Early public housing policy in Canada consisted of public-private lending schemes which focused on expanding home ownership among the middle class.
[2] In 1954 a National Housing Act amendment led to the creation of government-insured mortgage institutions, which sought to make loans more accessible for low income and rural households.
[1] The government also split the burden of defaults evenly with lending institutions, thereby enabling them to increase amortization periods and provide below-market interest rates.
[1] The Special Committee, which was commissioned to study Canadian housing, recommended that an independent agency be established for the purpose of administering the Act;[1] however, the government didn't take any action to this effect.
[2] Critics state that financial burden imposed through this requirement barred low income families from accessing the program (Belec, 1997).
[2] Belec (1997) found that 50% of DHA loans were concentrated within Vancouver, Halifax, Montreal, Mount Royal, Ottawa, North York, Toronto, Brantford, and Kitchener.
[7] In exchange for this funding, local housing authorities had to fix rents so that they did not exceed 20% of the occupants' aggregate income;[7] however, the NHA also stipulated that landlords could not incur a deficit through a rental agreement.
[8] Clark, who was responsible for drafting the NHA, felt that the competition posed by public housing authorities deterred private investment.
[8] This same year, the federal government announced that price ceilings on rental accommodation would increase if the provinces didn't assume control of them.
[10] Critics of this policy focus on its impracticability given the lack of funding available to provinces and territories[10] In 1954, Mansur was replaced by Stewart Bates who created a new National Housing Act.
In the event that a home owner or occupier failed to meet these standards set by this code, the municipality would be granted permission to expropriate the property.
[8] Displaced families from Toronto and the Montreal neighborhood of Cote des Neiges reported an average monthly increase in mortgage fees of 44% and 62%, respectively.
[8] The Rent Supplement Act enabled the CMHC to partner with private landlords, cooperatives, and not-for-profit associations to provide affordable housing.
[3] The Canada Rental Supply Program provided interest-free loans for 15 years to developers who agreed to allocate a proportion of units toward social housing initiatives.
[8] In 1978 an NHA amendment discontinued the provision of grant money to these families, which led to a high incidence of defaults, and in turn, necessitated that the federal government provide financial assistance to the CMHC.
[4] In Toronto, local councilors to develop social housing have been subverted by the Ontario Municipal Board when such projects conflict with business interests.
[12] Critics of this policy point to cross-community disparities in social housing access, which they claim are caused by differences in funding availability based on community support.
[15] One 2003 study of Ontario public housing units found that residents had better access to illicit substances, and were more likely to consume them than members of the control group.
[5] Participants in the study stated that they were motivated to get intoxicated because of a perceived hopelessness in finding an alternative lifestyle, and/or because their friends and neighbors were engaging in similar behavior.
[6] Children who reside in social housing exhibit higher rates of adolescent pregnancy, behavioral disorders, and lower educational achievement.
[16] Another study found that children from social housing units were more likely to witness parent depression and family dysfunction, as well as experience physical punishment.
[17] It was hypothesized that this exposure explained the high rate of behavioral disorders among social housing children, as well as their diminished cognitive abilities (Gange & Ferne, 2006).