The Temptations of Trite: How Policymakers Avoid Addressing Homelessness as a Structural Challenge

This article was co-written with contributions from Michelle Bilek, Jim Dunn, Jon Paul Mathias, Kateryna Metersky, Alex Nelson, Sophie O’Manique, Steven Rolfe, Colleen Van Loon, and Jeremy Wildeman.

---

Globally, researchers, service providers, advocates and lived experts who are trying to enact the prevention and ending of homelessness face various forms of government inertia. While United Nations member states have collectively signed onto the ‘right to adequate shelter’, ¹ actualizing this human right occurs in significantly varying degrees between them. While human rights are ubiquitous, there remains an underlying perception of ‘deserving poor’, even among adherents and advocates to those rights, whereby assistance is provided only to some and under limited criteria. The status quo, in the form of government inaction on the actualization of these human rights, resists the universalization of these rights by creating counter-narratives against those proposing policy action.

Without demonstrating accountability or adequate progress to actualize the right to housing, the Canadian federal government remains, in practice, deeply unserious about its obligations despite this right being named within the 2019 National Housing Strategy Act. ² Recent national trends demonstrate this unseriousness. First, the growth of encampments in communities across the country, with 80% of communities in Canada reporting an increase, shows that inadequate shelter is a national problem that the federal government has not adequately addressed. While systems transformations induced by the COVID-19 pandemic offered an opportunity to build substantial alternatives, we instead created more temporary solutions that found us in a worse homelessness situation in 2025 than in 2019. ³ Second, ongoing global political, economic, and environmental unrest have added additional stressors on the housing sectors in Canada. 

The term ‘trite’ is chosen for its meaning of being insufficiently thought-through and ineffective. That is, it is tempting for politicians to offer excuses or very mediocre solutions to complex social problems.

Ukrainian refugees, for instance, have fled to Canada due to the Russian invasion beginning in 2022, and were fast-tracked through the Canada-Ukraine Authorization for Emergency Travel program that included a promise of accommodation. ⁴ Research has found the lack of stable housing offered to Ukrainian refugees led to housing crises and rational but concerning responses, including some women engaging in sex work to secure housing. ⁵ Countries committed to the right to adequate housing do not allow for mass homelessness, or for newcomer women to have to engage in sex work to secure accommodation. According to the Implementation of the Right to Housing for Women, Girls, and Gender Diverse People in Canada, “homelessness is a prima facie violation of the right to housing.” ⁶  

All levels of government in Canada, like their peers globally, frequently engage in similar practices and storytelling to down-play the issue of housing inadequacy, or avoid acting on homelessness. We have noted five practices and narrative formations that Canadian governments use, enabling their negligence towards homelessness. These practices are presented as an intentional chronology that demonstrates increased acknowledgement of the issue, but not necessarily increased action. We have called these five practices the Temptations of Trite: how policymakers find convenient way to avoid taking significant action and accountability on homelessness in Canada. The term ‘trite’ is chosen for its meaning of being insufficiently thought-through and ineffective. That is, it is tempting for politicians to offer excuses or very mediocre solutions to complex social problems.

Temptation 1: Homelessness is a Choice

Governments respond to health and social problems that are of a certain degree of significance. Therefore, minimizing the significance of homelessness serves to minimize the response to it in government policies, programs, or funding. As public policy responses to issues are ideally ‘data driven,’ this practice to minimize homelessness helps build denial that it is present at all or exists in any solvable manner. Due to the high visibility of homelessness in most Canadian communities, however, governments cannot completely deny that homelessness exists. Instead, it has been common practice to use anecdotal evidence to suggest that homelessness is a personal choice, and therefore falls outside the realm of government responsibility. For example, in debating Premier Doug Ford’s suggestion to use the notwithstanding clause to remove encampments from parks, Hamilton Councillor Matt Francis referred to people experiencing homelessness as, “drug addicts using our parks as a provincial campground.” ⁷

This is seen frequently in debates about supporting people residing in encampments. Courts across the country have generally ruled that removing encampments is a violation of rights unless alternative housing is offered as an option, therefore, it is in the interest of local councils to determine that encampment residents are refusing options. Anecdotes are shared of how encampment residents have been offered access to shelter but declined such offers, thus demonstrating a perceived choice to remain homeless. One London City Councillor suggested that homeless people who refuse shelter should be detained. ⁸ Often missing from these narratives is the availability of safe or stable housing, accommodation of choice within the preferred area of the community, or accommodation that allows for pets or co-habitating with partners. Instead, the refusal of a particular offer, in a particular moment, without specific needs of the unhoused being met, is extrapolated by policymakers to remove government from responsibility. 

The denial is the existence of homelessness that can be addressed by the provision of tailored services, not of homelessness entirely. This pathway is trite, dismissing the needs of the unhoused and of those working on the frontlines of the housing crisis. 

Temptation 2: Undercounting homelessness

That governments only respond to problems that are significant, simply indicating that homelessness is present is not sufficient to garner action. While some jurisdictions will acknowledge the presence of homelessness, if the problem is perceived to be quite small then it is unlikely to warrant a policy or funding response. Therefore, governments can find ways to minimize the perceived scale of this issue. An accurate picture of homelessness requires all forms of housing insecurity and homelessness to be properly measured and accounted for. By failing to fully and properly engage with the harder-to-reach forms of homelessness, like hidden homelessness or “couch surfing,” policymakers fail to understand and address the full scope and scale of homelessness.

Hidden homelessness lacks a unified approach in how it is defined and counted, underplaying its existence and severity. Federal and provincial/territorial approaches to enumeration rely almost exclusively on street-level homelessness and people staying in shelters to estimate the prevalence of this issue. This overrepresents the experience of certain groups, like men, while making invisible the experiences of women, gender-diverse individuals, newcomers, Indigenous people, people with disabilities, and survivors of gender-based violence (GBV). ⁷

Perhaps one of the clearest examples of under-counting is how hidden homelessness is poorly captured within Point in Time (PiT) counts, one of the main sources of data Canada has on homelessness. The PiT count methodology involves surveying people experiencing homelessness over a maximum of 24 hours as a way of knowing the extent of this issue in different cities across the country, allowing for assessment of trends over time. ⁸ Hidden homelessness is acknowledged and those experiencing it can be enumerated if encountered by survey volunteers; however, there is no best practice for finding or reaching out to those in hidden homelessness. 

While it is true that enumerating populations experiencing hidden homelessness is challenging, the limits on enumeration contribute to under-reporting homelessness in Canada, distorting our overall understanding of the scale of homelessness and housing insecurity. A methodological decision like this creates an underlying assumption that hidden homelessness is not as ‘real’ as other forms of homelessness. This makes it difficult to design policies and programs to support individuals in this situation. Previous research demonstrates that hidden homelessness is more prevalent amongst already marginalized populations such as Indigenous people, people with disabilities, people who use substances, and women and gender-diverse people (especially those who have experienced GBV). ⁹ 

Considering that men are over-represented in emergency shelters and street-level homelessness; by not prioritizing outreach to those experiencing hidden homelessness, we are left with a distorted picture of the gender make-up of those facing severe housing insecurity in Canada. The “systemic undercounting” of women and gender-diverse people in populations experiencing housing precarity has serious consequences for this group. ¹⁰ 

This measure is particularly troubling when people are routinely being turned away from shelter. In a recent study: Nowhere to go: Gender Based Violence and Housing Insecurity in Ontario, researchers routinely heard from research participants that women and gender diverse people were staying in contexts in which they were experiencing GBV because of a lack of shelter or affordable housing options in their community. ¹¹ If GBV shelters had more capacity, these groups would then be included in PiT counts. In a housing crisis context, where shelters are at capacity, PiT counts must be understood more as a reflection of shelter capacity and admission criteria, combined with street homelessness demographics, than the actual scale and scope of the problem. By relying on narrow PiT counts as an accurate measure of homelessness, governments are chronically minimizing the scope of the issue.

Apart from the lack of a unified definition and inclusive data collection strategies, poor institutional cooperation contributes to undercounting less visible forms of homelessness. There is a systematic lack of cooperation between jurisdictions and public institutions that impedes an accurate estimate of the scope of homelessness in Canada. Hospitals offer an example: using the code Z59.0 for patients experiencing homelessness upon admission has been mandatory since 2019 for all facilities included in the Hospital Morbidity Database.  

In theory, this means that hospitals hold data that could be useful in shedding light on the scale of homelessness – this is especially relevant knowing that hospitals, as an emergency setting, represent a site of public healthcare access for those who have limited access to other modes of preventative healthcare. However, healthcare facilities and municipal and provincial/territorial governments usually lack data-sharing agreements, limiting how this information can be used and undercounting people who are experiencing homelessness outside of the shelter system. ¹²  Moreover, health and housing are deeply interconnected and acknowledging this through coordinated efforts strengthens advocacy around homelessness by aligning health care practitioners and frontline housing workers alike. ¹³ 

Temptation 3: Define and enumerate homelessness but then only present programmatic solutions 

Where governments comprehensively define and enumerate homelessness, government responses may still be inadequate, insufficiently addressing the scale of the problem. Indeed, in Canada we can see a significant move to suggest that Housing First as a community-level response (micro, not macro) is the singular approach needed to “solve” homelessness.

There is a strong focus on achieving fidelity to a Housing First approach, which is important, but it is impossible to achieve if affordable housing or sufficient supports are not available in the sector.

It is noted that Housing First is the best evidence-based intervention available in the sector, but the program takes a reactive, downstream approach, often focused primarily on chronic homelessness. Also, Housing First is impeded by higher-order structural factors such as the availability of affordable housing and availability of programs and services to keep people housed. ¹⁴ Put another way, nations with stronger infrastructure, including adequate social and public housing, are better positioned to implement Housing First effectively, whereas Canada’s dilapidated and insufficient housing stock compromises the aims of the model. 

Homelessness is a problem of income inequality, colonization, racism, and other structural factors that are not expected to be addressed with a programmatic response. Indeed, until we ‘turn off the tap’ by challenging the root causes of inequity, the scale of need will continue to expand unchecked and unaccounted for. But focusing on programs as the solution is a way for governments to shift the onus back onto the sector. There is a strong focus on achieving fidelity to a Housing First approach, which is important, but it is impossible to achieve if affordable housing or sufficient supports are not available in the sector. This focus on a programmatic approach then serves to shift blame back on the sector itself for failures to enact the right to housing, rather than allowing for an exploration of structural failures.

Narratives of the need to improve service delivery or program effectiveness are not necessarily wrong–they suggest helpful ways to look at the work from a micro-level perspective. However, service delivery improvements are not targeted sufficiently upstream. Simply shuffling service provision modalities without preventing homelessness or creating large scale truly affordable housing can, in a way, detract or distract from the policy reforms required. ¹⁵

Temptation 4: Acknowledge homelessness as a policy problem but ignore related policy realms

From enumeration to programming and prevention, shelters have come to occupy a central role in how we understand and address homelessness. From hospitals and jails to people fleeing from GBV, youth being kicked out of their homes, and newcomers facing economic hardships, shelters have become a catch-all solution due to Canada’s persistent failure to guarantee the right to adequate housing for any or all of these individuals and groups. ¹⁶ Thinking of policy and programming for people experiencing homelessness that is centred around shelters entails a problematic admission: that homelessness is a hallmark of our current housing system.

Decades of deliberate under-investment in social, affordable and deeply affordable housing have created a scenario where there is little place to go for people who cannot afford drastically unaffordable market rates. ¹⁷  People at-risk for housing often live with a disability, face discrimination due to personal identity factors, or are pushed out of their homes due to their sexual orientation, gender identity, and experiences of GBV. ¹⁸ Even though shelters prevent people from experiencing the climate-related risks of rough sleeping, they are far from a permanent or safe solution to housing insecurity. Not only are emergency shelters insufficient to qualify as permanent housing, but the housing system also itself is not up to the task of addressing an issue that is deeply linked to broader factors of poverty and exclusion. In fact, shelters can extend chronicity by meeting basic needs but without addressing underlying housing barriers or supporting preventative and long-term housing solutions.

To truly address homelessness, a comprehensive approach to social security and well-being needs to be adopted. Affordable housing programs need to exist in parallel to improved protections for tenants, robust rent regulations, enforceable housing rights, adequate income supports to meet the rising cost of living, and wrap-around services for people experiencing complex needs such as trauma, mental illness and substance use. ¹⁹ A comprehensive approach to social security is also part of the solution to address the crisis of homelessness and housing insecurity that is driven by the financialization of housing. Countless Canadians are forced to rely, often inadequately, on their housing as an asset to pay the costs of their retirement, while increasingly millions of Canadians are left in precarity, or worse. ²⁰

Temptation 5: Acknowledge policy needs but claim a lack of funds to address them

One of the most common government arguments when it comes to the lack of action to eliminate homelessness is resources: it is simply too expensive to solve the issue. It turns out that we have been addressing homelessness in the most expensive way possible, through the healthcare system, the shelter system and through policing, prosecuting, and incarcerating people experiencing homelessness. Research shows that homelessness drives up public costs, particularly in healthcare, where there is an increased need for emergency departments and inpatient services. Adults experiencing homelessness, especially those with mental health conditions, frequently require high-cost healthcare interventions and services.²¹

Homelessness also creates barriers to accessing primary healthcare, pushing individuals toward emergency healthcare, justice, and social services, which further strains public resources. ²² In 2020-21, the average annual cost of incarcerating an individual in a Canadian prison was $150,505. ²³ According to Andrew Boozary, executive director of University Health Network’s Gattuso Centre for Social Medicine in Toronto, a hospital bed costs $30,000 per patient monthly, and a shelter bed $6,000 monthly. In contrast, solutions like supportive housing can be implemented for $4,000 per month. ²⁴ 

Strategies such as Housing First, transitional housing, and supportive housing have proven to reduce costs in emergency shelter use. A study across Canadian cities—including Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, and Moncton—found that Housing First interventions had an 80 percent probability of being cost-effective, indicating their potential for delivering long-term financial savings and better outcomes for individuals with complex needs if adequate housing stock is provided. ²⁵ In Canada, affordable stock has been lacking for many decades.

Meanwhile, it is worth noting how in 2017 the federal government announced a substantial $72 billion funding package via the National Housing Strategy (NHS), aimed at restoring housing affordability and eliminating homelessness by 2030. That funding tranche had increased to $89 billion by 2023, with commitments up to $115 billion, with the timeline being extended over ten years, all while housing insecurity and homelessness reach new levels of crisis in Canada. ²⁶

This investment of over $100 billion demonstrates that governments do have sufficient funding to address homelessness, yet are enacting a costly, failing approach of using a significant portion of this funding for subsidizing private developers who by design are meant to focus on profit versus more non-market housing solutions. Even the non-profit housing funded by the NHS is tied to market principles that leave rents high and unapproachable to most populations facing housing risk.

Ultimately, our current failure to prevent and end homelessness invites two primary solutions: legislating the right to adequate housing with clear metrics and accountabilities and legislating across all domains of the public sector to address inadequacy of public services perpetuating of poverty.

The rollout of funding programs under the NHS has been widely criticized due to the lack of affordable housing it has created. An independent analysis of NHS funding programs noted that, “both the RCF and NHCF produce few units that would be affordable to people with very low incomes. This limits the extent to which these units can remove people from homelessness or prevent people from entering it.” ²⁷ Fulfilling the right to adequate housing means prioritizing deeply affordable housing options, such as expanding the capacity of rent-geared-to-income units offered via building many more units within this portfolio, as well as implementing enforceable housing rights where local authorities are legally required to provide permanent accommodations specific to their homelessness population.

To Do Better on Housing

Where governments deny homelessness exists, fail to collect data, offer only reactive short-term solutions, ignore relevant and related policy domains, or claim insufficient funding to address the issue, researchers and advocates need to play a key role in guiding the changes needed to make the right to adequate housing a reality in Canada. This means a shift from symbolic recognition to legal and constitutional reforms that explicitly define housing as a “binding” human right, protected by actionable standards and enforceable laws. In nations with decentralized housing frameworks, this means holding all orders of government legally accountable to fulfilling this commitment and ensuring that responsibility cannot be deflected from one order to the other. Achieving this requires strengthened legislation with clear metrics, allowing citizens to hold governments accountable via the judicial system, if required. Establishing such metrics would make it possible to distinguish between governments genuinely committed to housing rights and those prone to trite responses or solutions.

France’s Housing Act of 2007, for example, takes one step forward in terms of government accountability through the right to appeal for housing assistance. This is similar to the Housing Wales Act in the UK requiring accommodation for youth leaving care, or New York City’s right to emergency shelter. However, while a first step in terms of connecting rights to policy, in France the responsibility landing on under-resourced local authorities has led to a low rate of housing appeals leading to re-housing. ²⁸ For New York City, it’s not a right to permanent and safe housing, it is only a right to temporary accommodation via emergency shelter. In December 2012, Scotland, a renowned leader in establishing enforceable housing rights, reformed the Homelessness etc. (Scotland) Act 2003, which removed the fundamentally unjust perspective of providing homes solely to those in “priority need” and replaced it with the legal right for all people considered unintentionally homeless to be offered permanent accommodation by local authorities. This also meant a shift from managing to preventing homelessness and put pressure on local authorities to build stronger partnerships across public bodies, homeless and housing agencies and, more importantly, with individuals experiencing homelessness to directly assess and adequately address their housing needs. ²⁹

Ultimately, our current failure to prevent and end homelessness invites two primary solutions: legislating the right to adequate housing with clear metrics and accountabilities and legislating across all domains of the public sector to address inadequacy of public services perpetuating of poverty. These are big asks, but they are commensurate with the bold action needed to move beyond the temptations of trite to fix Canada’s housing crisis.

Notes

1. Office of the United Nations Commissioner for Human Rights (2010) ‘The Right to Adequate Housing,’ Fact Sheet No. 21/Rev.1, UN Habitat. Available: https://unhabitat.org/sites/default/files/documents/2019-05/fact_sheet_21_adequate_housing_final_2010.pdf ↩︎
2. Department of Justice Canada (2019) National Housing Strategy Act (S.C. 2019, c. 29, s. 313). Available: https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-11.2/FullText.html ↩︎
3. Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada (2023) ‘Homelessness Data Snapshot: Findings from the 2022 National Survey on Homeless Encampments,’ Reaching Home: Canada’s Homelessness Strategy. Available: https://housing-infrastructure.canada.ca/homelessness-sans-abri/reports-rapports/encampments-survey-2022-enquete-campements-eng.html [and] 
   Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada (2024) ‘Everyone Counts 2020-2022 – Results from the Third Nationally Coordinated Point-in-Time Counts of Homelessness in Canada,’ Reaching Home: Canada’s Homelessness Strategy. Available:  https://housing-infrastructure.canada.ca/homelessness-sans-abri/reports-rapports/pit-counts-dp-2020-2022-results-resultats-eng.html ↩︎
4. Immigration and Citizen Canada (2023) ‘Immigration measures and support for Ukrainians and their families.’ Available:  https://www.canada.ca/en/immigration-refugees-citizenship/services/immigrate-canada/ukraine-measures.html ↩︎
5. Toronto Metropolitan University (2024) ‘TMCIS Affiliate Highlight: Dr. Kateryna Metersky,’ Toronto Metropolitan Centre for Immigration and Settlement. Available: https://www.torontomu.ca/centre-for-immigration-and-settlement/publications/affiliate-highlights/affiliate-highlight-kateryna-metersky/ ↩︎
6. K. Schwan, M-E. Vaccaro, L. Reid & N. Ali (n.d.) Implementation of the Right to Housing for Women, Girls, and Gender Diverse People in Canada, Women’s National Housing & Homelessness Network. Available: https://womenshomelessness.ca/wp-content/uploads/EN_CHRC_13-1.pdf ↩︎
7. City of Hamilton (2024) Hamilton City Council Session, November 13, 2024. Available: https://youtu.be/ONmKQH-r0DE?t=7740,
   R. Richmond (26 July 2023) ‘Formal complaints, allegation of ‘vile behaviour’: Councillor on hot seat,’ London Free Press. Available: https://lfpress.com/news/local-news/formal-complaints-allegation-of-vile-behaviour-councillor-on-hot-seat, 
   S. O’Manique (July 2024) Nowhere to Go: Gender-Based Violence and Housing Insecurity in Ontario, Research Report,  Canadian Centre for Housing Rights. Available: https://housingrightscanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/CCHR-Nowhere-To-Go-GBV-and-housing-insecurity-in-Ontario-English-July-2024.pdf ↩︎
8. Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada (2024) ‘Everyone Counts – A Guide to Point-in-Time Counts in Canada, 4th Edition – Standards for Participation’. Available: https://housing-infrastructure.canada.ca/homelessness-sans-abri/resources-ressources/point-in-time-guide-denombrement-ponctuel-eng.html
   ↩︎
9. K. Schwan, M-E. Vaccaro, L. Reid, N. Ali & K. Baig (2021) The Pan-Canadian Women’s Housing & Homelessness Survey, Report. Available: https://womenshomelessness.ca/wp-content/uploads/EN-Pan-Canadian-Womens-Housing-Homelessness-Survey-FINAL-28-Sept-2021.pdf ↩︎
10. Ibid. ↩︎
11. O’Manique (2024) Nowhere to Go. ↩︎
12. Canadian Institute for Health Information (20 July 2023) ‘Better Quality Hospital Data for Identifying Patients Experiencing Homelessness.’ Available: https://www.cihi.ca/en/better-quality-hospital-data-for-identifying-patients-experiencing-homelessness ↩︎
13. K. Buccieri, A. Oudshoorn, T. Frederick, R. Schiff, A. Abramovich, A. Gaetz & C. Forchuk (2019) ‘Hospital discharge planning for Canadians experiencing homelessness.’ Housing, Care and Support, 22(1), 4–14. Available: https://doi.org/10.1108/HCS-07-2018-0015 ↩︎
14.  A. Oudshoorn (2022) ‘Editorial: What Housing First makes worse,’ International Journal on Homelessness, 2(2), 1-2. DOI: 10.5206/ijoh.2022.2.15399 ↩︎
15. A. Oudshoorn (2024) ‘Editorial: When science faces politics,’ International Journal on Homelessness, 4(3), 1–2. https://doi.org/10.5206/ijoh.2023.3.22260 ↩︎
16. The Office of the Federal Housing Advocate (2024) ‘Upholding Dignity and Human Rights:  The Federal Housing Advocate’s Review of Homeless Encampments – Final Report,’ Canadian Human Rights Commission, Ottawa. Available: https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/sites/default/files/documents/final-report-federal-housing-advocate-s-review-of-encampments_0.pdf ↩︎
17. Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada (2024) Solving the Housing Crisis: Canada’s Housing Plan. Available: https://housing-infrastructure.canada.ca/alt-format/pdf/housing-logement/housing-plan-logement-en.pdf ↩︎
18. F. Urrutia (2024) Unseen and Unaddressed – A Call to Action on Hidden Homelessness: Understanding and Estimating Hidden Homelessness in Saskatoon, Policy Brief, Canadian Centre for Housing Rights. Available: https://housingrightscanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2024/10/CCHR-PolicyBrief-HiddenHomelessnessSaskatoon-Sept2024.pdf ↩︎
19. Ibid. ↩︎
20. K. Wiens, L.C. Rosella, P. Kurdyak, et al. (2021) ‘Factors associated with higher healthcare costs in a cohort of homeless adults with a mental illness and a general cohort of adults with a history of homelessness,’ BMC Health Serv, Res 21, 555. Available: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12913-021-06562-6 ↩︎
21. Ibid. ↩︎
22. C. Lemoine, S. Loubière, M. Boucekine, V. Girard, A. Tinland, P. Auquier & French Housing First Study Group (2021) ‘Cost-effectiveness analysis of housing first intervention with an independent housing and team support for homeless people with severe mental illness: a Markov model informed by a randomized controlled trial,’ Social Science & Medicine, 272, 113692. Available: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.socscimed.2021.113692 ↩︎
23. Public Safety Canada (2024) Corrections and Conditional Release Statistical Overview 2022. Available: https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/rsrcs/pblctns/ccrso-2022/ccrso-2022-en.pdf ↩︎
24. E.A. Latimer, D. Rabouin, Z. Cao, A. Ly, G. Powell, T. Aubry, J. Distasio, S.W. Hwang, J.M. Somers, A.M. Bayoumi, C. Mitton, E.E.M. Moodie & P.N. Goering (2020) ‘Cost-Effectiveness of Housing First With Assertive Community Treatment: Results From the Canadian At Home/Chez Soi Trial,’ Psychiatric Services 71(1), 1020-1030. ↩︎
25. Ibid. ↩︎
26. J. Hardwick (15 October 2024 Oct 15) ‘Why the National Housing Strategy failed,’ Canadian Dimension. Available: https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/why-the-national-housing-strategy-failed ↩︎
27. C. Beer, T. McManus, A. Rand & S. Kundra (2022) ‘Analysis of affordable housing supply created unilaterally by National Housing Strategy Programs,’ National Housing Council Working Group on Improving the National Housing Strategy. Available: https://cms.nhc-cnl.ca/media/PDFs/analysis-affordable-housing-supply-created-unilateral-nhs-programs-eng.pdf ↩︎
28. N. Houard & C. Lévy-Vroelant (2013) ‘The (enforceable) right to housing: a paradoxical French passion,’ International Journal of Housing Policy, 13(2), 202-214. ↩︎
29.  F. King (2015) ‘Scotland: Delivering a Right to Housing,’ Journal of Law and Social Policy, 24(1), 155–161. Available: https://doi.org/10.60082/0829-3929.1214 ↩︎