It\u2019s still a long way from election day. There\u2019s another four weeks in which to catalogue the deluge of deceits, deceptions and distortions that inevitably afflict political campaigning. The Conservatives, with their false claim of a \u201creal environmental plan\u201d that will lower greenhouse gas emissions have opened up a big lead. But there are other contenders in the Pinocchio stakes, notably the Liberals\u2019 dubious pronouncements on affordable housing.<\/p>\n
A householder from Dartmouth-Cole Harbour Liberal Darren Fisher recently appeared in my community mailbox. It\u2019s a substantial 8-page, double-sided document. Printed in both Official Languages it\u2019s full of pictures and details of worthy local projects that have benefitted from federal funding. But then it enters the realm of misinformation with this statement on the National Housing Strategy:<\/p>\n
\u201cSince the launch of our National Housing Strategy, we\u2019ve helped more than 1 million Canadians find a place to call home by investing $7 billion in new builds, repairs, renovations and rental subsidies.\u201d<\/p>\n
Well, not actually.<\/p>\n
First off, the claim that the National Housing Strategy (NHS) or any other government program has helped more than 1 million Canadians find \u201ca place to call home\u201d rates with the government taking credit for the fact that the sun comes up every morning.<\/p>\n
Since the NHS was announced \u2013 but not launched \u2013 in 2017 the country\u2019s population has increased by about 1 million. It is to be hoped that those additional Canadians have found a home, adequate and affordable or not.<\/p>\n
But whether any additions to housing stock result from the National Housing Strategy is highly doubtful. Although it was announced in the 2017 budget, as revealed here<\/a><\/strong> at the time, most of the spending \u2013 more than 90 per cent of it \u2013 will not even start until next year.<\/p>\n As for the $7 billion number, it is made up mainly of funding commitments inherited from the previous Conservative government, topped up by about $2 billion in new money added since 2016.<\/p>\n Strategy under-funded<\/strong><\/p>\n In these Trumpian days of extreme lying, exposing the sophistry in Darren Fisher\u2019s leaflet may seem like nitpicking. After all, $2 billion\u2019s still a lot of money. And maybe only a policy wonk would care whether the spending is part of the NHS \u2013 it\u2019s still going for housing. Fair enough, except for this: the whole National Housing Strategy has been revealed as a public relations exercise that will do little or nothing to increase the supply of affordable housing for Canadians, and Fisher\u2019s leaflet is a case in point.<\/p>\n Not only is the National Housing Strategy many days late, its more than a few dollars short, perhaps even less effective in creating affordable housing than the Harper-era programs it\u2019s replacing.<\/p>\n The latter conclusion emerged from an assessment<\/a> <\/strong>of the NHS carried out by the Parliamentary Budget Office and released just as the House of Commons was wrapping up in June. The PBO report questioned whether the strategy will have any effect in reducing housing need, concluding that the NHS \u201clargely maintains current funding levels for current activities and slightly reduces targeted funding for households in core housing need.\u201d<\/p>\n In terms of overall spending, the PBO estimates that over the ten fiscal years from 2018-9 to 2027-8 the NHS would spend an average of $2.8 billion a year, 15 per cent higher than the average of $2.4 billion spent over the (mostly Conservative) previous ten years. That modest increase won\u2019t keep pace with inflation. As a result, the share of the economy to be spent on assisted housing is expected to drop to 0.11 per cent of GDP under the NHS, down from 0.13 per cent over the previous 10-year period.<\/p>\n Strategy ineffective<\/strong><\/p>\n When it was announced, a stated goal of the strategy was to remove 530,000 households from core housing need \u2013 that is, households spending 30 per cent or more of income on housing. But the NHS actually reduces amounts targeted to low-income households.<\/p>\n It cuts transfers to provinces as well as funding for federal community housing -including housing for off-reserve Indigenous households – by a combined total of $342 million. Those cuts are offset by $200 million of new spending on rent subsidies and two new programs. These are worth about $680 million a year, but aim mainly at the middle class.<\/p>\n The NHS claims that the major reduction in core housing need \u2013 by 300,000 households \u2013 will come from rent subsidies. The PBO sees it differently, concluding that the way in which the program is designed will remove \u201cfew households\u201d from housing need.<\/p>\n Another 199,300 households are supposed to be removed from housing need through provincial transfers and federal community housing, programs that, as noted above, are reduced under the NHS. Indeed, according to the PBO, the targets under this part of the strategy – 385,000 units protected and 50,000 created – would leave the number of community housing units by 2027-28 below the number that existed in 2017 and more than 160,000 below the number in 2009.<\/p>\n The third major element of the strategy – the $680 million a year in new money and reallocations from transfers and community housing – is projected to create 82,000 housing units. In keeping with the change of emphasis towards the middle class, that investment is projected to remove only 27,600 households from housing need.<\/p>\n Strategy hype<\/strong><\/p>\n The Liberals initially marketed the NHS it as a $40 billion plan, later inflated to $55 billion with the addition of available loans announced in the 2019 budget. But after stripping out proposed loans, pre-existing spending and unconfirmed provincial cost matching, the PBO reduced the amount of committed federal spending over ten years to $16.1 billion – $14 billion to be spent by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and $2.1 billion by Employment and Social Development Canada.<\/p>\n The latter amount does represent a 60 per cent increase in funding for homelessness programs, perhaps an inadvertent acknowledgement of the Strategy\u2019s shortcomings in creating affordable housing.<\/p>\n As David Hulchanski, a professor of housing and community development at the University of Toronto summed up for the Globe and Mail<\/em>:<\/p>\n \u201cThe housing strategy is a public relations gimmick, assisting fewer low income people than in the past and it is not actually federal spending of $40-billion or $55-billion over 10 years but about $16-billion.”<\/p>\n Local angle<\/strong><\/p>\n Circling back to Darren Fisher\u2019s householder, affordable housing, especially for renters, is an important issue to voters in Dartmouth-Cole Harbour and the rest of Halifax Regional Municipality, a reality reinforced by two recent reports.<\/p>\n A study released in July by the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives<\/a> <\/strong>found that rental rates in HRM are above the national average. The study used “rental wage” as a metric, calculating how much a sole income earner would need to make per hour to avoid housing need. In HRM, the rental wage was found to be $22.57, nearly twice the minimum wage. Nationally the rental wage is $22.40.<\/p>\n