Tent encampments in the park. Recipients of social assistance living in substandard accommodation. Indigenous communities dealing with inadequate and overcrowded housing. Would-be renters, including thousands of students, unable to access affordable rental options. Young people unable to imagine home ownership in their future.
One way and another, housing has become a high profile issue, occupying considerable space in the media, and in public and political discussion. Tiny houses, laneway houses, conversion of office buildings, “housing first” programs launched by non-profit organizations – all have had their moment in the sun as possible answers to the housing conundrum.
Since the end of the Second World War, Canada has usually been a reliable signatory of international human rights instruments, including the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, which was signed in 1976, the International Convention on the Rights of the Child, signed in 1991, and the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People, signed in 2010. In all of these, housing is identified as a human right, and states adopting these documents might reasonably be understood to be committing themselves to this proposition. Article 11 of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, for example, recognizes “the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and his family, including adequate food, clothing and housing.”
A cynic might observe that it is easy for the Government of Canada to make these international commitments, as many of them depend on the activity of provincial governments to make them effective. As a recent article in the Globe and Mail notes, though the federal government has a housing advocate who can exhort the provinces to do better, the provinces, with the exception of Prince Edward Island, have not yet characterized housing as a human right.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is also silent on the rights outlined in the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, though it has many provisions that reflect a sister document, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights – the fundamental freedoms, for example, or procedural rights in criminal proceedings. The courts have followed the lead of the drafters of the Charter, and have largely abstained from making decisions that would direct or influence the spending priorities of governments.
At the same time, though our attention may be caught by stories about what is described as a “housing crisis,” and we may feel sympathy for those Canadians who are inadequately housed or not housed at all, most of our discussion of housing is couched in terms of private investment and financial gain. Reports on the health of the economy point to rising real estate values as a positive sign, and the voices of property developers and investors are loud in the formulation of our public policies. The idea that housing should provide somewhere for all people to live safely and comfortably is obscured by our characterization of our houses as “assets,” and our entrenched view that exploitation of land by developers and housing starts are sure signs of economic progress.
Canadian governments at both the national and provincial level have designed and financed giant systems of health care and education, and have generally accepted that there is an obligation to ensure that all members of our society have access to these systems. Like housing, the discourse concerning health care and education is not usually framed in terms of human rights, but there is nonetheless an expectation that we will all be included in the programs that provide them. It is certainly possible to criticize these systems., and many do. The question of what is included and what is excluded from public investment – Post-secondary education, in or out? Drugs, in or out? Dental care, in or out? - can be hotly contested on occasion, but the comprehensiveness of our public health and education programs is remarkable.
It is to be expected that, like health care and education, the solution to housing issues lies in some combination of continued reliance on private investment and more attention to housing as a public good. It is hard to see how any progress can be made until we are at least prepared to have a conversation recognizing the right of everyone to be safe, warm and dry in stable accommodation, and to engage in a courageous examination of what it would take to get us there. Is a house, tiny or otherwise, a place to live or an asset? It is probably both, but we need to have a serious public discussion which focuses us more on how to ensure that everyone has access to the former, and does not entirely depend on the assumption that high real estate prices are a sign of the well-being of a society.
Dr. Beth Bilson, K.C., has been a faculty member in the College of Law at the University of Saskatchewan since 1979 and has held a number of administrative positions, including Dean of Law, Dean of Education and University Secretary. She is currently Emeritus Professor and recently co-authored the book Creating a Seat at the Table: Reflections from Women in Law.