Canada Dry
I’ve recently returned from a fortnight in Montreal, including four days at the International Housing Partnership (IHP) Conference. Looking at housing systems in other countries is often enlightening and I have written about learning from other visits in previous blogs on this site.
The interesting thing about the IHP (Canada, USA, Australia, New Zealand, UK and Ireland) is the extent to which they look to the UK for ways to move forward, what they call, the not-for-profit sector. [I do have a problem with this descriptor, firstly because it describes what they aren’t, not what they are, and secondly, because the sector must make profits to meet their loan, growth and investment requirements. It’s just that the profit is retained in the organisation and ‘not’ distributed to owners and shareholders]. Part of the reason for coveting the UK is because of the extent of social housing (affordable/social housing in the other anglophone countries is rarely above 10% of the stock. For example, in Montreal they have a policy to increase affordable housing to 20% of the rented sector, from the current position of 7%) and our borrowing capacity resulting from organisation size (they are more than a little miffed that we can raise money from Canadian pension funds but they can’t). This can surprise us as we know that despite the greater size of the UK social housing sector there are still over 1 million households on waiting lists, 165,000 children in temporary accommodation and almost 6,000 people living on the streets. There have also been significant failures, Grenfell, Awaab Ishak and the homes highlighted by Kwajo Tweneboa. I think there is surprise that we haven’t sorted out homelessness and housing need when our sector and local authorities own so many homes.
Canada is one of the forerunners of Housing First, and in some territories, it is a requirement in contracts with “Not-for Profits”. However, it has not produced the dramatic impact that is claimed for Finland. Street Homelessness is endemic on the streets of Montreal (much more visible than when I visited Toronto four years ago) and you don’t need to venture far from the centre of town to find small, tented encampments. In September the weather was mild but in November the city will white and freezing, with many people remaining in tents in those sub-zero temperatures and several feet of snow.
Canadian colleagues are also amazed at the large Government programme for building social housing. In the Greater Toronto and Hamilton Area, a research report outlining the wider value of social housing to the region, “The Public Housing Dividend: Social and Economic Impacts of Public Housing in the GTHA.” The methodology and findings reflect the work undertaken by the NHF and Shelter (subject to an early blog) “The Economic impact of building social housing.”
The Canadian report suggests that $1.46bn of annual investment in a combination of new housebuilding and renewing existing homes would generate around $4bn per year of value ($102bn by 2050 over 25 years). This is a result of impacts created through increased employment, reduced healthcare, criminal justice and homelessness costs, family stability, economic growth and the consequent tax revenues.
One practice which would not be popular in my hometown but is on trend in Montreal, is affordable student housing. Part-funded through a student union revolving credit facility and council loans as well as private finance we were shown good quality ‘affordable’ blocks which counted towards the local affordable housing targets. Seeing how student housing is considered locally, as competing with resident homes, I know this proposal would lead to an outcry, maybe even a lynching.
Despite the diversity of legal, financial and constitutional differences we are facing common problems, just starting from different places.
