Non-market housing as a solution to the housing crisis
Introduction
Non-market housing represents a critical, human rights-based solution to the escalating affordability crisis facing Canada and serves as a model for global housing policy reform.
As detailed in the "What We Heard Report" from the National Right to Housing Day Virtual Panel, hosted by the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate on November 22, 2023, the current reliance on private market mechanisms has failed to provide adequate shelter for vulnerable populations.This comprehensive summary analyzes the expert testimonies, statistical data, and policy recommendations presented in the official document, highlighting why non-market housing must be scaled up to restore the health of the national housing system.
The report underscores that treating housing primarily as a commodity for wealth generation has exacerbated inequities. In contrast, non-market housing prioritizes community value and permanent affordability.
By examining the insights from leading advocates such as Dr. Carolyn Whitzman, Stéphan Corriveau, Margaret Pfoh, and Olga Tasci, this article explores how shifting focus toward non-speculative models can address the diverse needs of Canadians, from Indigenous communities to persons with disabilities.
The Current State of Non-market Housing in Canada
To understand the urgency of the crisis, one must first look at the stark disparities in Canada’s housing stock. Currently, social and non-market housing represents only 3.5% of Canada’s total housing supply, amounting to approximately 655,000 homes.
This figure is significantly lower than other Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries; for instance, the Netherlands maintains a non-market housing share of nearly 35%. This deficit indicates a systemic failure to prioritize public good over private profit.
Furthermore, research commissioned by the National Housing Council reveals that fewer than 5% of the units built under the federal government’s $82-billion National Housing Strategy (NHS) are affordable to those with the lowest incomes.
This statistic highlights a misalignment between government investment and the actual needs of the population. The panelists argued that without a strategic pivot toward non-market housing, the gap between housing supply and affordable demand will continue to widen, leaving millions of Canadians in precarious living situations.
The document emphasizes that the existing approach, which incentivizes private market development through measures like GST waivers on purpose-built rentals, often benefits high-end developments rather than affordable ones.
Because these tax breaks are proportional to the rent charged, they inadvertently encourage the construction of luxury units.
Therefore, expanding non-market housing is not just an option but a necessity to counteract the speculative forces driving up costs and displacing low-income residents.
A Rights-Based Approach to Defining Need
A central theme of the report is the need to redefine how housing need is calculated. Dr. Carolyn Whitzman, a housing rights advocate and researcher, presented findings from the Housing Assessment and Resource Tools (HART) project, which challenges traditional metrics used by institutions like the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC).
Standard reports often focus on middle-income homeownership affordability, ignoring the most marginalized segments of society.
Dr. Whitzman’s rights-based approach asks: “Who needs what housing, where, and at what cost?” Her research indicates that 1.1 million households, representing almost 80% of those in core housing need, are low-income and can afford a maximum of $1,050 per month.
Among these, 300,000 households are very low-income, relying on welfare or fixed incomes, and can afford no more than $420 per month. When accounting for the "uncounted" populations—including homeless individuals, students, migrant farm workers, and those in congregate housing—the current deficit stands at 3 million homes affordable to low- and very-low-income households, plus 1.3 million homes for moderate-income earners.
This methodology demonstrates that effective policy must "work backwards" from what the most marginalized can afford. By failing to use consistent, income-based definitions of affordability, current government programs miss the mark.
Non-market housing provides the framework to address these specific income brackets, ensuring that housing solutions are tailored to actual financial realities rather than market averages. Integrating these precise definitions into federal and provincial planning is essential for the successful deployment of non-market housing initiatives.
Strategic Recommendations for Scaling Non-market Housing
The panelists provided a robust set of recommendations for governments to effectively scale up the sector. A primary suggestion from Stéphan Corriveau, Executive Director of the Community Housing Transformation Centre, is to rename "non-market housing" to "non-speculative housing."
This terminology shift clarifies the fundamental purpose of the sector: to remove housing from the speculative market and ensure it remains a community asset.
Leveraging Assets and Public Land
One of the most significant barriers facing the non-market housing sector is the inability to leverage existing assets. Collectively, non-market providers own and manage over 650,000 units valued at more than $65 billion.
However, legislative and regulatory barriers prevent these organizations from using this equity to secure capital for new developments, a flexibility readily available to private developers.
Removing these barriers would allow the sector to self-finance growth, reducing reliance on direct government subsidies.
Additionally, the transfer of public land is identified as a crucial strategy. With 91% of land in Canada being public, and 65% of urban land under public ownership, there is a vast resource available for development.
Transferring viable land to community land trusts (CLTs) or non-market providers eliminates the cost of land acquisition, which is often inflated by speculation.
CLTs, governed by boards representing residents and community members, ensure that housing remains affordable in perpetuity, often for up to 100 years. This model not only reduces construction costs but also fosters stable, inclusive communities.
Financial Mechanisms and Direct Lending
Olga Tasci, CEO of the Agency for Co-operative Housing, emphasized the need for direct lending mechanisms. Current government co-investment funds are often inaccessible to non-market providers due to complex requirements.
Reinstating direct lending programs, similar to those previously offered by CMHC, would reduce borrowing costs and allow providers to develop more units with fewer taxpayer dollars.
Furthermore, creating mechanisms for individual investors to contribute capital—such as allowing RRSP contributions to flow into community land trusts—could unlock new sources of funding for permanently affordable housing.
Indigenous Leadership and Equity in Non-market Housing
Margaret Pfoh, CEO of the Aboriginal Housing Management Association (AHMA), highlighted the disproportionate impact of the housing crisis on Indigenous peoples. Indigenous people are 13 times more likely to experience homelessness than non-Indigenous people, and their core housing need is double that of the general population. Addressing this inequity requires a commitment to "For-Indigenous-by-Indigenous" leadership.
The recognition of the National Indigenous Collaborative Housing Inc. (NICHI) as the national leadership body for Indigenous housing is a step forward, but funding remains insufficient.
The report calls for the full utilization of the $4 billion designated for Urban, Rural, and Northern (URN) Indigenous housing to support NICHI’s goals. Moreover, governments must move beyond performative consultation to meaningful empowerment, respecting Indigenous autonomy and self-determination in housing design and management.
Pfoh also noted that housing must be viewed as healthcare. For Indigenous communities, stable housing is a central social determinant of health. Integrated funding models that combine housing with wraparound health services can yield significant returns on investment, estimated at up to 740% when considering savings in other government spending and improved social outcomes. This holistic approach underscores the broader societal benefits of investing in non-market housing.
Accessibility, Inclusivity, and Long-Term Sustainability
The discussion from the audience and panelists further illuminated the importance of accessibility and long-term sustainability in non-market housing. Persons with disabilities face a severe shortage of adequate, accessible housing.
The report calls for the federal government to mandate universal design in all federally funded housing projects, ensuring that spaces are inclusive and do not discriminate based on ability. This aligns with Canada’s obligations under the United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.
Moreover, the preservation of existing non-market stock is as critical as new construction. Olga Tasci pointed out that many older co-operative housing projects have paid off their mortgages, leading to the termination of operating agreements and the loss of rent-geared-to-income (RGI) subsidies.
Without renewed funding commitments beyond 2028, providers are hesitant to house the most vulnerable tenants, fearing future financial instability. Ensuring perpetual funding for rental assistance is vital to maintaining the integrity of the non-market housing sector.
Mixed-income housing was also discussed as a strategy to avoid the spatial concentration of poverty. While deeply affordable units are necessary, integrating various income levels within non-market developments can foster social cohesion and economic stability. However, this must be balanced with sufficient protections for low-income tenants to prevent displacement.
Conclusion
The "What We Heard Report" provides compelling evidence base for the expansion of non-market housing as a primary solution to Canada’s housing crisis. By shifting away from speculative market models and embracing a human rights-based approach, governments can address the urgent needs of low-income households, Indigenous communities, and persons with disabilities.
The recommendations outlined—ranging from the transfer of public land and legislative changes to asset leveraging, to the support of Indigenous-led initiatives—offer a clear roadmap for policy reform.
As the Federal Housing Advocate and the National Right to Housing Network emphasize, business as usual will not suffice. The progressive realization of the human right to adequate housing requires bold, sustained investment in non-market housing.
By prioritizing permanently affordable, non-speculative housing solutions, Canada can begin to close the affordability gap and ensure that housing serves as a foundation for dignity, health, and community well-being.
The path forward demands collaboration across all levels of government and a steadfast commitment to viewing housing not as a commodity, but as a fundamental human right.