, adjusted for inflation. We recommend a ten-year
renewal at $600 million annually, adjusted for inflation, recognizing that the current level of federal/provincial/
territorial expenditures has not had any impact in reducing the percentage of the population of people living
in core housing need.
This investment would produce 4,000 new units of housing annually, based on a cost estimate of $150,000
per unit.25
25. We recognize that it is difficult to calculate building costs as they vary depending upon dwelling type, size of individual unit, cost of land,
municipal/provincial/territorial tax benefits and incentives, size of building (single home, multi-unit etc.), for-profit/non-profit developer,
municipal fees and levies etc. Additionally, construction type is also an important factor – some builders, especially in BC and Ontario, are
using wood frame construction which is 10-15% cheaper than traditional builds. Other communities, especially rural and remote locations,
are using pre-fabricated and modular homes, which may also have cheaper construction costs. One hundred and fifty thousand dollars
per unit is an average cost and may vary depending upon municipality.
57
Funding should be prioritized so that chronic and episodically homelessness people have access to this
housing. For deep subsidy and permanent supportive rental housing, the federal investment could be used
for up to 75% of capital cost. The provinces would be expected to contribute the remaining 25% so that 100%
of capital cost is covered by public investment. Funding could also be used for the conversion of facilities like
transitional housing and emergency shelters into permanent supportive housing. We also recommend that
this funding be available to non-profit providers and municipal governments, as we are also proposing new
incentives for the building of private rental housing later in the report.
RECOMMENDATION: $600 Million (2015/16); $6.569 Billion over ten years.
4. A housing benefit – a new program to assist
those who face a severe affordability problem
in their current accommodation
$
$
$
The federal government should institute a housing benefit
operated through Canada Revenue Agency to assist lowincome Canadians.
As we have argued through much of the State of Homelessness 2014 report, a large number of Canadians
are precariously housed, because of a severe affordability problem. While poverty and the resulting housing
affordability can be a problem in both urban and rural areas, it is particularly an issue in large cities, because
this is where housing costs tend to be the highest (see Chapter 3 for elaboration). Londerville and Steele
point out the extent of the problem when they report:
“most renters with an income between $10,000 and $20,000, often working poor, in Halifax, Toronto,
Calgary, Edmonton and Vancouver pay over half their income in rent. These renters are precariously
housed, struggling to pay their rent and apt to fall into homelessness if they face an unexpected car
repair bill or become sick and cannot work and pay their landlord” (Londerville & Steele, 2014:41).
Londerville and Steele also note that many people who live in so-called ‘affordable’ housing units, built
under the federal Affordable Housing Initiative, may be in this situation because they are not all rentgeared-to-income units: rents are often pegged at 80% of markets which makes them high enough to place
a strain on the household budget.
The housing benefit we are proposing is a monthly cash payment that would go directly to renter households with
low-incomes and housing costs that are burdensome. The benefit could be delivered through the income tax system and deposited directly into the recipient’s bank account, similar to ‘child tax’ benefits. Based on an earlier study
by Pomeroy et al. (2008) in Ontario, Londerville and Steele (2014) suggest that the housing benefit would take into
account income and the cost of the housing (e.g. maximum income for a family of two adults and two children
would be under $36,000 while a single would need to make less than $22,000). Recipients would be expected to
make a reasonable contribution towards the cost of their housing – for example 30% of their income – and the
housing benefit would cover 75% of the difference between the actual housing costs and the contribution.26 Re26. While this will dramatically reduce the number of Canadian households living with an extreme affordability problem and will greatly reduce
the deprivation of households experiencing core housing need, it will not eliminate extreme housing need completely. For example, if a
household is currently paying 80% of its income on rent, the Housing Benefit (because of constraints such as max rent in the formula) would
be very unlikely to bring the payment down to below 50%. A family household gets only 75% of the gap between rent and 30% of income.
58
ceivers of the benefit would have to demonstrate to CRA that they are paying the rent they claim to be paying.
There are several strengths to the benefit proposal outlined here. One concern, however, is that it might be
inflationary, in that landlords would simply raise rents to take advantage of more money in the system. It is
argued, however that because the benefit is paid directly to the recipient rather than the landlord, the landlord
would have no way of knowing the tenant is receiving the benefit, or how much. Furthermore, the process
would be almost the same as that for child tax benefits. A landlord would be no more likely to raise rent
because of this benefit than they would because of the child tax benefits. An additional strength of operating
it through the Canada Revenue Agency is that it draws on their experience in handling monthly benefits, dealing with housing cost receipts and monitoring. It would also minimize administrative costs and the application
burden for recipients. Individuals who are currently homeless and have minimal income at income tax time
could accumulate the credit over several months in a trust fund in order to pay for first and last months’ rent.
Londerville and Steele have calculated the cost of this housing benefit at $871.08 million annually for renters and $247.92 million annually for low-income homeowners. A further breakdown follows:
Renters:
$428.28 million for renter families (215, 000 recipients)
$388.8 million for renter singles (360,000 recipients).
$54 million into reserve funds for the homeless (50,000 recipients).
TOTAL: $871.08 million (625,000 recipients)
Homeowners:
$146.16 million for families (105,000 recipients)
$101.76 for singles and childless couples (106,000 recipients)
TOTAL: $247.92 million (211,000 recipients)
RECOMMENDATION: $1.119 Billion (2015/16); $12.253 Billion over ten years.
5. Create an affordable housing tax credit
In order to encourage the creation of affordable housing by private and nonprofit developers, we are proposing the creation of an affordable housing tax
credit, modelled in major respects on the Low Income Housing Tax Credit
(LIHTC) in the US (Steele & des Rosiers, 2009).
$
$
$
According to Steele and Londerville:
“The US credit has provided housing for a wide range of clients and tenants
over nearly three decades, surviving different Administrations of both US political parties
– proving to be remarkably robust. Among the developments it has helped fund is
Anishinabe Wakiagun, a non-profit building providing supportive housing in Minneapolis
for 45 chronically homeless alcoholic men.27 The housing credit has also funded thousands
of units of for-profit housing, often targeted at moderate-income families. “
27. Details of the funding are given in http://www.csh.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/AI_Anishinabe_F.pdf
59
Essentially, an affordable housing tax credit is designed to give private equity investors reductions in federal
income tax for dollars invested in qualifying affordable housing projects. The credits awarded for successful
applicant developers would apply only to construction cost; the developer would need to fund land,
architect and planners fees and other soft costs separately.
Unlike most other incentives, the government would set a maximum amount of affordable housing tax
credits awarded in each year so the government cost is known as soon as the amount is set. The credits
would be allocated to provinces and territories based on CMHC’s assessment of core housing need and a
provincial or territorial body would take applications and award them according to set criteria.
It is likely, as is the case with the LIHTC in the U.S, that syndicators would be required to pool funding from a
number of investors to fund individual projects, as few individuals or developers would have enough taxable
income to allow them to use all the credits awarded to a project. Highly regarded Canadian firms have
experience as syndicators in the US – for example RBC Capital Markets, through its Tax Credit Equity Group.
We recommend that at least half the credits be allocated to non-profit developers,28 that rents for credit
units be capped at no more than 80 percent of market rent and that occupants of the units, on entry, be
required to have an income less than 125% of CMHC’s Household Income Limit. All developments, except
for those providing permanent housing for the chronically homeless, would be required to keep at least
15% of units in a primarily tax credit development as non-credit units. The motivation for this provision is
twofold: to ensure the building has an income mix in its tenants; to provide units for those who initially
meet the income requirement but whose income rises while they are sitting tenants so that they no longer
qualify. Rising income would then not jeopardize a tenant’s security of tenure. We also propose that the
manager of a development with credit units, with some exceptions,29 be required to accept up to 20% of
tenants from Housing First programs.
Londerville and Steele estimate that this investment would produce an additional 4,800 new units of
housing annually, for a ten-year total of 48,000 units.
RECOMMENDATION: $150 Million (2015/16); $6 Billion over ten years.
6. Review and expand investment in Aboriginal
housing both on and off reserve
The fact that Aboriginal Peoples are more likely to experience homelessness
than other Canadians is well established (Patrick, 2014; Belanger et al., 2012).
While making up 4.3% of the total Canadian population, Aboriginal Peoples
form a disproportionate percentage of the homeless population in communities
across the country. They make up 16% of the homeless population in Toronto, 30%
in Ottawa, 46% in Saskatoon, over 60% in Winnipeg and over 70% in Regina. In Canada,
one cannot really discuss homelessness – and its solutions – without explicitly addressing Aboriginal
homelessness.
28. This is a much higher minimum than for the LIHTC, but the Capital Cost Allowance deduction and other incentives outlined in Londerville and
Steele will make it easier for profit-making developers to build without the help of the credit.
29. For example, if a tax credit project is a richly-funded building housing chronic homeless alcoholics, a heavily subsidized rent is already in effect
so that it would be absolved from a redundant rent supplement contract.
60
We do know that the experience of colonialism (resulting in intergenerational trauma), poverty, violence
(in particular, against women), as well as racism and discrimination undermine health, well-being and
opportunities, as well as enhance the risk of homelessness.
The quality, safety and accessibility of appropriate housing on- and off-reserve is also without a doubt part
of the problem. Most Canadians will be aware of the State of Emergency declared by the leadership of
Attawapiskat First Nations in 2011 because of the concerns about the health, security, heating and safety
conditions of the housing in the area, where many residents were living in tents, trailers and temporary
shelters, as well as dangerously unsafe and crumbling housing plagued by mold and characterized by
inadequate water and sewage. While there is great variation in the quality of Aboriginal housing across the
country, this crisis highlighted what is a glaring national problem.
Currently, through Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada (AANDC) and CMHC, the federal
government provides around $303 million per year for on-reserve housing, which goes to build new
housing and repair existing housing. According to the CMHC website:
“CMHC’s funding on-reserve supports the construction of an estimated 400 new homes,
renovation of some 1,000 existing houses, ongoing subsidies to approximately 28,800 social
housing units and supports First Nations to improve their capacity to build, manage, and
maintain housing on-reserve. About $116 million is also spent annually by CMHC to support
the housing needs of Aboriginal individuals and families off-reserve” (CMHC, n.d.).
There are compelling reasons to question the adequacy of investments in housing. In a 2003 report, the Auditor
General of Canada reviewed the state of Aboriginal on-reserve housing. Noting that the amount of housing was
inadequate and that existing stock was deteriorating rapidly because of “substandard construction practices
and materials, lack of proper maintenance, and overcrowding” (Auditor General of Canada, 2011:18). They
suggested that there was a shortage of about 8,500 housing units and that about 44 percent of the existing
housing required significant renovations. They also said there should be
a focus on addressing mold and inadequate drinking water supplies. In a
They suggested that there
follow-up audit in 2011, the Auditor General noted that although AANDC
was a shortage of about
and CMHC had made new investments in housing since 2003 “the
8,500 housing units and
investments have not kept pace with either the demand for new housing
or the need for major renovation to existing units” (Auditor General of
that about 44 percent of the
Canada, 2011:20). As an example, they found that in the 2008-09 fiscal
existing housing required
year, the construction of new houses on reserves amounted to only 30%
significant renovations.
of the houses that actually needed to be replaced.
Compounding the problem is that the need for new housing and renovated units continues to rise rapidly
on reserves. In five short years, the demand for new housing increased from 8,500 to over 20,000 (an
increase of over 135%) and the housing units requiring major renovations went from 16,878 to 23,568 (an
increase of over 40%) (Auditor General of Canada, 2011).
The reason for the increase in demand is twofold. First, existing housing is declining in quality, safety and
adequacy. Second, Aboriginal populations are increasing rapidly, at a rate much faster than the rest of the
population. Between 2006 and 2011, the Aboriginal population increased by over 20% (compared with 5.2% for
the non-Aboriginal population) (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2014c). This also means that the
Aboriginal population is very youthful; eventually these children and youth will require their own housing.
61
The lack of quality and accessible housing for Aboriginal Peoples currently has an impact on the
homelessness crisis in Canada (Patrick, 2014; Belanger et al. 2012). Population growth combined with a
declining housing stock suggest that in time, there will be greater migration to urban areas as people seek
better opportunities and in all likelihood, the homelessness problem amongst Aboriginal people in Canada
is projected to become much worse than it already is.
We also must not forget the challenges that Aboriginal Peoples face in accessing housing off-reserve.
While the housing problems for Aboriginal Peoples off-reserve are similar to those of non-Aboriginal
people – lack of access to safe and affordable housing – the problem is exacerbated by constant and
ongoing discrimination (in both housing and employment), as well as impacts of inter-generational trauma
and colonization. This has resulted in disproportionate amounts of Aboriginal Peoples experiencing
homelessness in urban centers.
All of this indicates that prioritizing a strategic investment in Aboriginal housing is required. For this report,
we are not prepared to identify a cost for this investment because we lack solid information about the full
extent of the problem today and in the immediate future.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness and the
Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness, working in partnership with Aboriginal
communities across the country, conduct an up-to-date audit of Aboriginal
housing on-reserve, in order to:
• Determine the number of new houses that need to be built in the short-
term to meet immediate needs.
• Assess the number of housing units that need to be repaired to meet
standards of safety and adequacy according to National Occupancy
Standards, in order to meet immediate needs.
• Identify the needs for off-reserve housing.
• Project these needs over a ten-year period to account for current and
anticipated population growth.
• Provide a realistic estimate of the investment required over ten years to
meet the needs of Aboriginal Peoples.
As well, we suggest that the government continue its existing funding
commitment of $300 million annually until this audit is completed and a
proposed spending framework is in place. This allows time to determine future
fiscal needs based on the suggested audit.
Recommendation: Continue committed funding of $300 million (2015/16) to
allow time to complete audit as outlined and determine future fiscal needs.
62
6 Conclusion: We Can End
Homelessness in Canada
Homelessness continues to be a major crisis in Canada, one that many people feel cannot
be solved. In fact, it is a problem that can be solved. We know quite well what factors have
contributed to the dramatic increase in homelessness over the past 25 years. Since we know
what the problem is, we can propose a solution.
Over the past 10 years we have learned a lot about ending homelessness. We need to shift from a focus
on managing the problem (through over-reliance on emergency services and supports) to a strategy that
emphasizes prevention and, for those who do become homeless, to move them quickly into housing with
necessary supports. The success of the At Home/Chez Soi project demonstrates that with housing and the
right supports, chronically homeless people can become and remain housed. While there are still some
areas that need work – we need more robust solutions for youth homelessness, women fleeing violence and
Aboriginal homelessness – we are figuring out solutions on the intervention side.
The one missing piece of the puzzle, however, is affordable housing. The decline in availability of low cost
housing (and in particular, affordable rental housing) affects many Canadians – young people setting
out on their own, single parents, people working for low wages and the elderly. It also contributes to the
homelessness problem in a significant way.
In this report, we set out to answer the question, “What would it take to end homelessness in Canada; to
ensure there is enough housing for all Canadians?” We have come up with a series of proposals that we
believe will contribute to an end to homelessness in Canada and at the same time ensure that many more
Canadians are able to avoid the precarity of having too little money to pay for their housing.
The key point is - we can end homelessness in Canada. This requires an investment,
but one that will pay big dividends for all Canadians when we can finally say that
homelessness is no longer a problem in our country.
6.1 Summary costs of proposals
In the table below, we summarize the aggregated costs of our six proposals. It should be noted that this estimate:
• Takes into account an average annual inflation rate of 2% over ten years.
• For some proposals, there is a more substantial increase in Year 2.
• The cost for proposal 6 (investment in Aboriginal housing) is a bare minimum, as we
currently lack sufficient data to project costs.
• The increased costs to the provinces (for services and supports for Housing First) should be
offset by savings in the reduction of chronic homelessness to both health care and corrections.
63
Our summary of the proposals and their costs suggest that this very worthwhile investment is achievable.
The projected cost to the federal government for the first year of this investment (2015/16) would be
$3.752 billion dollars, an increase of slightly more than $1.7 billion annually over currently anticipated
federal commitments. It should be noted that without new investment by the federal government, the
total commitment for affordable housing will drop to only $533 million by 2024/25.
Comparing cost of existing federal affordable housing commitments to proposed investments 2015-2530
TABLE 2
Year
EXISTING Commitments
PROPOSED Investments
(in billions)
(in billions)
Current IAH,
CMHC
and
social
HPS
housing
Comm’ts
Aboriginal
housing
TOTAL
Current
Federal
Comm’ts
Proposal 2
Renewal of
HPS
Proposal
3.1
Renew
Operating
Agreem’ts
Proposal
3.2
Renew
IAH,
RRAP
Proposal
4
Housing Benefit
Proposal 5 Affordable
Housing
Renters Owners Tax
Credit
Proposal 6
Aboriginal
housing
TOTAL
Proposed
investments
2015/16
1.347
0.372
.300
2.019
0.186
1.397
0.600
0.871
0.248
0.150
.300
3.752
2016/17
1.272
0.372
.300
1.644
0.194
1.384
0.612
0.889
0.253
0.300
TBA
3.932
2017/18
1.202
0.372
.300
1.574
0.197
1.375
0.624
0.906
0.258
0.450
TBA
4.110
2018/19
1.126
0.372
.300
1.498
0.201
1.355
0.637
0.924
0.263
0.600
TBA
4.280
2019/20
1.055
0.000
.300
1.055
0.205
1.365
0.649
0.943
0.268
0.750
TBA
4.480
2020/21
0.979
0.000
.300
0.979
0.209
1.344
0.662
0.962
0.274
0.750
TBA
4.502
2021/22
0.898
0.000
.300
0.898
0.213
1.342
0.676
0.981
0.279
0.750
TBA
4.541
2022/23
0.733
0.000
.300
0.733
0.218
1.359
0.689
1.001
0.285
0.750
TBA
4.602
2023/24
0.646
0.000
.300
0.646
0.222
1.412
0.703
1.021
0.290
0.750
TBA
4.698
2024/25
0.533
0.000
.300
0.533
0.226
1.507
0.717
1.041
0.296
0.750
TBA
4.837
TOTAL
9.792
1.488
3.000
11.580
2.071
13.840
6.569
9.539
2.714
6.000
.300
43.734
6.2 Outcomes of investment
For years we have been investing in a response to homelessness that, while humane in meeting the immediate needs of people in crisis, has arguably had no impact in reducing the scale and scope of the problem.
Our proposal will contribute to an end to chronic homelessness and reduce the likelihood that many more
will fall into homelessness in the future. A summary of the outcomes of our investment include:
Ending homelessness in Canada
The New federal, provincial and territorial framework agreement on housing (Proposal 1) and the
Investments to target chronically and episodically homeless people (Proposal 2) will:
• Eliminate chronic homelessness in Canada. More than 20,000 chronically and episodically
homeless Canadians will obtain and maintain housing with necessary supports.
• Shorten the average time people experience homelessness to less than two weeks. Our
emergency services will no longer be providing long-term housing, but will return to their
original mandate – to help people through a short-term crisis.
30. Note: Figures for current CMHC commitments for social housing come from Pomeroy, 2014. Figures for IAH and HPS only go to 2018/19,
because the current agreements expire that year.
64
Increasing the affordable housing supply
• Renewed investment in the Investment in Affordable Housing program (IAH) (Proposal 3.2)
will produce 4,000+ new units annually of affordable housing for very low-income households,
prioritizing permanent supportive housing for those with complex needs living in extreme
poverty, for a ten-year total of 40,000 units.
• An Affordable housing tax credit (Proposal 5) will produce 4,800 new units of housing annually,
The proposed investment in affordable housing in Canada presents an opportunity to put in place infrastructure and supports that will benefit communities across the country. As more people are housed the
current expenditures on emergency services will be reduced therefore potentially recouping much of the
investment. Moreover, the biggest justification for this investment is the contribution it will make to ending
homelessness for tens of thousands of individuals and families. In a country as prosperous as Canada, with
a broadly shared and strong commitment to social justice, there is no need to accept or tolerate the experiences of poverty, hardship and homelessness. We can end homelessness, if we want to.
Reducing the number of precariously housed people
• Renewal of operating agreements for social housing, co-ops and non-profits (Proposal 3.1)
will maintain our current supply of social housing and greatly reduce the risk that 365,000
Canadians who currently live in rent-geared-to-income housing will not lose their homes.
• The housing benefit (Proposal 4) will dramatically reduce the number of Canadian households
living with an extreme affordability problem and the number of households experiencing core
housing need, by providing direct financial support to 836,000 Canadians per year.
• A clear process to review and expand Investment in Aboriginal housing both on and off
reserve (proposal 6) will contribute to addressing the historic injustices that have led to a
dramatic over-representation of Aboriginal peoples amongst experiencing homelessness in
communities across the country.
6.3 Can we afford this?
Our proposed investment in affordable housing represents an increase in annual federal spending, from the
projected commitments of $2.019 billion to $3.752 billion in 2015/16. While this slightly less than doubles
the federal investment, we feel that this is not only the right thing to do, but also something that we can
afford to do. We suggest this level of expenditure is feasible because:
• Over the past 25 years, federal spending on low-income affordable housing (on a per capita
basis) dropped from over $115 annually, to just over $60 (adjusted to 2013 dollars). The
current federal commitments, projected forward to 2025, would reduce expenditures even
further, to $15 per Canadian. While we pride ourselves on being able to balance federal
budgets, we have done so by creating a massive affordable housing and infrastructure deficit.
• Our proposals would raise the per capita investment to approximately $106 per Canadian
annually, or $2.04 per week (currently per capita spending amounts to $1.16/week). While
this may seem like a significant increase over previous levels, it is necessary to address the
accumulated affordable housing deficit built up over the past 25 years and is still less than
what we were paying in 1989. Moreover, our proposals amount to a request for Canadians
to spend only an additional 88 cents per week to contribute to an increase in affordable
housing and a realistic solution to homelessness.
65
• The federal government will be going into surplus in the coming year. Moreover, the
Conference Board of Canada predicts the federal surplus to continue to grow to $109.8
billion by 2034-35 (Beckman et al., 2014:43).
• The cost of keeping people homeless well exceeds the investments proposed here. In the
State of Homelessness: 2013, we estimated the cost of homelessness (managing the crisis)
to the Canadian economy to be at least $7.04 billion dollars annually (Gaetz et al., 2013).
• Canadian homeowners enjoy over $8.6 billion in annual tax and other benefits. This kind of
investment in home ownership is important because it benefits millions of middle-income
households. We need to address the fairness of this system by ensuring that low-income
Canadians in rental housing also have access to support.
• Job Creation. Our investments in expanding the supply of affordable housing will lead
to an increase in employment opportunities in communities across the country. “Each $1
increase in residential building construction investment generates an increase in overall
GDP of $1.52 as the investment continues to cycle through the economy. Each $1M in
investment also generates about 8.5 new jobs” (Zon et al., 2014).
The proposed investment in affordable housing in Canada presents an opportunity to put in place
infrastructure and supports that will benefit communities across the country. These investments will
potentially be recouped by offsetting the costs associated with homelessness. Moreover, the biggest
reason for this investment is the contribution it will make to ending homelessness for tens of thousands
of individuals and families. In a country as prosperous as Canada, with a broadly shared and strong
commitment to social justice, there is no need accept or tolerate the experience of poverty, hardship and
ruined lives that go with homelessness. We can end homelessness, if we want to.
66
Glossary
Acronym
Meaning
Definition
AANDC
Aboriginal Affairs and
Northern Development
Canada
The federal government department responsible for administering programs for Aboriginal Peoples and Northern communities.
AFN
Assembly of First Nations
National Organization of First Nation communities across Canada.
AHI
Affordable Housing Initiative
Federal housing program initiated in 2001 to support building of
new housing as well as repairs/renovations.
AHRN
Aboriginal Homelessness
Research Network
A network of researchers and community groups interested in
Aboriginal homelessness.
ACT
Assertive Community
Treatment
Assertive Community Treatment (ACT) is an integrated teambased approach designed to provide comprehensive communitybased supports to help people remain stably housed. ACT teams
have been used since the inception of Housing First with the
Pathways program in NYC and have a strong evidence base.
CABs
Community Advisory
Bodies
Each Designated Community (federally funded communities that
receive homelessness monies) has a CAB which is composed of local
community organizations and institutions involved in homelessness.
CMHC
Canada Mortgage and
Housing Corporation
Canada’s National Housing Agency. Established in 1946 as a government-owned corporation.
CAEH
Canadian Alliance to End
Homelessness
National movement to prevent and end homelessness in Canada
through the development of 10 Year Plans to End Homelessness
in communities across the country
CHRN
Canadian Homelessness
Research Network
SSHRC-funded research project (2008-2015) working to enhance
networking amongst researchers and non-academic stakeholders
in Canada. Now renamed the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness.
CHRA
Canadian Housing and
Renewal Association
Organization putting forth “the national voice for the full range of
affordable housing issues and solutions in Canada.”
COH
Canadian Observatory on
Homelessness
SSHRC-funded (2013-2021) non-profit, non-partisan research
institute that is committed to creating and mobilizing research so
as to contribute to solutions to homelessness
Formerly the CHRN.
CMAs
Census Metropolitan Areas
Areas defined in terms of labour markets and commuting patterns by the Census of Canada, to delineate large communities.
ESDC
Employment and Social
Development Canada
4th largest department of the federal government with a wide
range of responsibilities, including income security, education
and homelessness.
HF
Housing First
Housing First is a consumer-driven approach that provides immediate access to permanent housing, in addition to flexible,
community-based services for people who have experienced
homelessness.
67
Acronym
68
Meaning
Definition
HIFIS
Homeless Individuals
and Families Information
Software
An electronic records management system designed to help
communities manage data related to homeless services and
service users.
HPS
Homelessness Partnering
Strategy
Formerly known as the National Homeless Initiative, this is the
federal program that provides funding to 61 Designated Communities to support their work to end homelessness.
IAH
Investment in Affordable
Housing
Federal housing program initiated in 2011 that replaced the
Affordable Housing Initiative.
ICM
Intensive Case
Management
Intensive Case Management (ICM) teams do similar work to ACT
teams but are geared towards clients with lower needs or those
who need intense support for a short and time-delineated period.
LGBTQ2S
Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual,
Trans*, Queer, 2-Spirited
Population of individuals based on sexual orientation.
LIHTC
Low Income Housing Tax
Credit
An indirect federal subsidy used to finance the development
of affordable rental housing for low-income households in the
United States.
MHCC
Mental Health Commission
of Canada
Has a 10-year mandate (2007-2017) from Health Canada to be “a
catalyst for improving the mental health system and changing the
attitudes and behaviours of Canadians around mental health issues.”
MLC
Mobilizing Local Capacity
MLC works with local communities to bring key stakeholders
together, to develop community plans to end youth homelessness,
and more broadly, to support national efforts that shift public policy
towards solutions that contribute to an end to youth homelessness.
MURB
Multiple Residential
Building Program
Federally funded program that ran via the Income Tax Act from
1974-mid-1980s to support the development of rental housing.
NLCYH
National Learning
Community on Youth
Homelessness
NLCYH is a pan-Canadian network and forum for youth
organizations and experts from across the country to share
knowledge and strategies and to create action and momentum
to end youth homelessness.
PIT
Point-in-Time Count
Snapshot census of individuals experiencing homelessness on a
specific day or night.
PSH
Permanent Supportive
Housing
PSH is a program that helps eligible people find a permanent
home and also get local mental health services, but only if and
when they need that help.
P/Ts
Provincial and Territorial
governments
Second tier level of government – falls between federal and municipal governments.
RGI
Rent-Geared-to-Income
Rental housing cost is proportionate (usually 30%) to a household’s income.
RRAP
Residential Rehabilitation
Assistance Program
A federally-funded program for low-income homeowners and owners of rental properties to conduct renovations or repairs. In 2014 it
was merged with the IAH as part of the renewal of that program.
SOHC
State of Homelessness in
Canada
Report released in June 2013; billed as the first national report
card on homelessness in Canada.
References
Assembly of First Nations. (2013). FACT SHEET – FIRST NATIONS HOUSING ON-RESERVE. Retrieved from: http://www.afn.ca/
uploads/files/housing/factsheet-housing.pdf
Aubry, T. et al. (2013). Identifying the Patterns of Emergency Shelter Stays of Single Individuals in Canadian Cities of Different
Sizes. Housing Studies 28(6) 910-927.
Auditor General of Canada. (2003). Status Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons. Chapter 6:
Federal Government Support to First Nations – Housing on Reserves. Ottawa: Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Auditor General of Canada. (2011). Status Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons. Chapter 4:
Programs for First Nations on Reserves. Ottawa: Office of the Auditor General of Canada
Baker-Collins, S. (2013). From Homeless Teen to Chronically Homeless Adult: A Qualitative Study of the Impact of Childhood
Events on Adult Homelessness. Critical Social Work, 14 (2).
BC Housing. (2013/14) About BC Housing Agreements. CMHC – British Columbia Agreement for Investment in Affordable
Housing 2011-2014. Schedule E. Annual Public Reporting of Outcomes. (Agreement paragraph 9.2) Retrieved from:
http://www.bchousing.org/resources/About%20BC%20Housing/agreements/ScheduleE_BCH.pdf
Beckman, K., Fields, D., Stewart, M. (2014). A Difficult Road Ahead: Canada’s Economic and Fiscal Prospects. Ottawa: The
Conference Board of Canada.
Belanger, Y., Weasel Head, G., & Awosoga, O. (2012). Assessing Urban Aboriginal Housing and Homelessness in Canada.
Ottawa: National Association of Friendship Centres (NAFC) and the Office of the Federal Interlocuter for Métis and NonStatus Indians (OFI), Ottawa, Ontario
Brennan, R. J. (2014). “$801-million funding pledge won’t go to community housing repairs in Toronto”. The Toronto Star.
Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/08/11/affordable_housing_gets_801million_pledge_from_
ottawa_queens_park.html
Brownlee, C. (2014) Fast Facts: Federal Housing Strategy Key to Improving Child Welfare. Ottawa: Canadian Centre For Policy
Alternatives.
Burczycka, M. & Cotter, A. (2011). Shelters for Abused Women in Canada, 2010. Jurisdat, Component of Statistics Canada
catalogue no. 85-002-X.
Canadian Homelessness Research Network. (2012). Canadian Definition of Homelessness.
Canadian Housing and Renewal Association. (2014.) Housing For All: Sustaining and Renewing Social Housing for Low-Income
Households - A Call for Federal Reinvestment as Operating Agreements Expire Ottawa: CHRA, April 2014.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (2012).”Affordable Housing: What is the common definition of affordability?”.
Ottawa: CMHC.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2011). Canadian Housing Observer 2011. Ottawa: CMHC
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2013a). Canadian Housing Observer 2013. Ottawa: CMHC
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2013b). Rental Market Report. Canada Highlights. Ottawa: CMHC.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2014). Investment in Affordable Housing (IAH) 2011 – 2014 Retrieved from:
https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/inpr/afhoce/fuafho/iah/.
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (n.d. A). About First Nations Housing. Retrieved from http://www.cmhc-schl.
gc.ca/en/ab/abfinaho/
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (n.d. B). Affordable Housing Initiative. Retrieved from: http://www.cmhc-schl.
gc.ca/en/inpr/afhoce/fias/fias_015.cfm
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (n.d. C). Affordable Housing Initiative (AHI) 2001-2011. Retrieved from: https://
www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/en/inpr/afhoce/fuafho/ahi/
Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (n.d. D). About Affordable Housing in Canada. Retrieved from: http://www.cmhcschl.gc.ca/en/inpr/afhoce/afhoce_021.cfm
City of Toronto. (2007). What Housing First Means for People – Results of Streets to Homes 2007 Post-Occupancy Research. Toronto
Shelter, Support & Housing Administration: Toronto.
69
City of Toronto. (). Municipal Licensing and Standards, Bylaw Enforcement: Multi-Residential Apartment Buildings. Retrieved
from: http://www1.toronto.ca/wps/portal/contentonly?vgnextoid=79c47729050f0410VgnVCM10000071d60f89RCRD
CNW. (2014). Harper Government Invests in Evidence-Based Housing First Homelessness initiatives in the Vancouver area.
Retrieved from: http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1379191/harper-government-invests-in-evidence-based-housing-firsthomelessness-initiatives-in-the-vancouver-area
Culhane, D. P., Metraux, S., Hadley, T. (2002). Public Service Reductions Associated with Placement of Homeless Persons with
Severe Mental Illness in Supportive Housing. Housing Policy Debates, 13(1), 107-163. Retrieved from: http://repository.
upenn.edu/spp_papers/65/
DeLisi, M. (2000). Who is more dangerous? Comparing the criminality of adult homeless and domiciled jail inmates: A research
note. International Journal of Offender Therapy and Comparative Criminology, 44(1), 59‐69.
Distasio, J., Sylvestre, G., & Mulligan, S. (2005). Home is Where the Heart is, and Right Now that is Nowhere: An Examination of
Hidden Homelessness Among Aboriginal Persons in Prairie Cities. Winnipeg: The Institute of Urban Studies, University of
Winnipeg. Retrieved from: http://homeless.samhsa.gov/ResourceFiles/NRP_009_Hidden_Aboriginal_Homelessness.pdf
Dolbeare, Cushing N. (1996). “Housing Policy: A General Consideration.” In Baumohl, J. (ed.), Homelessness in America.
Phoenix: Oryx Press.
Employment and Social Development Canada. (2014a). Funding: Terms and Conditions Homelessness Partnering Strategy.
Retrieved from: http://www.esdc.gc.ca/eng/communities/homelessness/funding/terms.shtml
Employment and Social Development Canada. (2014b). Homelessness Partnering Strategy Directives: 2014-2019. Retrieved
from: http://www.esdc.gc.ca/eng/communities/homelessness/funding/directives.shtml
Employment and Social Development Canada. (2014c). Canadians in Context – Aboriginal Population. Retrieved from: http://
www4.hrsdc.gc.ca/.3ndic.1t.4r@-eng.jsp?iid=36
Fallis, G. (2010). Tax Expenditures and Policy: A Case Study of Housing Policy in Canada. Prepared for Tax Expenditures and
Public Policy in Comparative Perspective Conference. Toronto: Osgoode Hall Law School.
Falvo, N. (2008). The ‘housing first’ model: Immediate access to permanent housing. Canadian Housing [Special ed.], 32‐35.
Falvo, N. (2009). Toronto’s Housing First programme and implications for leadership. Housing, Care & Support, 12(2), 16-25.
Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM) (2012) The Housing Market and Canada’s Economic Recovery. Ottawa:
Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
Forchuk, C., Russel, G., Kingston-MacClure, S., Turner, K., & Dill, S. (2006). From psychiatric ward to the streets and shelters.
Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 13, 301–308.
Forchuk, C., MacClure, S. K., Van Beers, M., Smith, C., Csiernik, R., Hoch, J., & Jensen, E. (2008). Developing and testing an
intervention to prevent homelessness among individuals discharged from psychiatric wards to shelters and ‘no fixed
address’. Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing, 15, 569-575.
Forchuk, C., Csiernik, R., & Jensen, E. (Eds). (2011). Homelessness, Housing and Mental Health: Finding Truths – Creating
Change. Toronto: Canadian Scholars Press.
Gaetz, S. (2010). “The struggle to end homelessness in Canada: How we created the crisis, and how we can end it”. The Open
Health Services and Policy Journal. 3:21-26
Gaetz, S. (2012) The Real Cost of Homelessness. Can we save money by doing the right thing? Canadian Homelessness Research
Network. Paper series #2
Gaetz, S. (2013) “A Framework for Housing First”, in Gaetz, Stephen; Scott, Fiona & Gulliver, Tanya (Eds.) (2013) Housing First in
Canada – Supporting Communities to End Homelessness. Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
Gaetz, S. (2014a). A Safe and Decent Place to Live: Towards a Housing First Framework for Youth. Executive Summary. Toronto: The
Homeless Hub Press.
Gaetz, S. (2014b). Coming of Age: Reimagining the Response to Youth Homelessness in Canada. Toronto: The Canadian
Homelessness Research Network Press.
Gaetz, S. & O’Grady, B. (2006). The Missing Link: Discharge planning, Incarceration and Homelessness. The John Howard Society of
Ontario.
Gaetz, S. & O’Grady, B. (2009). “Chapter 7.3 Homelessness, Incarceration and the Challenge of Effective Discharge Planning:
a Canadian Case”. In Hulchanski, J.David; Campsie, Philippa; Chau, Shirley; Hwang, Stephen; Paradis, Emily (eds) Finding
home: policy options for addressing homelessness in Canada. Cities Centre Press, University of Toronto
70
Gaetz, S., Scott, F. and Gulliver, T. (Eds.) (2013). Housing First in Canada: Supporting Communities to End Homelessness.
Toronto: Canadian Homelessness Research Network Press.
Gaetz, S., Donaldson, J., Richter, T. and Gulliver, T. (2013). The State of Homelessness in Canada: 2013. Toronto: Canadian
Homelessness Research Network.
Goering, P., Velhuizen, S., Watson, A., Adair, C., Kopp, B., Latimer, E., & Ly, A. (2012). At Home/Chez Soi Interim Report. Mental
Health Commission of Canada.
Goering, P., Veldhulzen, S., Watson, A., Adair, C., Kopp, B., Latimer, E., … Aubry, T. (2014). National At Home/Chez Soi Final
Report. Calgary, AB: Mental Health Commission of Canada.
Government of Alberta. (2012). Alberta Homelessness Research Consortium. Webpage. Retrieved from http://humanservices.
alberta.ca/homelessness/14627.html
Government of Canada. (2013). Tax Expenditures and Evaluations 2013. Department of Finance. Retrieved from. http://www.
fin.gc.ca/taxexp-depfisc/2013/taxexp-depfisc13-eng.pdf.
Government of Canada. (1995). Department of Finance. Government of Canada Tax Expenditures 1995. Retrieved from http://
publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/F1-27-1995E.pdf
Gowan, T. (2002). The Nexus: Homelessness and incarceration in two American cities. Ethnography, 3(4), 500‐534.
Hulchanski JD, Campisi P, Chau, SBY, et al. (2009). Introduction Homelessness. What’s in a word? In: Hulchanski JD, Campisi P,
Chau, SBY, Hwang S, Paradis E, Eds. Finding home policy options for addressing homelessness in Canada. Cities Centre Press,
University of Toronto Available from: http://www.homelesshub.ca/findinghome
Hwang, S. & Henderson, M. (2010). Health Care Utilization in Homeless People: Translating Research into Policy and Practice.
Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Working Paper No. 10002.
Hwang, S.W., Weaver, J., Aubry, T., & Hoch, S. (2011). Hospital costs and length of stay among homeless patients admitted to
medical, surgical, and psychiatric services. Med Care, 49(4), 350-4.
Kellen, A., Freedman, J., Novac, S., Lapointe, L., Maaranen, R., Wong, A. (2010) Homeless and Jailed: Jailed and Homeless.
Toronto: The John Howard Society of Toronto
Kushel, M., Hahn, J., Evans, J., Bangsberg, D., & Moss, A. (2005). Revolving doors: Imprisonment among the homeless and
marginally housed population. American Journal of Public Health, 95(10), 1747‐1752.
Landlord and Tenant Board. (2014). 2015 Rent Increase Guideline. Government of Ontario. Retrieved from http://www.ltb.gov.
on.ca/en/Key_Information/STDPROD_098894.html
Londerville, J. & Steele, M. (2014). Housing Policy Targeting Homelessness. Toronto: Homeless Hub Press.
Marshall, K. (2012). “Youth neither enrolled nor employed”. Perspectives on Labour and Income. Statistics Canada. Retrieved
from: http://www5.statcan.gc.ca/olc-cel/olc.action?ObjId=75-001-X201200211675&ObjType=47&lang=en&limit=0
Metraux, S., & Culhane, D. (2004). Homeless shelter use and reincarceration following prison release. Criminology & Public
Policy, 3(2), 139‐160.
Nino, M. D., Loya, M. A., & Cuevas, M. C. (2010). Who are the chronically homeless? Social characteristics and risk factors
associated with chronic homelessness. Journal of Social Distress and the Homeless, 19(1 & 2), 41-65.
Novac, S., Hermer, J., Paradis, E., & Kellen, A., (2006). Justice and injustice: Homelessness, crime, victimization and the criminal
justice system. Toronto, ON: Centre for Urban and Community Studies.
Novac, S., Hermer, J., Paradis, E., & Kellen, A. (2007). A revolving door? Homeless people and the justice system in Toronto
(Research Bulletin #36). Toronto, ON: Centre for Urban and Community Studies.
Gaetz, Stephen & O’Grady, Bill (2006). The Missing Link: Discharge planning, Incarceration and Homelessness. The John
Howard Society of Ontario.
O’Grady, B., & Gaetz, S. (2009). Street survival: A gendered analysis of youth homelessness in Toronto. In J. D. Hulchanski, P.
Campsie, S. Chau, S. Hwang, & E. Paradis (Eds.), Finding Home: Policy options for addressing homelessness in Canada (Chapter
3.4). Toronto, ON: Cities Centre, University of Toronto.
O’Grady, B., Gaetz, S., & Buccieri, K. (2011). Can I see your ID? The policing of homeless youth in Toronto. Homeless Hub Research Report
Series #5. Toronto, ON: Homeless Hub. Retrieved from http://www.homelesshub.ca/ResourceFiles/CanISeeYourID_nov9
Patrick, C. (2014). Aboriginal Homelessness in Canada: A Literature Review. Toronto: The Homeless Hub Press.
Pomeroy, S., Steele, M., Hoy, J. & Stapleton, J. (2008). A Housing Benefit for Ontario: One Housing Solution for a Poverty
Reduction Strategy a proposal submitted to the Province of Ontario by a coalition of industry and community
organizations including the Daily Bread Food Bank.
71
Pomeroy, S. (2012). The Housing Market and Canada’s Economic Recovery. Federation of Canadian Municipalities.
Pomeroy, S. (2014). The Fiscal Impact of Expiring Federal Social Housing Operating Subsidies. Ottawa: Focus Consulting
Rosenheck, R., Kasprow, W., Frisman, L., & Liu-Mares, W. (2003). Cost-effectiveness of supported housing for homeless persons
with mental illness. Archives of General Psychiatry, 60(9), 940-951.
Salvation Army. (2011). “Canada Speaks” Exposing Persistent Myths About the 150,000 Canadians Living on the Streets. The
Dignity Project. Toronto: Salvation Army.
Segaert, A. (2012). The National Shelter Study: Emergency shelter Use in Canada 2005-2009. Ottawa: Homelessness
Partnering Secretariat, Human Resources and Skills Development Canada.
Shapcott, M. (2008). National Housing Report Card. Toronto: Wellesley Institute.
Société D’Habitation Du Québec. (2014). Shelter Allowance Program. Retrieved from: http://www.homelesshub.ca/resource/
qu%C3%A9becs-shelter-allowance-program
Société D’Habitation Du Québec. (2011). Rapport Annuel De Gestion. Québec, PQ: Gouvernement du Québec.
Spurr, B. (2014). “New rent monster: Sweden-based realty giant plots gentrification through the back door in neighbourhoods
across the city”. NOW Magazine, July 31-August 7, 2014 | VOL 33 NO 48. Retrieved from: http://www.nowtoronto.com/
news/story.cfm?content=199080
Statistics Canada. (2014). Median total income, by family type, by province and territory (All census families). Retrieved from:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/tables-tableaux/sum-som/l01/cst01/famil108a-eng.htm
Statistics Canada. (2013). 2011 National Household Survey: Homeownership and shelter costs in Canada. Retrieved from:
http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/130911/dq130911b-eng.htm
Stein, J. A., Burden L.M., & Nyamthai, A. (2002). Relative contributions of parent substance use and childhood maltreatment
to chronic homelessness, depression, and substance abuse problems among homeless women: Mediating roles of selfesteem and abuse in adulthood. Child Abuse & Neglect, 26, 1011-1027.
Tsemberis, S., & Eisenberg, R. F. (2000). Pathways to housing: supported housing for street-dwelling homeless individuals with
psychiatric disabilities. Psychiatric services, 51(4), 487-493.
Tsemberis, S., Gulcur, L., & Nakae, M. (2004). Housing first, consumer choice, and harm reduction for homeless individuals with
a dual diagnosis. Journal Information, 94(4), 651-656.
Zon, N., Molson, M., & Oschinski, M. (2014). Building Blocks. The Case for Federal Investment in Social and Affordable Housing
in Ontario. Toronto: Mowat Center and the University of Toronto School of Public Policy
72

Oudshoorn Affidavit - The Council of Canadians

Transcription

Similar documents

February 2014 Newsletter

January 2012 - Hope of the Valley Rescue Mission

Pop Up Front Porches and HF Residents as Activists

- Solutions for Change

Good Fall 2013 News - Goodwill Industries of Northern Michigan

2 MB 2008 Annual Report Card - The Alliance to End Homelessness

Broken English

Hospitality House Serves

Rural Voices - Housing Assistance Council

In Attendance: Amy Kahora, Lisa Lux, Lynn Koncz, Michelle Mitchell