Calgary Homeless Foundation
February 28, 2017

On January 24, I gave a presentation to students at the University of Calgary as part of the Certificate in Working with Homeless Populations program. The goal of this presentation was to convey the fact that public policy strongly impacts the number of homeless people in a given jurisdiction at any particular time.

A version of my PowerPoint slides, which are chock-full of visuals and references, can be downloaded here: Falvo Public Policy and Homelessness WHP 1 of 3 

This is Part 1 of a 3-part presentation I gave that day.  You can expect Parts 2 and 3 in the coming weeks.

Here are 10 things to know:

  1. Federal spending in Canada fell drastically from the early 1990s until the mid-2000s. In the early 1990s, federal spending (not counting intergovernmental transfers) represented 19% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By the late-2000s, that figure had dropped to about 13%. That’s a remarkably sharp drop in such a short time.
  1. Taxation fell sharply in Canada between the mid-1990s and the late-2000s. Looking at annual tax revenue expressed as a percentage of GDP (all orders of government combined) tax revenue in Canada represented 36% of GDP in the late-1990s.  By 2012, that figure had dropped to below 31%. What’s more, Canada’s level of taxation was considerably above the average for OECD countries in the mid-1990s; today, our taxation level is well below the OECD average.
  1. Federal spending on housing decreased substantially beginning in the early 1990s. In light of the trends discussed in points #1 and #2 above, this comes as little surprise to most people. For more on the federal role in housing policy, including a look at how it has evolved over the past several decades, see this 2013 conference paper.
  1. Rental housing production in Canada fell sharply beginning in the late 1970s. This happened in part due to reductions in public spending on housing discussed in point #3 above. Other factors that likely led to this drop include high interest rates (which made it expensive for developers to finance new supply), a shrinking middle class (which resulted in less demand for rental units), provincial legislation pertaining to condominiums, and rent regulation.[1]
  1. Beginning in the mid-1990s, the Alberta government began spending substantially less on housing.This decrease was drastic. Indeed, in 1995, the Alberta government devoted an amount worth 0.36% of its GDP to housing; just five years later, this amount had shrunk to a mere 0.10%. The Alberta government’s annual spending on housing didn’t start to increase again until the early 2000s.
     
    Alberta Provincial Spending as % of GDP
    Media Folder: 
     

  1. In 1993, the Alberta government introduced strict reforms to social assistance. This entailed at least two things.  First, the rules changed, meaning that provincial officials made it much more difficult for Albertans to qualify for social assistance. Second, the annual value of benefit levels for those who did qualify for social assistance dropped quite suddenly (and then continued to erode over time).  Indeed, a ‘single employable adult’ without dependents received almost $9,000 annually in 1992 (that figure includes tax credits); by 2007, this figure had shrunk to less than $6,000[2]  That’s a very sharp loss in annual income for a very low-income individual.

    Total Welfare Income, Single Employable Person, Alberta (2015$)
    Media Folder: 
  1. Alberta has much less rental housing than other provinces, and this gap has grown in the past 25 years. In 1990, Alberta had almost as many apartment rental units (on a per capita basis) as the rest of Canada.  Then, beginning in the early 1990s, the amount of apartment rentals in Alberta started to decrease; today, Alberta has just half the number of apartment rental units (per capita) as the rest of Canada.  There are three main reasons for this: the first being, historically, Alberta experienced higher rates of in-migration than other provinces; secondly, the Alberta government was not as keen as other provinces to subsidize housing for lower-income households; and lastly, Alberta has a relatively large number of high-income households (and higher-income households typically prefer to own than rent).
  1. Calgary has much less rental housing than Edmonton, and this gap has grown since the mid-1990s. Beginning in the early 1990s, the number of rental housing units (per capita) in both Edmonton and Calgary started to drop each year; and it dropped more sharply in Calgary than in Edmonton. Today, Calgary has approximately half the number of rental units as Edmonton on a per-capita basis. 
    Stock of Rental Units per 1,000 people
    Media Folder: 


  1. The many public policy factors raised above helped create the ‘perfect storm’ for a very sharp rise in homelessness in Calgary beginning in the mid-1990s. From the mid-1990s until the mid-2000s, homelessness in Calgary saw very rapid growth.  For example, according to analysis done with Point-in-Time Count methodology, it grew by almost 700% (per capita) during that time. And while it’s always hard for researchers to establish causation (see point #2 of this blog post) it can reasonably be inferred that the public policy changes discussed above played a major role in this increase.

Calgary Homeless Population over time
Media Folder: 
  1. In 2008, Calgary became the first Canadian city to develop a plan to ‘end homelessness’; since that time, homelessness in Calgary has decreased. There are three main reasons for that decrease. First, since 2008, a great deal of progress has been made at the community level in Calgary (I’ve previously discussed the very important role played by the Calgary Homeless Foundation as System Planner here). Second, benefit levels for Alberta social assistance recipients have increased since 2008.  For example, total annual income received by a ‘single employable’ household receiving social assistance jumped by more than 30% in 2009; and total annual income for a single adult receiving Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped increased by 30% between 2011 and 2013. Third, Calgary’s rental vacancy rate is very high right now (an indirect result of the drop in the price of oil).

In Sum: The intended ‘take away’ from the presentation is that, homelessness is a complex issue that requires a coordinated and collective response that addresses the local issues through local responses. When it comes to ending homelessness, a community plan that is focused on increasing coordination and collaboration across a system of care and greater integration with big system public service providers is vital. For agencies at the frontline, having a System Planner, such as the Calgary Homeless Foundation, providing the big picture view and coordination matters a great deal… and so too does public policy.


I wish to thank: Rachel Campbell, Louise Gallagher, Ron Kneebone, Kara Layher, Lindsay Lenny, Chidom Otogwu, Steve Pomeroy, Joel Sinclair, John Stapleton, Greg Suttor, Alina Turner and Donna Wood for assistance with this.  Any errors are mine.

[1] This is not to suggest that rent regulation doesn’t play an important role in regulating landlord-tenant relations.  For more on this, see this recent analysis.

[2] Both figures in this paragraph are expressed in 2015 constant dollars.


For a PDF version of the present blog post, please click here: Public Policy and Homelessness,The Case of Calgary

This blog post has been republished with permission from the Calgary Homeless Foundation website.

Canadian Observatory on Homelessness
February 23, 2017

Communities across Canada are promisingly moving towards eliminating homelessness. Provinces such as Ontario, Quebec, Alberta, and Newfoundland and Labrador have put together strategies to end homelessness. Locally, Medicine Hat is gaining attention for ending chronic homelessness. But what does ending homelessness mean and how do we know we’ve ended it? Now, we’re beginning to answer that question.

In a major step forward, we, along with the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary (SPP) and the Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness (CAEH) have released Canada’s first definition of ending homelessness.

The definition is the result of a multi-year effort, including a rigorous literature review, interviews with individuals with lived experience, several working papers and a national consultation process where policy-makers, service providers, advocates and people who have experienced homelessness provided their expertise. 

In celebration of this collaborative process, we wanted to take this opportunity to acknowledge the contributions of all those that provided input. It is through the expertise of others that we are able to launch a definition that reflects the priorities, perspectives and commitments of those working to end homelessness across Canada.

Who we heard from

In the summer of 2016, we launched a consultation to seek feedback on a proposed definition of ending homelessness found in the working paper “Discerning ‘Functional Zero’: Defining and Measuring an End to Homelessness in Canada.” We received a tremendous amount of feedback. 

We received 158 online survey responses, of which 42 were from people with lived experience.  A further 43 participants took part in two virtual town halls. We also received written responses from the Government of Ontario, Region of Waterloo, and Edmonton Homeward Trust, and the Guelph & Wellington Task Force for Poverty Elimination.

What we heard

Unquestionably, there was support for a national definition of ending homelessness. 94% agreed that Canada should strive towards a consistent definition of homelessness. As well, 93% agreed that a consistent definition of ending homelessness would improve local responses to homelessness.

However, respondents also identified gaps in the proposed definition. Many noted that a Canadian definition of ending homelessness should include both Functional and Absolute Zero. That is, Functional Zero and Absolute Zero should not been seen as mutually exclusive, but that Functional Zero is progress towards a true end to homelessness.

How Functional Zero and Absolute Zero work together - further explained in the definition document.
Media Folder: 

Towards Implementation

Despite general support for a common definition, respondents indicated varying levels of community readiness. Fortunately, respondents provided a number of helpful suggestions to support the implementation of the definition. These include:

  • Developing communication material for the general public;
  • Continuing knowledge dissemination to communities;
  • Providing technical assistance to support local implementation;
  • Developing consistent data-collection tools to support the definition;
  • Partnering with Indigenous communities to refine the definition; and
  • Translating the definition and supporting materials into French. 

Based on this feedback, the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness is exploring options and partnerships to develop resources and provide support to communities seeking to implement the definition.

What’s next

The launch of the definition does not mark the end of this collaborative process. As the Government of Canada moves closer to a National Housing Strategy, of which ending homelessness is a key priority, we encourage you to consider, discuss and promote the definition. Collectively, we can ensure that a commitment to end homelessness is not an abstract promise, but a measurable and attainable goal.

As the definition notes: “The indicators provided are envisioned as a starting point for dialogue and will be refined on a go-forward basis.” We encourage you to contact us if you have further feedback or suggestions on how to support communities to adopt the definition locally. 

We’ve also started a discussion about the definition on the Community Workspace on Homelessness; there you can join the conversation with over 1600 experts on homelessness. 

This question came to us from Mike D. through our latest survey.

I’m glad that this question is being asked as it touches on a number of shifts in public policy that restrict the daily lives of homeless people including subsistence strategies such as panhandling, squeegeeing, and sleeping in public spaces. Often, the logic behind these laws contribute to the marginalization and stigmatization of people experiencing homelessness under the pretext of public safety when in reality, these laws have very little to do with protecting the public from the supposed “dangers” that the homeless population bring on society.

Anti-homelessness laws are not a new phenomenon; they can be traced back to old English vagrancy laws. Individuals experiencing homelessness are criminalized in specific ways, from creating anti-homelessness laws, increasing surveillance by police, increasing likelihood of being imprisoned, and discharging people from custody into homelessness. A study of homeless adults in Toronto revealed that while 73 percent had a least one arrest, of those who received a custodial sentence, almost all were sentenced to less than six months. This suggests that people experiencing homelessness are being convicted for minor offences at disproportionate rates. It is important to note that while the homeless population have a high rate of interaction with the criminal justice system, much of it can be attributed to the public nature of homeless life. Research shows that homeless individuals are much more likely to be fined than those who are housed, and even incarcerated for causing a nuisance, public intoxication, loitering, or urinating in public. (Chesnay, Bellow and Sylvestre, 2013; O’Grady, Gaetz and Buccieri 2011, 2013). Marie-Ève Sylvestre’s research on Montreal police reveals that they specifically target the homeless population for these behaviours rather than the rowdy crowds of bar patrons on Saturday nights.

Another pressing problem is the number of people being discharged from corrections into homelessness. The lack of discharge planning and resources for those leaving correctional facilities to support them finding safe and affordable housing makes it exceptionally difficult to abstain from criminal activity. As we shift towards the prevention of homelessness, systems based prevention for individuals transitioning from correctional facilities will be key to stopping the cycle of homelessness and criminalization.

As I explore anti-homelessness laws below it is important to keep in mind that those experiencing homelessness are significantly more likely to be victims of crime than housed individuals. Youth and those who are mentally ill are among those at highest risk of experiencing violent crime. In turn, risk of victimization and the trauma that comes with being a victim of crime can lead to criminal behaviour as a form of protection.

In our modern era, geographers like Don Mitchell have highlighted the links between the criminalization of homelessness and the debates around the privatization of public spaces in cities. Mitchell argues that the purpose of anti-homeless laws is to dispossess the homeless from their right to public spaces in order to privatized these spaces as a way of fueling the economy. While this may sound good for businesses, people experiencing homelessness who use public spaces for their survival are usually not provided with any sorts of suitable alternatives nor further supports than what is already made available. Mitchell calls this phenomenon the “annihilation of space by law”. In order to better illustrate this, I’ll use Canadian examples to elaborate on his point but first I’ll discuss what is meant by anti-homelessness laws.

What are “anti-homelessness” laws?

Mitchell describes anti-homelessness laws as legislation intended to outlaw everything from sleeping outdoors to sitting on the sidewalks to restricting food donations. Such laws were enacted throughout the United States in the 1990s as a response to the explosion of street populations that emerged out of the rise of unemployment and deep financial cuts made to social benefits. These laws resulted in the “annihilation” of public spaces that many within the homeless population rely on for their very own existence. Advocates argue that anti-homelessness laws do very little to address the root causes of homelessness and instead intensify the marginalization of this population. Unfortunately, this draconian legal approach has also been adopted by a number of Canadian municipalities and provinces in order to control how public spaces are used while keeping specific people out. Below are a few examples:

Media Folder: 

1. City of Kelowna

As of December 2016, the homeless in Kelowna are banned from sitting or sleeping on sidewalks or otherwise face a $50 fine.  The new regulation expanded on a previous bylaw that restricted  sleeping or sitting on sidewalks between 8am to 9pm (regular business hours). According to the public official, the new bylaw will keep the public safe and businesses from losing customer.

2. Ontario Safe Streets Act

The Ontario Safe Streets Act came into effect in 2000 and was designed to address the growing number of squeegee kids on the streets of downtown Toronto. The legislation prohibits “aggressive” panhandling and anyone attempting, approaching or stopping a motor vehicle for the purpose of offering a service or commodity. However, there are exceptions to the law such as stopping vehicles for charitable purposes is permissible which emphasizes the classist nature of the law as truly being “anti-homeless” rather than being “anti-solicitation”. It also prohibits panhandling of any kind near a bank machine, bus or subway stop, bathroom or parking lot – virtually eliminating urban spaces (often public) as sites to legally panhandle. Despite no evidence of this, the City of Toronto argued that squeegee kids were contributing to urban decay and crime by endangering drivers while negatively impacting tourism and retail businesses.  

3. British Columbia’s Assistance to Shelter Act

The Assistance to Shelter Act was enacted in 2009 in order to enable the police to take people experiencing homelessness into a shelter during extreme weather. While this may seem like a good idea, some advocates argued that the new law was conveniently passed months before the 2010 Winter Olympics in Vancouver as a way to “clear street people” months prior to tourists arriving.

Anti-homelessness laws such as the Ontario Safe Streets Act and the BC Safe Streets Act (2004) are arguably counter-productive as they force homeless people to seek out other, less public and less safe spaces and as a result are more vulnerable to victimization and may be harder to reach out to in terms of service provision. For those unable to pay their fines, imprisonment is a reality which could have an adverse effect on their social benefits. Many homeless simply do not have the means to pay fines (hence survival strategies such as panhandling in the first place).  It cost the Toronto Police Services $936,019 to enforce the Ontario Safe Streets Act between 2000-2010 and only collected $8,086.56 in fines. The public discomfort of witnessing people experiencing homelessness trying to survive doesn’t justify these laws so why are public officials so keen on enacting them? By focusing on Ontario’s Safe Streets Act, I’ll discuss the annihilation of space by law, which provides a response to this question.

Capital accumulation & anti-homelessness laws

According to Mitchell, in order to attract new investments, maintain local capital and protect cities' competitive advantages, governments rely on a number of strategies for growing the economy such as creating tax incentives for businesses and deregulating environmental and labour standards laws. But due to fierce global competition, municipalities are pressured into rolling out further business protection schemes and investing in infrastructure and city amenities to the extent of attracting new investments and keeping existing ones in place. In addition, municipal business strategies often include ways to drive up middle-class spending by appealing to the shopping needs of suburbanites by revamping the image of the city. Consequently, many cities and provinces have turned to the legal system as a way of cleaning up their streets from the “undesirables” by taking away their rights to public spaces in which they often have no other choice but to live in. To gain public support, politicians usually create a moral panic and/or some type of fictional discourse denigrating the homeless population. In this sense, anti-homelessness laws are not intended to help the homeless population but rather to beautify the city as part of wider strategies for attracting and protecting businesses while boosting the economy.

Let’s take Ontario’s Safe Streets Act as an example. Making their debut in Toronto in the summer of 1995, squeegee kids became part the city’s landscape by the following year. Armed with a few drivers’ complaints, Mayor Mel Lastman declared an anti-squeegee kid campaign in 1996 that turned into a full-blown public debate among homeless advocates, drivers, downtown retailers, the media and politicians at the local and provincial level. Then Ontario Premier, Mike Harris, built his case against squeegee kids on a metaphor that depicted homeless youth as the “antithesis of social respectability” while accusing them of negatively impacting tourism and retail businesses. It became clear to downtown retailers and politicians that the only solution to address their presence was to criminalize their income generating activity. The idea that people could earn a living in unconventional ways was completely out of line with capitalist labour relations. In addition, youth street homelessness just did not fit with the appearance of a clean, aesthetically beautiful and safe city that is open for business.

By turning Toronto into a landscape of lifestyle consumption, Toronto has disposed the homeless from their social benefits, from the spaces that they live in and ultimately from their right to exist and do whatever is possible in order to secure their survival. In other words, cities are discriminating against the livelihoods of those in the lowest social strata and rewriting whose lives matter, who is allowed to live in the city and who is worthy of social entitlements. Other scholars such as Roger Keil from York University tend to agree, stating that the goal of anti-homelessness laws is to equate public spaces to spaces for tourists, the inner-city gentry and the urban lifestylers as a means of accumulating wealth rather than maintaining public safety and helping the homeless population.

What’s being done about it?

A couple of years ago, the Coalition for the Repeal of Ontario’s Safe Streets Act launched a petition to repeal the Ontario Safe Streets Act, calling it an “ineffective, expensive and inhumane” response to homelessness. Last year, an Ontario judge wiped out $65,000 in fines amassed by Gerry Williams who was homeless at the time when he accumulated over 400 tickets for non-criminal offences in Toronto. In exchange, Williams must serve two years probation and complete 156 hours of community service for the single conviction of “soliciting in an aggressive manner”. While this is a harsh and unfair punishment, Williams hopes that the ruling will help him get his driver’s licence, improve his credit score and eventually land a job. The Coalition hopes the province will to strike down the law and focus on ensuring that people have access to safe and affordable housing instead.

On the upside of things, in 2015, the BC Supreme Court ruled in favour of a group of homeless people who challenged the City of Abbotsford’s bylaw prohibiting the homeless from sleeping in public spaces. The court recognized the right to public spaces and individuals’ right to safety and security. Last year, Abbotsford passed an amended bylaw allowing people to camp in parks from 7:00pm to 9:00am in order to secure their safety which brought the city in line with the court’s ruling. A similar bylaw in Victoria that prevented the homeless from sleeping in city parks was struck down in 2008 by the BC Supreme Court. The court ruled that the bylaw deprived the homeless of life, liberty and security in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However, in 2016 the BC Supreme Court ordered to shut down a camp of about 300 people living on the lawn of Victoria’s courthouse. Chief Justice Christopher Hinkson wrote in his decision that the “encampment is unsafe for those living there and for the neighbouring residents and businesses and cannot be permitted to continue.” While parks in Abbotsford and Victoria are "open" to the homeless population, not all public spaces remain accessible to them depending on the situation as per the BC Supreme Court.

Lastly, the group Homeless in Kelowna continues to oppose the 24-hour ban on sleeping on sidewalks and organized a protest when the new bylaw was being debated at city council. For now, the city is reaching out to community partners to develop a long-term strategy to deal with homelessness and seeking additional funding opportunities as they prepare the 2017 budget. 

These are just a few examples of groups organizing or having organized against regressive anti-homelessness laws. While advocacy groups continue to challenge their municipalities and/or provinces, let’s be clear that the homeless population has the right to public spaces. As cities across Canada struggle to provide safe and affordable housing to its residents, we should at least ensure that public spaces remain what they are – public!

Related posts & links

Image credit: The Phoenix News from the article “Kelowna Bylaw Protest Makes a Storm”

This post is part of our Friday "Ask the Hub" blog series. Have a homeless-related question you want answered? E-mail us at thehub@edu.yorku.ca and we will provide a research-based answer. 

Calgary Homeless Foundation
February 15, 2017

To understand homelessness in Canada, it’s important to understand the relationship between poverty and homelessness. Poverty is not always about homelessness, but homelessness is embedded in poverty. Reducing poverty impacts homelessness, always.


Days after the 2015 federal election, a Globe and Mail opinion piece pointed out something many anti-poverty advocates already knew: “Every province and territory but British Columbia has a poverty reduction strategy in place or in development. Many cities and towns do, too. Until now, the big missing piece has been our national government.” This was timely, as the Trudeau Liberals had just promised such a strategy in their election platform.  More recently, the mandate letter for Canada’s Minister of Families, Children and Social Development charged the Honourable Jean-Yves Duclos with the task of leading this effort.

With that in mind, here are 10 things to know about poverty as it relates to Canada’s federal government.

  1. Public social spending in Canada is considerably lower than the average for other member countries of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). Indeed, total public social spending in Canada represents about 17% of our Gross Domestic Product (GDP). By contrast, the OECD average is almost 22%. (You can see these figures for yourself here.) Every 1% of GDP translates into approximately $560 per Canadian per year. Public social expenditure includes spending on social housing and social assistance (i.e. welfare, disability benefits). A full list of items included in these OECD figures can be found here.
  1. Our current federal government has already taken several important initiatives pertaining to poverty reduction. In creating the Canada Child Benefit (CCB), the federal government increased federal spending on child benefits, making them more generous than previously for low- and middle-income households (but less generous for higher-income households). The CCB has reduced child poverty, though not as much as the current federal government once claimed. What’s more, the Guaranteed Income Supplement ‘top up’ for single seniors will lift an estimated 37,000 Canadians out of poverty; David Macdonald has blogged about this here. Further, expanding the Canada Pension Plan and returning the age of eligibility for Old Age Security to 65 will both reduce the number of seniors living in poverty. (The federal government has also made important announcements pertaining to new funding for affordable housing and homelessness; these initiatives will be discussed in point #9 below.)
  1. More public investment (including on affordable housing and child care) could create jobs and reduce poverty even further. A recent report by the Centre for the Study of Living Standards recommends that federal, provincial and territorial governments take advantage of low interest rates to make public investments. It notes: “Running deficits need not be inconsistent with a goal of not raising the debt to GDP ratio, provided that the deficits are small enough that the debt does not grow faster than GDP. Temporarily running larger deficits to fund valuable public investments while stimulating the economy during periods of poor economic performance are justifiable (p. xii).”  This advice has been echoed by Bank of Canada Governor, Stephen Poloz. What’s more, even former Prime Minister Paul Martin has recently argued for the need to continue having public deficits at the present juncture. Along these lines, the Trudeau government has already announced important public investments (however, their decision to finance such investments via expensive private borrowing has been called into question both here and here).
  1. Canada’s federal government could do a better job of redistributing income, which in turn could reduce poverty even more. Three recent reports (all published by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives) make a strong case for better redistribution of income via Canada’s tax system. An October 2015 report by Lars Osberg makes a strong case in favour of tax increases for Canadians making $200,000 annually or more. A November 2015 report by Jordan Brennan argues persuasively in favour of increasing corporate income taxes. Finally, a December 2016 report by David Macdonald argues that Canada’s current tax expenditure system disproportionately benefits higher-income earners, and that a reformed system could change that.
  1. A National Framework on Early Learning and Child Care could reduce poverty. The federal government has already announced $500 million “to support the establishment of a National Framework on Early Learning and Child Care.” Such a framework is now being developed in partnership with provincial, territorial and Indigenous governments. The Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada has weighed in with its demands in this respect here. In addition to helping children, child care can also have immediate results on a government’s bottom line—indeed, research from Quebec makes clear that a well-funded child care program can pay for itself (i.e., more parents enter the labour force and the taxes they pay increase government revenue more than enough for the government to finance the cost of the child care). For a fulsome discussion of this phenomenon in Quebec, see this 2012 report; for a shorter analysis, see this December 2016 opinion piece by Pierre Fortin.
  1. Expanding the Working Income Tax Benefit—a measure that has appeal on both the left and right of the political spectrum—could reduce poverty. The Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB) was introduced in 2007 by Canada’s federal government. A refundable tax credit, it’s intended to make precarious work more attractive to workers. This December 2016 analysis by Rob Gillezeau and Sean Speer notes “there is actually a broad political consensus” nationally in favour of expanding WITB. People and groups on the left of the political spectrum generally like it because it transfers more money into the hands of low-income households; and people on the right tend to like it because it increases labour market participation. Gillezeau and Speer note: “How broad is the cross-party Canadian consensus on the WITB? In a 2013 report on income inequality presented by the Standing Committee on Finance, the three major parties called for a further expansion to the program.” There are other more recent examples of such cross-partisan support. The federal NDP’s 2015 platform proposed a 15% increase in WITB’s value. In June 2016, the Trudeau government announced a $250 million increase to the WITB to offset increased contributions being made by low-income workers in light of the expanded Canada Pension Plan. And in November 2016, Conservative Party leadership candidate Michael Chong proposed that the WITB be doubled.
  1. A national pharmacare program could both: a) help a lot of people in poverty afford prescription medication, and b) prevent people with low incomes and health problems from falling into poverty. recent study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal argues that a universal pharmacare system would cost governments an extra $1 billion annually…yet, it would save Canadian households collectively approximately $7 billion annually. A big reason for this differential is that a nationally-administered drug plan can take advantage of the buying power of one large body to negotiate lower prices from pharmaceutical companies. In November 2015, more than 300 health professionals and academics wrote an open letter to Prime Minister Trudeau, calling for such a plan—they also note that almost 90% of Canadians support adding prescription medication to Canadian medicare.
    Public Debt Charges as a % of Federal Revenue (Canada)
    Media Folder: 
  1. Net Federal Government Debt as % of GDP (G7 Countries)
    Media Folder: 
    Canada’s public debt is low. Combined with low interest rates(discussed in point #3 above) this means we have ample opportunity to spend more on social programs that can reduce poverty. Our federal government’s annual public debt charges (expressed as a % of federal revenue) have decreased from 35% to 10% since the mid-1990s. In fact, Canada’s federal government has the lowest net government debt of any G7 country.
  1. A well-funded national housing strategy could help reduce poverty. Canada has much less social housing (per capita) than the rest of the OECD. That said, the Trudeau government’s first budget announced substantial new funding for housing and homelessness. Initiatives included: new investments for housing for First Nations, Inuit and Northern communities (approx. $370M annually for two years); the doubling of annual funding for the Investment in Affordable Housing Initiative (for 2016/17 and 2016/18 only); $100 million in new annual funding for seniors housing (also for two years); new funding for renovations of existing social housing; and $55 million in new annual funding for the Homelessness Partnering Strategy, also for two years.[1] (For more on the need for Canada to develop a national housing strategy, see this September 2016 blog post.)
  1. Any poverty reduction effort by the federal government should be done in partnership with First Nations, Inuit, and Métis peoples. It is abundantly clear from the data that Indigenous peoples face a considerable degree of poverty. The federal government must remain cognizant of the historical impacts of colonization and the residual impact of race-based policies on this subpopulation group. This has been underlined by contemporary reports, including the final report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples and the more recent Truth and Reconciliation Report. In particular, substantial investments should be made towards both on-reserve housing and housing for urban Aboriginal peoples. What’s more, the federal government should direct Indigenous Affairs and Northern Development Canada to consult on a Nation to Nation basis in discussing the details. To read the Assembly of First Nations’ policy recommendations going into the 2015 federal election campaign, see this report.

The authors wish to thanks the following individuals for invaluable assistance with this blog post:  Jordan Brennan, Gerald Chipeur, Angela Daley, Louise Gallagher, Rob Gillezeau, Ron Kneebone, Kara Layher, David Macdonald, Angella MacEwen, Michael Mendelson, Kevin Milligan, Allan Moscovitch, Robin Shaban, Richard Shillington, Joel Sinclair, Jim Stanford, John Stapleton, Kaylie Tiessen and Seth Klein.  Any errors lie with the authors.

[1] A succinct list of housing-related initiatives from the 2016/17 federal budget can be found here, while a more thorough analysis can be found here.


For a PDF version of the present blog post, please click here: The Federal Role in Poverty Reduction

This blog post has been republished with permission from the Calgary Homeless Foundation website.

A Way Home
February 08, 2017

Having ‘come from away’ I am under no illusion that Ontario, or Toronto for that matter, is the centre of the universe. That said, I’m pretty excited about working with community and government stakeholders to ramp up our efforts to prevent and end youth homelessness in Ontario. As Dr. Gaetz always says, it’s all about readiness. 

So what’s happening in Ontario that makes it ready for a major shift in how we respond to youth homelessness? At this point I have to give a shout out to Alberta as the first province to have a provincial strategy to prevent and end youth homelessness. These efforts to craft and implement the strategy set the stage for critical learnings that are rippling across the country. The plan emphasizes the need for alignment across government programs and systems, and foregrounds prevention. In September 2014, the Ontario government announced its commitment to end homelessness as a part of Ontario’s Poverty Reduction Strategy. In response, the Expert Advisory Panel on Homelessness was established with a mandate to give advice on how to define and measure homelessness in Ontario, how to prioritize and set targets for ending homelessness, and how to build the evidence base and capacity to implement best practices around the province. Based on the recommendations in the resulting report, the Province set four priorities to guide action to prevent, reduce, and end homelessness, focusing on:

  • Chronic homelessness
  • Youth homelessness
  • Aboriginal homelessness
  • Homelessness following transition from provincially-funded institutions and service systems

While this was happening, communities across Ontario were recognizing the need to have targeted strategies to prevent and end youth homelessness. Two Ontario communities, Kingston and Wellington County, were part of our national pilot program, Mobilizing Local Capacity to End Youth Homelessness, and actively engaged in the critical work of crafting and implementing these strategies. Other communities and the province took notice. As we officially launched A Way Home, the Government of Ontario supported the development of our Youth Homelessness Community Planning Toolkit, with a Special Appendix for Service Managers in Ontario. This body of work helps communities go further, faster so they can get to the really difficult work of implementation, and outlines the role provincial ministries and Service Managers can play to align their efforts with those of communities. Around the same time we co-released an Ontario Policy Brief with the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness to help inform the provincial strategy moving forward.

Given this momentum, what do we have planned for 2017? With support from the Government of Ontario, we have launched a dedicated Ontario Youth Homelessness Planning Community of Practice that builds on more than a decade of experience in convening the National Learning Community on Youth Homelessness. Free supports available to all communities include a year-long monthly webinar curriculum in partnership with OMSSA and Canadian Observatory on Homelessness to “go deep” on issues of community planning, implementation, change management, prevention and Collective Impact. We have also launched an online forum specific to community planning, moderated by expert planners. The forum is part of the Community Workspace on Homelessness, an online platform for community representatives, service providers and others working in  the homelessness sector to collaborate and share information. We’re offering a free community planning newsletter that features critical resources and case studies from across the country to inform your work. We’re also building toward a province-wide Youth Homelessness Community Planning Institute to bring as many as twenty Ontario communities together to kick-start efforts to work across systems to prevent and end youth homelessness. 

While these efforts are underway, our team is providing targeted supports to a number of communities that have made headway on the issue. Some communities have even adopted the A Way Home name to highlight that their efforts are part of a broader movement for change. They’re signing on to working across systems through a Collective Impact lens and doing the difficult work of investing in and shifting efforts to prevention. A Way Home Ottawa, A Way Home Lanark County, A Way Home Toronto, and A Way Home Peterborough are just the tip of the iceberg. Positive change is underfoot and it couldn’t come soon enough for young people that deserve the opportunity to achieve their full potential in life.

Stay tuned as we work alongside young people with lived experience, communities, and all orders of government to move the dial on the issue of youth homelessness. 

This post is part of a monthly series that follows A Way Home's progress as we create real change on the issue of youth homelessness. On the second Wednesday of every month, join us for an update from A Way Home's Executive Director, Melanie Redman. 

Pages

Recent Tweets

Content on this site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives License

The analysis and interpretations contained in the blog posts are those of the individual contributors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness.