Read the PDF here (ISBN 978-1-997048-27-5)

Executive Summary

This report examines the structure, governance, and financing of Canada’s community housing sector, underscoring how community housing systems operate across Canada and how existing funding arrangements affect the availability, stability, and affordability of housing.

The analysis addresses three central questions: 1) how Canada’s community housing sector is structured across federal, provincial, municipal, and non-profit actors; 2) how community housing is financed through government programs, operating subsidies, and capital financing mechanisms; and 3) what structural constraints and policy opportunities influence the sector’s capacity to expand and sustain affordable housing. By clarifying these institutional arrangements, the report aims to illustrate policy strategies that could strengthen the sector and promote its objectives Canada-wide. 

Canada’s housing system is currently experiencing significant affordability pressures. Rental costs in major metropolitan areas, including Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal, have risen substantially over the past decade, with long-term increases significantly outpacing income growth (Campbell, 2026; Statistics Canada, 2023). Although vacancy rates have improved modestly in some regions in recent quarters, lower-income households, younger renters, and recent immigrants continue to experience acute housing stress due to constrained affordable supply and regional disparities (Statistics Canada, 2025; Rana, 2026). Amid rising rents, escalating home prices, increasing homelessness, and widening socioeconomic inequality, renewed policy attention has turned toward the community housing sector as a central component of long-term housing reform (Government of Canada, 2026a; Canadian Centre for Housing Rights, 2021).

Community housing encompasses public, non-profit, and co-operative housing models that operate outside purely speculative market logics and provide below-market rental housing through institutional or regulatory affordability mechanisms (Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC), 2018a; Bates, 2022). As a supply-side approach, community housing plays a key role in maintaining long-term affordability through income-responsive rent structures. However, it has not consistently been the dominant policy instrument for addressing affordability (Pomeroy, 2022). Since the 1990s, many governments, including Canada, have increasingly relied on household-based subsidies, such as housing allowances and rent supplements, to assist low-income renters. Importantly, these demand-side supports frequently operate in conjunction with community housing systems. Rent-geared-to-income (RGI) subsidies and portable housing benefits often help tenants afford units in non-profit or co-operative housing, demonstrating that unit-based provision and household-based assistance function within a shared policy ecosystem rather than as entirely separate approaches to affordability (Suttor, 2016).

The contemporary community housing landscape in Canada includes several institutional components: legacy social housing projects operating under expiring operating agreements (BC Housing & BC Non-Profit Housing Association, 2018; O’Brien, 2012a; b); non-profit and co-operative housing providers (CMHC, 2018a; Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, n.d.); Indigenous urban housing organizations (National Indigenous Collaborative Housing Inc., n.d.; BC Housing, n.d.-d); and developments financed through recent federal initiatives such as the National Housing Strategy and the Build Canada Homes initiative (Government of Canada, 2026b; Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, 2025a). Evidence suggests that programs launched under the National Housing Strategy, including the National Housing Co-Investment Fund, have already supported projects that have moved from planning into construction and completion stages across multiple jurisdictions (Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, 2023; CMHC, 2026a). Nevertheless, the scale of new supply remains modest relative to estimated national housing need (Canadian Housing & Renewal Association (CHRA), 2021; Pomeroy, 2022).

Governance of community housing operates across multiple institutional scales. Federal leadership is exercised through legislation, fiscal transfers, and national programs (Government of Canada, 2026a; CMHC, 2026a); provinces regulate delivery systems and administer funding agreements ( Alberta Assisted Living and Social Services, 2025; Government of Ontario, n.d.); municipalities control land-use planning and zoning (Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria, 2023; Taylor & Dobson, 2020); and non-profit, co-operative, and Indigenous organizations own and operate housing assets (Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, n.d.; Chen, 2019). Financing is therefore structured through a vertically layered governance framework in which development costs are largely market-based while rents are capped through affordability rules (Segel-Brown, 2025; Government of British Columbia, 2026a). This structure generates a structural funding gap between market construction costs and income-restricted rental revenues. The gap is typically bridged through coordinated federal, provincial, and municipal funding contributions, along with philanthropic capital and emerging forms of social finance, producing a governance-mediated fiscal ecosystem rather than a set of isolated funding programs (CHRA, 2021).

Consequently, the system relies heavily on collaborative governance and cross-sector partnerships involving governments, non-profit and co-operative housing providers, private developers, philanthropic organizations, and intermediary institutions such as sectoral federations and technical assistance bodies (CHRA, 2021; Mongrain et al., 2025). While these arrangements allow resources and expertise to be pooled across sectors, they also increase institutional complexity. Capital stacking, multiple funding streams, regulatory requirements, and intergovernmental coordination can lengthen development timelines and raise transaction costs for community housing projects (Segel-Brown, 2025; Campbell, 2026).  

The governance system also generates structural tensions. Vertical fragmentation across levels of government can complicate planning and financing processes, while uneven administrative capacity across jurisdictions may limit the ability of smaller housing providers, particularly Indigenous organizations, to access available programs (Low & Breton, 2024; Ecotrust Canada, 2025). Indigenous urban housing governance illustrates both the potential and vulnerability of community-controlled housing delivery. Historically supported through the Urban Native Housing Program, these organizations have faced reduced structural support since the 1990s, limiting their capacity to expand housing supply (Low & Breton, 2024). As a result, non-market housing today represents only about 3–5 percent of Canada’s total housing stock, underscoring the limited scale of the sector relative to national housing demand (Pomeroy, 2022; Campbell, 2026).

Canada’s historical social housing model relied on long-term federal operating agreements that enabled deeply affordable rents through RGI mechanisms. However, many of these agreements have expired since the 1990s (BCNPHA, 2018; Pomeroy, 2016). Although newer initiatives such as the National Housing Strategy and Build Canada Homes signal renewed federal engagement and modest supply expansion, their focus on capital financing and market-relative affordability has raised concerns about the depth and durability of affordability outcomes (Government of Canada, 2026b; Segel-Brown, 2025). Affordability definitions tied to market benchmarks may not adequately reflect the needs of households in core housing need, and the shift toward loan-based financing has transferred greater financial risk to non-profit housing providers (Pomeroy, 2022; Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, 2025c). Research suggests that a substantial share of legacy units may face financial instability as operating agreements expire during the 2020s and 2030s (Pomeroy, 2022; Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, 2025c). 

Drawing on peer-reviewed research, federal program documentation, and parliamentary fiscal analyses, this report identifies several structural constraints that limit the ability of Canada’s community housing system to expand and sustain affordable housing supply. Financial constraints remain a persistent challenge. The sector relies on layered funding arrangements that combine federal, provincial, and municipal contributions with private and philanthropic capital, producing uncertainty in both project development and long-term operations. Limited long-term operating subsidies restrict predictable revenue streams necessary for maintenance, capital reinvestment, and long-term asset preservation (CHRA, 2021; Segel-Brown, 2025). At the same time, regulatory and policy frameworks can constrain access to alternative financing instruments, limiting the ability of non-profit providers to leverage assets or access private capital markets (Mongrain et al., 2025).

Capital and asset constraints further affect system performance. Rising land values, construction costs, and financing expenses make it increasingly difficult to develop new affordable housing units, while aging community housing stock requires substantial reinvestment to maintain habitability and affordability (Statistics Canada, 2025; CMHC, 2025b). Limited policy tools for preserving low-rent housing also expose the sector to risks associated with financialization and loss of existing affordable units (Pomeroy, 2022).

Governance and administrative constraints also shape sector outcomes. Fragmented responsibilities across levels of government, combined with complex co-funding arrangements, can create administrative burdens that disproportionately affect smaller housing providers. These challenges are particularly significant for Indigenous housing organizations and community-based providers with limited administrative capacity (Ecotrust Canada 2025; Low & Breton, 2024).

Regulatory and policy constraints also influence the pace and scale of development. Community housing projects depend heavily on municipal land-use authority, zoning decisions, and intergovernmental coordination (Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria, 2023; Taylor & Dobson, 2020). Administrative complexity and regulatory fragmentation can therefore delay development timelines and hinder innovation in housing delivery. Political priorities further shape program implementation, as government commitments to community housing often vary across electoral cycles and policy agendas (Segel-Brown, 2025; Campbell, 2026).

Taken together, these constraints reveal a structural mismatch between capital-focused funding programs and the long-term financial conditions required to sustain deeply affordable housing. To address these challenges, research in housing policy suggests several strategic directions. Reintroducing sustained operating subsidies linked to RGI models would help stabilize revenue streams for non-profit and co-operative housing providers, ensuring predictable funding for maintenance and long-term reinvestment (BC Housing, n.d.-c; Pomeroy, 2022). Establishing affordability benchmarks tied to household income rather than market rents could strengthen protections for lower-income households and reduce exposure to market volatility (Statistics Canada, 2023; Campbell, 2026). Expanding preservation funding would also help protect existing low-rent housing stock from financial pressures or market conversion (Pomeroy, 2022).

Policy design may also benefit from examining international financing models that expand access to private capital while preserving affordability. In the United States, for example, mechanisms such as the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit and the Community Reinvestment Act have successfully mobilized private investment in affordable housing while reducing financial risk for non-profit developers. Adapted forms of these instruments could support the development of complementary financing tools in Canada, particularly if accompanied by regulatory reforms that allow non-profit housing organizations to leverage assets and equity more effectively within market-based development systems (Pomeroy, 2016; 2022). 

Municipal governments also play a critical role in expanding affordable housing supply. Through zoning reforms, land-use planning, and the strategic use of publicly owned land, municipalities can reduce development costs and facilitate partnerships with non-profit and Indigenous housing providers (Atkey et al., 2022; Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria, 2023). Integrating housing policy with broader urban planning and climate adaptation strategies can further ensure that new developments contribute to sustainable and resilient communities (Taylor & Dobson, 2020). However, municipal tools alone cannot address long-term financial sustainability challenges without complementary provincial and federal support (Government of Canada, 2026a). 

Strengthening the community housing sector also requires recognizing non-profit, co-operative, and Indigenous housing organizations as active institutional actors rather than solely as implementers of government programs. A robust sector can function as a community-embedded developer and long-term steward of affordable housing assets, drawing on local governance structures, financial management capacity, and community knowledge to design and operate housing solutions (Bates, 2022; Chen, 2019). Greater financial autonomy, such as the ability to leverage assets, access alternative capital sources, and innovate in housing design and management, could enable these organizations to expand affordable housing supply while maintaining long-term affordability commitments (Pomeroy, 2016; Mongrain et al., 2025; CHRA, n.d.; Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, n.d.).

At the same time, government action remains essential. Sustained operating subsidies, regulatory flexibility, and coordinated intergovernmental policy frameworks are necessary to create the enabling conditions that allow non-profit and co-operative housing providers to operate effectively while ensuring accountability for public investment (Segel-Brown, 2025; O’Brien, 2012a; b). In this governance model, community housing organizations act as locally embedded developers and stewards of affordable housing, while governments provide the financial, regulatory, and institutional infrastructure necessary to support long-term affordability (Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, 2025b; Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada, 2023). Overall, Canada’s community housing sector represents a critical foundation for inclusive and income-responsive housing policy. Experiences such as British Columbia’s dual-track approach, distinguishing between government-driven programs like the Rental Production Fund and sector-led initiatives such as the Community Housing Fund, illustrate how sector autonomy and government support can operate in parallel to expand affordable housing supply (Chen, 2019; Housing Central, 2024). Achieving a sustainable balance between sector independence and public support can strengthen system resilience, promote innovation, and ensure durable affordability outcomes for lower-income households across Canada (Pomeroy, 2016; Mongrain et al, 2025).

Background and Policy Context

Canada’s housing system continues to experience a pronounced affordability crisis, with rental housing emerging as a particularly critical pressure point (Pomeroy, 2022; Statistics Canada, 2022). Although national rent growth moderated slightly in 2025 (5.1% for two-bedroom purpose-built apartments, down from 5.4% in 2024) (Government of British Columbia, 2026c; Rana, 2026), many households, particularly those in major urban centres, remain heavily burdened (CMHC, 2025a). Vacancy rates increased nationally to 3.1%, easing some market tightness (CMHC, 2025b); however, renters in cities such as Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal continue to spend well above one-third of their incomes on housing, with some approaching the 40% “crisis” threshold (Ali, 2025). Long-term trends further illustrate the severity of the problem. For example, asking rents for two-bedroom units in Montreal increased by approximately 71% between 2019 and 2025, while smaller cities across Quebec experienced roughly doubled rents over the same period (Statistics Canada, 2025).

Despite the recent moderation in overall rental inflation, the supply of housing units affordable to lower-income households remains extremely limited (CMHC, 2026b). Regional disparities are also pronounced. Vancouver and Toronto continue to maintain high rent levels despite recent market softening, whereas rental markets in Western and Prairie provinces remain comparatively more balanced (Campbell, 2026). Nationally, approximately one-third of Canadians rent their homes, and the number of renters has grown faster than the number of homeowners over the past decade (Statistics Canada, 2022). Younger households, including Millennials, and recent immigrants are disproportionately represented among renters, highlighting the demographic pressures shaping Canada’s rental market (Statistics Canada, 2023). When combined with elevated unemployment—6.8% nationally in late 2025, with youth unemployment considerably higher (Benchetrit, 2025), these factors intensify housing stress for lower-income households, many of whom struggle to access stable and affordable rental options.

Amid this profound and persistent housing affordability crisis, the community housing sector has re-emerged as a central policy concern (Suttor, 2016). Community housing, broadly defined as publicly owned, non-profit, and co-operative housing operating outside purely market-driven ownership models, occupies a critical position as the primary non-market housing pillar capable of delivering income-sensitive affordability (CMHC, 2022a; Government of Canada, n.d). This is because such housing models can stabilize rents, maintain long-term affordability, and target support to low- and moderate-income households without relying on speculative market mechanisms (Suttor, 2016). By anchoring units to RGI frameworks and leveraging organizational governance structures, community housing provides predictable housing access and supports social inclusion (Pomeroy, 2025). In this way, it functions as a durable complement to market-based housing while mitigating the volatility and exclusionary tendencies that can characterize private rental markets.

Community housing governance in Canada operates across federal, provincial, and municipal scales; however, the specific mechanisms and programs through which this governance occurs are currently in flux (Segel‑Brown, 2025), particularly considering recent federal policy changes. The federal government, primarily through CMHC, has historically established funding frameworks and bilateral agreements that support community housing development and operations (CMHC, n.d.-d). Yet the rapid winding down of several legacy programs (Segel‑Brown, 2025), combined with limited immediate replacements (Zimonjic, 2025) relative to the Build Canada Homes (BCH) initiative (BC Housing 2026), has introduced a degree of uncertainty regarding how federal support will be delivered and prioritized in the coming years (Zimonjic, 2025). 

At the same time, provinces continue to administer many of the regulatory and programmatic responsibilities associated with housing policy, while municipalities shape land-use planning, zoning frameworks, and development approvals that determine where and how housing can be built (Department of Finance Canada, 2023; Atkey et al., 2022). 

A rights-based approach to housing underscores the necessity of effective intergovernmental coordination, as systemic housing shortages and affordability gaps are embedded across jurisdictions (Canadian Human Rights Commission, n.d.-a). However, the timing, scope, and operational logic of the Build Canada Homes initiative are still being defined in relation to existing federal housing programs, with ongoing efforts to coordinate delivery across overlapping funding streams and institutional arrangements (Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, 2025a; c; 2026a). This evolving policy environment highlights the importance of adaptive governance strategies capable of responding to institutional uncertainty while sustaining long-term affordability objectives. 

Defining Community Housing in Canada

For the purposes of this paper, community housing refers to non-market rental housing owned and/or governed by non-profit organizations, housing co-operatives, Indigenous housing providers, and municipal or arm’s-length public housing corporations. This definition distinguishes community housing from investor-owned, market-based rental housing based on ownership structure, governance, and affordability mandates (CMHC, 2018a). 

Figure 1. Community housing as situated within the broader housing continuum (CMHC, 2018a)

Community housing emerged historically through post-war federal–provincial programs that financed public housing, non-profit housing, and co-operative housing between the 1950s and the early 1990s (Suttor, 2016). Public housing, such as municipal housing corporations (e.g., Toronto Community Housing), consists of professionally managed, government-owned units, whereas non-profit and co-operative housing typically operate under board-led or member-governed organizational structures (Government of British Columbia, 2021). Indigenous housing providers, although forming a smaller but critical component of the sector, operate under distinctions-based and culturally grounded governance frameworks (National Indigenous Collaborative Housing Inc, n.d.).

Whether or not market-rent units owned by community housing operators should be considered community housing is complicated by practical ambiguity (Sullivan, 2025). Community housing can be conceptualized as a multi-dimensional institutional field in which unit characteristics (tenure and affordability), governance frameworks (multi-level public and non-profit oversight), financing mechanisms (public subsidies and layered capital structures), and population needs (targeting low-income or vulnerable groups) interact to shape outcomes (CHRA, n.d.; Evans, 2021). A defining feature of community housing is that it generally operates outside conventional market rent-setting mechanisms, with rents determined through RGI formulas, below-market fixed rents that are internally cross-subsidized, or operating agreements tied to public financing conditions (CitySpaces Consulting Ltd., 2018; Ontario Non‑Profit Housing Association, 2025; Suttor, 2016). While some housing units may be held within private, market-oriented ownership structures but receive public subsidies, the core defining characteristic of community housing is collective or public ownership and governance arrangements that ensure long-term affordability. In cases where market-owned units are included within community housing programs, such arrangements are typically limited and contingent upon specific program rules (Sullivan, 2025). Consequently, affordability mandates and governance structures, rather than ownership type alone, determine whether these units align with community housing objectives (CHRA, n.d.; Leloup et al., 2024).

Collective or public ownership plays an important role in removing housing units from speculative market pressures, thereby structurally embedding affordability (Suttor, 2016). Addressing the role of mixed-income models is also necessary for a balanced discussion. While collective or public ownership remains the defining mechanism for community housing, many governments promote mixed-income approaches as a strategy for integrating affordable units with market-rate housing (Bates, 2022). Evidence suggests that mixed-income strategies may support internal cross-subsidization and encourage broader social integration (CHRA, 2021). However, community housing organizations frequently report challenges in implementing these models, including concerns related to financial sustainability, governance complexity, and the potential dilution of affordability objectives within developments that remain predominantly market oriented. As a result, although mixed-income approaches are commonly encouraged in policy discourse, they do not replace the stabilizing effects of collective or public ownership. Their effectiveness ultimately depends on careful program design, adequate subsidy structures, and clear regulatory support (Perwani & Whitzman, 2025). 

Community housing also places strong emphasis on sustained and durable affordability. Unlike the short-term affordability covenants often attached to private developments, non-profit and co-operative housing models typically maintain affordability over multiple decades through long-term operating agreements and governance structures designed to preserve affordability (Suttor, 2016). However, the gradual expiration of federal operating agreements beginning in the 2000s has raised concerns regarding the potential erosion of long-term affordability, highlighting the sector’s continued dependence on sustained policy support (CitySpaces Consulting Ltd., 2018; O’Brien, 2012a; b).

In addition to affordability considerations, community stewardship functions as an important normative principle within the sector (Foroughi, 2013). Under this principle, housing is treated as a social good that is managed for community benefit rather than as a commodity optimized for profit (Chen, 2019). Housing co-operatives are grounded in democratic member control, while non-profit housing providers operate under mission-focused boards with fiduciary obligations to the community rather than to shareholders. Participatory governance models can enhance social cohesion, strengthen tenant accountability, and improve responsiveness to local needs (BC Housing, n.d.-e; Morris, 2015). At the same time, such governance arrangements require significant organizational capacity and leadership stability in order to function effectively. In Indigenous housing contexts, stewardship also incorporates principles of self-determination and culturally informed governance, embedding housing provision within broader frameworks related to land, identity, and collective rights (Ecotrust Canada, 2025).

Governance and financial structures operate simultaneously across federal, provincial, and local scales and influence both affordability and access. These dimensions underscore that community housing is not simply a housing type but rather a complex policy domain in which socio-economic objectives, institutional arrangements, and fiscal instruments converge to mediate affordability and tenure security for diverse populations (Housing Partnership Canada, 2015).

Figure 2 illustrates the multi-dimensional structure of community housing in Canada, emphasizing how unit characteristics, governance frameworks, financing arrangements, and population considerations interact to shape the sector (Schiff & Wilkinson, 2022). 

Historical Foundations: Post-War Expansion, Federal Retrenchment, and Policy Shifts

Canadian housing scholarship generally identifies three broad phases in federal housing policy: expansion (1940s–early 1990s), retrenchment and devolution (1990s–mid-2010s), and partial reinvestment beginning in 2017. Community housing in Canada developed largely through federal–provincial initiatives that financed public, non-profit, and co-operative housing from the post-war period through the early 1990s (Suttor, 2016).

The post-war social housing system comprised public housing authorities, non-profit housing corporations, and housing co-operatives operating under RGI frameworks (Smith, 2024). These frameworks calculate tenant rent as a fixed proportion of household income, typically around 30 percent, rather than linking rent levels to prevailing market prices. Federal subsidies compensated housing providers for the difference between income-based rents and the actual operating, financing, and capital costs associated with housing provision. Long-term operating agreements, typically lasting between 25 and 50 years, enabled deep affordability at scale. By the late 1970s, more than 200,000 deeply subsidized housing units had been constructed (Béland et al., 2017; Hulchanski, 2003).

Urban Indigenous housing formed an important component of this period of expansion. Programs such as the Urban Native Housing Program enabled Indigenous non-profit housing corporations to deliver culturally grounded and community-controlled RGI housing within urban contexts. These initiatives combined income-based affordability mechanisms with tenant support services and culturally specific governance structures designed to reflect Indigenous community needs and priorities (Low & Breton, 2024).

However, beginning in the early 1990s, the federal government withdrew from new social housing commitments and devolved funding responsibility to the provinces (Smith, 2024). Many long-term operating agreements were subsequently allowed to expire without the introduction of replacement programs, resulting in a fragmented and provincially administered framework characterized by reduced federal support (Hulchanski, 2003). Estimates suggest that approximately 40 percent of expiring operating agreements, representing 31 percent of housing units, would be financially non-viable without continued subsidies, while as many as 80 percent of units may face risk once subsidy flows end (CitySpaces Consulting Ltd. 2018; O’Brien, 2012b). At the same time, the community housing sector increasingly serves tenants with higher levels of need while operating within a context of declining fiscal capacity. Reduced long-term structural support from federal agencies since the 1990s has constrained the sector’s ability to expand supply and has heightened financial risk for housing providers (Hulchanski, 2003; Smith, 2024). As a result, non-market housing currently represents only about 3–5 percent of Canada’s total housing stock, underscoring the urgent need to scale up supply if meaningful relief is to be provided for households priced out of private rental markets (OECD, 2025). 

Against this backdrop, Section 2 examines how Canada’s community housing sector is governed, institutionally structured, and financially organized to advance its core affordability and social equity objectives within an evolving and increasingly market-oriented public policy environment. To achieve this objective, a comprehensive structural analysis of the contemporary community housing system was conducted, situating current governance and financing arrangements within the longer historical trajectory of social housing expansion, federal retrenchment, and subsequent partial reinvestment.

Drawing on federal program documentation, parliamentary fiscal reports, and peer-reviewed scholarship, the analysis evaluates key policy instruments, particularly the National Housing Strategy (Government of Canada, 2026a) and the Build Canada Homes (BCH) initiative (Government of Canada, 2026b), while tracing institutional and financial transformations from the post-war expansion of social housing, through federal withdrawal in the early 1990s (Hulchanski, 2003), and into contemporary projections extending to 2035.

Subsequent sections examine the community housing sector’s institutional structure, dominant financing mechanisms, and multi-level governance arrangements, including Indigenous housing governance and cross-sector partnerships. Building on this structural analysis, a dedicated assessment section evaluates the effectiveness of current policy approaches, with particular attention to the shift from operating subsidies to capital-based financing, intergovernmental coordination challenges, and resulting gaps in affordability and delivery capacity. The report then synthesizes these findings to identify key governance tensions, outlines policy recommendations for federal, provincial, and municipal governments, and concludes with reflections on scaling the sector and implications for future research.

Policy and Legal Environment Underpinning Community Housing in Canada

This section situates Canadian community housing within a multi-layered legal and policy ecosystem shaped by federal, provincial, and municipal legislation, strategies, and collaborative frameworks (CMHC, 2018a). Co-operative, non-profit, and municipal housing models operate within this intergovernmental system, which provides the statutory and operational foundations for governance, financing, and program delivery. Implementation is structured through multi-level coordination, cost-sharing arrangements, sectoral partnerships, and active sector associations. At the same time, legal mandates and participatory policy frameworks support resident engagement and culturally appropriate approaches to housing provision (Housing Partnership Canada, 2015).

Understanding this institutional landscape is essential for assessing governance capacity, policy coherence, and implementation effectiveness within Canada’s community housing sector. The following subsections examine the key legislative instruments, governance models, intergovernmental mechanisms, and the role of sector associations that underpin the system, highlighting their purposes, strengths, challenges, and stages of development.

Cooperative Governance

Governance structures play a central role in the functioning of community housing because they shape how affordability commitments are maintained, how tenants participate in decision-making, and how housing providers remain accountable to both residents and public funders (CMHC, 2018b). Co-operative housing relies on governance frameworks that facilitate tenant engagement while ensuring structured organizational management (Co‑operative Housing Federation (CHF) of British Columbia, 2017). Provincial statutes, such as Ontario’s Housing Services Act, provide a legal basis for local housing delivery and governance, ensuring that co-operatives and non-profit providers operate within formal frameworks that support tenant participation and operational compliance (Ontario Ministry of Municipal Affairs and Housing, 2011). However, the scope and application of such legislation varies across provinces, producing uneven governance practices (CMHC, 2018b; c). Municipal governments further influence co-operative housing through planning instruments, including zoning regulations and development bylaws. These tools enable municipalities to facilitate co-operative housing development, although their effectiveness varies considerably, resulting in different local capacity for land acquisition and project approval (Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria, 2023; Atkey et al., 2022).

Housing co-operatives are member-governed organizations, typically structured around democratic participation and collective decision-making (CMHC, 2018c). Sector representation and technical support are provided by national and sector-level associations, most notably the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. Historically funded through federal operating agreements, housing co-operatives remain a central component of Canada’s non-market housing stock and continue to play a key role in delivering long-term affordability through community-based governance structures (Cooperative Housing Federation (CHF) Canada, 2020). 

Beyond statutory governance frameworks, additional institutional supports contribute to governance capacity within the community housing sector. One important example is the Community Housing Transformation Centre (CHTC), an independent, sector-led organization created by Canada’s major community housing associations and funded through the National Housing Strategy (The Agency for Co‑operative Housing, 2020). CHTC provides capacity-building initiatives, operational toolkits, governance resources, and sectoral transformation support that strengthen tenant engagement, organizational management, and institutional learning across both co-operative and non-profit housing providers. While funded through federal policy frameworks, CHTC operates independently of federal, provincial, and municipal governments and reflects a collaborative sector-led initiative designed to strengthen governance capacity across the community housing system (CHTC, 2024).

Additional sector organizations further illustrate the hybrid governance structure within which community housing operates. CHF Canada functions as a membership organization representing housing co-operatives, providing governance training, technical guidance, and policy advocacy on behalf of the sector (CHF Canada, 2020). Meanwhile, The Agency for Co-operative Housing administers federally funded operating agreements for housing co-operatives, managing program compliance and financial oversight associated with legacy federal funding arrangements (The Agency for Co‑operative Housing, 2020). Together, these organizations demonstrate the dual nature of governance within Canada’s community housing system: although the sector exercises elements of self-governance and professional oversight, it remains structurally connected to public funding streams and federal program conditions (Pomeroy, 2016;17).

As a result, co-operative and non-profit housing in Canada operates within a multi-layered governance constellation that reflects both sectoral self-governance and dependence on state support (BCNPHA, 2025; Government of Canada, 2018). Provincial statutes, municipal planning instruments, and organizational governance structures establish the core framework for operational oversight and tenant engagement (Government of Canada, 2018; Taylor & Dobson 2020). Complementing these statutory mechanisms, independent sector bodies such as the CHTC (n.d.), CHF Canada (n.d.), and The Agency for Cooperative Housing (n.d.) provide governance coordination, operational guidance, and sector-wide capacity-building initiatives funded through the National Housing Strategy (Housing Central, 2024). Although the resources provided by these organizations are not legally mandatory, they play a significant role in strengthening governance knowledge and regulatory awareness across the community housing sector. Guidance documents, operational toolkits, tenant rights manuals, and policy briefs provide practical frameworks that assist community housing organizations in navigating complex legal and operational requirements while supporting effective tenant engagement and governance practices (Housing Central, 2024).

Taken together, this constellation of statutory frameworks and sector-led associations illustrates how Canadian community housing operates within a governance system that balances local autonomy, tenant participation, and sector self-regulation with ongoing reliance on state-supported funding programs (Bendaoud, 2018). In this context, sector associations play a critical role in complementing formal legal frameworks by enabling knowledge sharing, institutional coordination, and collective advocacy across co-operative and non-profit housing providers (CHF Canada, 2020).

While housing co-operatives rely on member-based governance rooted in democratic participation and collective decision-making, non-profit housing organizations typically operate through board-led governance models that separate strategic oversight from day-to-day operational management (CHF Canada, n.d.; Penfold et al. 2016). Both governance structures seek to preserve affordability, ensure regulatory compliance, and maintain accountability to residents and public funders. However, the institutional mechanisms through which these objectives are pursued differ, reflecting variations in organizational structure, legal frameworks, and relationships with government funders (Gibson, 2024). Understanding these differences is important for assessing governance capacity across the broader community housing sector.

Non-Profit Board-Led Governance

Non-profit housing organizations in Canada generally operate under board-led governance structures, in which volunteer or appointed boards are responsible for strategic oversight, financial stewardship, compliance with regulatory requirements, and the long-term sustainability of housing assets (Leone & Carroll, 2010). Within these governance arrangements, boards must balance operational management, often delegated to professional staff, with broader fiduciary and mission-driven obligations, including the preservation of affordability, the provision of tenant services, and ongoing community engagement.

Provincial statutory frameworks, such as Ontario’s Housing Services Act and equivalent legislation in other provinces, provide formal guidance regarding governance responsibilities, reporting obligations, and operational parameters for service managers and non-profit housing providers (Government of Ontario, n.d.). However, significant jurisdictional variation persists across Canada, producing divergent governance expectations, compliance mechanisms, and funding arrangements across provinces and territories (Pomeroy, 2017). For example, in Ontario, non-profit boards are accountable both to provincial funders and, indirectly, to municipal housing authorities, whereas in British Columbia boards primarily liaise with provincial housing agencies and arm’s-length municipal service providers (Pomeroy et al., 2015). These differences illustrate how governance arrangements within the non-profit housing sector are shaped by distinct provincial administrative systems and institutional relationships (Turner, 2007).

At the federal level, the National Housing Strategy Act (NHSA) establishes broad rights-based objectives for housing policy, including the promotion of affordability, equity, and long-term sustainability. Although these objectives are not legally binding at the level of individual housing providers, non-profit boards frequently use the NHSA as a framework for strategic alignment, long-term planning, and policy advocacy, incorporating federal priorities into local programmatic and organizational decisions. The NHSA’s emphasis on intergovernmental coordination also influences board-level considerations related to funding applications, partnership development, and portfolio management, particularly when capital programs require co-funding from provincial or municipal governments (Canadian Human Rights Commission, n.d.-b).

Governance capacity within the non-profit housing sector is further supported by sector associations that provide training, standards development, and policy coordination. Organizations such as the BC Non-Profit Housing Association (BCNPHA), the Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association (ONPHA), and the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association (CHRA) play a central role in strengthening governance capacity by establishing professional standards, offering training and technical guidance, and coordinating sector-wide advocacy initiatives. Non-profit boards frequently rely on these associations to navigate complex legal and administrative frameworks, build organizational resilience, and exchange best practices with peer organizations (Pomeroy, 2017).

Board capacity and governance sophistication vary widely across the community housing sector, influencing organizational resilience, risk management practices, and the ability to engage effectively with layered financing mechanisms (Pomeroy, 2017). Larger non-profit housing providers increasingly adopt portfolio-based management approaches and formalized risk assessment protocols to manage complex funding streams and financial instruments. In contrast, smaller organizations often rely on project-specific expertise or external intermediaries to obtain governance support and technical capacity (Wiebe, 2016; Moskalyk, 2008). These differences underscore the heterogeneity of the non-profit housing sector and highlight the critical role of board governance in maintaining both regulatory compliance and mission fidelity within an evolving multi-level policy environment (Mongrain et al., 2025; Pomeroy, 2016).

Municipal Ownership and Arm’s-Length Models

Municipal ownership and arm’s-length governance models operate within a complex provincial–municipal policy matrix that reflects both statutory authority and administrative delegation. These arrangements are guided by provincial statutes and municipal charters that define the legal authority of local governments to participate in housing governance and delivery (Atkey et al., 2022). In British Columbia, legislative instruments such as the Vancouver Charter and the broader Community Charter grant municipalities authority over zoning, land use planning, and community housing tools, enabling local decision-making and program implementation (City of Vancouver, n.d.). Through these statutory powers, municipalities can facilitate housing development, regulate land use, and deploy planning instruments that support the expansion of non-market housing (Atkey et al., 2022; Taylor & Dobson, 2020).

Provincial legislation further shapes municipal responsibilities and governance practices. In British Columbia, measures such as the Housing Supply Act (Bill 43) and the Small-Scale Multi-Unit Housing Act (Bill 44) establish additional policy requirements and planning obligations for municipalities (Government of British Columbia, 2022; 2023). Bill 43 requires local governments to align with provincially established housing targets and standardized reporting frameworks, thereby strengthening provincial oversight of municipal housing performance. Bill 44, by contrast, mandates minimum density allowances for small multi-unit housing developments, including multiplex and townhouse forms, with the objective of expanding housing diversity and supply (Government of British Columbia, 2022). While these measures establish a common regulatory framework, their implementation and uptake vary across municipalities, reflecting differences in administrative capacity, planning priorities, and local political contexts (Atkey et al., 2022). The variation and complexity of municipal powers and responsibilities across jurisdictions can therefore create implementation challenges, particularly when local planning systems must reconcile provincial housing targets with existing zoning frameworks and development processes (Government of British Columbia, 2026b; Mongrain et al. 2025). 

The governance landscape becomes even more complex when considering interprovincial differences in municipal housing arrangements. In Alberta, for example, the provincial government has actively shifted its housing portfolio toward municipal and arm’s-length agencies, effectively divesting many direct management responsibilities (Alberta Seniors and Housing, 2022). Assets previously administered by the province are increasingly transferred to municipal housing bodies, which operate as intermediaries responsible for service delivery, asset management, and capital planning. This approach reflects a governance model in which municipalities and associated housing authorities assume a greater role in operational oversight, though often within constraints defined by provincial policy frameworks (Alberta Assisted Living and Social Services, 2025). 

The Alberta model differs significantly from arrangements in British Columbia and Ontario. In British Columbia, community housing service providers frequently operate independently of municipal housing corporations, producing governance arrangements in which municipal governments influence land use, planning approvals, and development incentives but do not necessarily manage housing assets directly (Atkey et al., 2022; BC Housing, 2025). In Ontario, municipal housing corporations managing large urban portfolios often play a more direct operational role while simultaneously coordinating with non-profit and co-operative housing providers (Atkey et al., 2022; Province of Ontario, 2018; 2019). These corporations can combine asset management functions with policy coordination responsibilities, enabling integrated portfolio oversight within municipal housing systems.

Taken together, these jurisdictional differences illustrate the considerable complexity and variability of municipal governance structures within Canada’s community housing sector. Further, these institutional differences shape patterns of decision-making, capital allocation, and program implementation across the sector, demonstrating that municipal ownership and arm’s-length governance models cannot be fully understood without reference to the broader provincial statutory and policy contexts within which they operate (Atkey et al., 2022).  

Multi-Level Governance

Canada’s community housing sector operates within a multi-level governance framework in which authority, financing, and delivery responsibilities are distributed across federal, provincial and territorial, municipal, and non-governmental actors (Pomeroy, 2017). The system is characterized by intergovernmental cost-sharing arrangements, layered capital financing structures, and a mixed delivery model that relies primarily on non-profit and co-operative housing providers. Within this institutional configuration, policy direction, program financing, and service delivery are dispersed across multiple levels of government, requiring ongoing coordination and policy alignment (CMHC, 2018b; c; Housing Partnership Canada, 2015).

At the federal level, the NHSA establishes a rights-based approach to housing policy, framing access to adequate housing as a social right and requiring governments to consider affordability, accessibility, and equity when designing housing policies and programs. The Act provides an overarching strategic framework intended to guide policy alignment and intergovernmental coordination across the housing system. However, the NHSA does not provide judicial enforceability, limiting its effectiveness as a legal instrument for securing specific housing outcomes (Government of Canada, 2019). As a result, while the rights-based framing establishes normative policy goals (Canadian Centre for Housing Rights, 2021), critics have observed that these objectives may be marginalized in practice when operational decisions prioritize capital deployment, project timelines, or blended financing strategies over guarantees of income-based affordability (Atkey et al., 2022; Canadian Centre for Housing Rights, 2023b; Hardwick, 2024). 

Scholars and policy analysts have therefore proposed several complementary policy mechanisms that could strengthen the practical implementation of rights-based housing objectives. One approach involves the use of legally enforceable affordability covenants and inclusionary zoning policies at the municipal and provincial levels, which embed affordability requirements directly into land-use regulations and development approval processes (ACCESS Newswire, 2026; Canadian Centre for Housing Rights, 2023b). A second approach focuses on the establishment of dedicated funding streams that target deep affordability for households experiencing core housing need. Such funding mechanisms can reinforce the equity objectives associated with rights-based housing policy while reducing reliance on federal capital programs alone (Whitzman, 2025). A third proposal emphasizes the development of enhanced accountability and reporting mechanisms, including publicly accessible dashboards that link funding allocations to measurable outcomes in affordability, accessibility, and equity. These tools could help operationalize the rights-based mandate by translating broad policy commitments into transparent and measurable indicators of program performance (Whitzman, 2025). A fourth complementary strategy involves greater integration with Indigenous self-determination frameworks, including Indigenous Community Land Trusts and urban Indigenous housing governance models (Kamizaki, 2025). These approaches embed culturally appropriate housing rights within broader frameworks of sovereignty and community self-governance (Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, 2023; Whitzman, 2025). 

Federal programs authorized under the NHSA remain central to enabling large-scale housing development across Canada’s community housing sector. These programs provide financial instruments such as loans, loan guarantees, and co-investment funding that support project development and capital financing. Infrastructure-linked initiatives, including the Canada Housing Infrastructure Fund (CHIF) and bilateral agreements negotiated under the National Housing Strategy, further facilitate intergovernmental collaboration by linking housing investments to infrastructure development and regional planning priorities (BC Housing, n.d.-c; Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, 2022). However, the implementation of these programs often requires complex administrative coordination across multiple levels of government, reflecting the broader institutional complexity of Canada’s multi-level housing governance system. Within this framework, rights-based policy objectives can potentially be strengthened by ensuring that program conditionality and monitoring mechanisms explicitly link capital funding to measurable outcomes related to equity, affordability, and accessibility (Whitzman, 2025).

Federal, Provincial, and Municipal Governments

Federal Role

At the federal level, CMHC administers housing finance and programmatic support for affordable housing initiatives, including capital grants, low-interest loans, mortgage insurance, and co-investment programs (CMHC, n.d-c). While CMHC historically provided direct seed funding to community housing projects, contemporary federal programs under the National Housing Strategy emphasize conditional capital contributions, co-investment arrangements, and blended financing models. This shift reflects a move away from direct equity inputs toward instruments that leverage provincial, municipal, and philanthropic capital. Program types and eligibility criteria continue to evolve in response to market conditions, policy priorities, and equity objectives (Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, 2025b; c). 

CMHC also establishes affordability definitions, program compliance requirements, environmental standards, and long-term covenants that shape project feasibility nationwide. The agency administers legacy social housing agreements and coordinates bilateral cost-sharing arrangements with provinces and territories. Complementing CMHC, Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada oversees federal homelessness programming and infrastructure-linked housing initiatives, including Reaching Home, which supports capital projects and service-integrated housing for vulnerable populations (Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, 2024; 2025c). While federal actors define macro-financial systems and national policy parameters, they generally do not directly operate housing (Suttor, 2016).

Funding allocations, compliance standards, and affordability benchmarks are periodically revised to respond to local housing markets, demographic pressures, and equity considerations. Federal programs, including NHS initiatives and integrated homelessness programs such as Reaching Home, reflect adaptive governance approaches that balance conditional capital support, service integration, and rapid housing deployment (Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, 2025c ). 

Canada’s historic system of public, non-profit, and co-operative housing, with RGI rents, delivered deep affordability at scale. Long-term federal operating agreements, typically 25–50 years, subsidized mortgage debt and operating deficits for non-profits and co-operatives, ensuring low rents and long-term financial viability. Federal withdrawal from new social housing commitments in the 1990s ended these core subsidies, shifting funding responsibility to provinces (Suttor, 2016).

Approximately 40% of expiring agreements (representing 31% of units) are projected to be financially non-viable without ongoing subsidies, and up to 80% of units face risk of loss once support ends, highlighting the critical role of long-term operating agreements in preserving affordability (Adamo et al., 2016; BC Housing & BCNPHA, 2018). Current NHS programs, while emphasizing broad affordability, often rely on loan-based or co-funding structures that favor larger developers and focus on median-market rents. As a result, deep RGI subsidies for very low-income households remain limited, and there is a risk that long-term affordability will be eroded unless NHS programs are realigned to expand RGI supply, adopt clear affordability benchmarks, and enhance monitoring and transparency (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, 2024).

Provincial and Territorial Roles

Provinces and territories retain primary constitutional authority over housing, overseeing program administration, regulatory frameworks, and system management. They cost-match federal programs, administer legacy social housing portfolios, regulate rent frameworks, and oversee capital repair and development programs (CMHC, 2024). Provincial housing authorities, such as BC Housing, Housing Nova Scotia, and Société d’habitation du Québec, act as intermediaries, allocating capital, enforcing affordability conditions, managing waitlists, and coordinating strategies aligned with provincial priorities (BC Housing, n.d.-a; c; Pomeroy et al., 2019).

Provincial and territorial public housing portfolios remain a substantial component of Canada’s community housing sector. Government-owned housing continues to represent the single largest ownership category, with estimates indicating that approximately 54% of community housing units are government-owned. These include both provincial public housing (18%) and municipal public housing (33%), alongside non-profit (26%) and co-operative (16%) units (Community Housing Canada, 2025).

Municipal Roles

Municipal governments influence housing feasibility through zoning and land-use planning, development charge waivers, tax incentives, land contributions, density allowances, and inclusionary zoning frameworks. Large cities such as Toronto and Vancouver actively participate in financing, land assembly, and project approvals and may operate municipal housing corporations or rent supplement programs. Municipal involvement varies across provinces depending on governance structures and fiscal capacity (Atkey et al., 2022). 

In Ontario, public housing governance is decentralized: municipal service managers oversee local housing corporations and social housing providers under the Housing Services Act (Province of Ontario, 2018; 2019). In British Columbia, governance is more centralized, with BC Housing, a Crown agency, managing substantial portions of the provincial public housing portfolio while also funding non-profit providers (BC Housing, n.d.-a; e). Other provinces employ hybrid governance systems combining provincial housing authorities, municipal corporations, and delegated service agencies (Alberta Assisted Living and Social Services, 2025). In the northern territories, where non-profit sectors are smaller and logistical challenges are significant, territorial housing corporations deliver a large share of housing assistance and manage extensive public housing portfolios alongside targeted Indigenous housing programs (CMHC, 2023).  

Overall, the federal–provincial–municipal landscape is layered and dynamic. CMHC and federal structures retain enduring regulatory and fiscal functions, but the sector now operates as a policy-responsive environment shaped by blended finance, conditional capital, pre-development funding, and coordinated municipal-provincial-federal initiatives (CMHC, 2026a). Recognizing the continued prominence of public housing is essential for accurately analyzing financing models, governance structures, and policy reforms. The sector’s hybrid governance landscape, including government-owned, non-profit, co-operative, and Indigenous housing, reflects historical policy decisions, evolving intergovernmental relationships, and contemporary affordability challenges (Suttor, 2016; Pomeroy, 2017). 

Community Housing Providers

Direct delivery of community housing is undertaken by non-profit organizations, housing co-operatives, and Indigenous housing providers. Non-profit housing organizations are mission-driven, reinvesting surpluses into maintenance, renewal, and expansion, often using blended financing from federal, provincial, municipal, and philanthropic sources (Pomeroy, 2017). 

Indigenous housing providers deliver housing on-reserve and in urban contexts, addressing culturally appropriate housing, overcrowding, and infrastructure deficits. Governance varies between federally administered on-reserve programs and provincially regulated urban housing systems (BC Housing, n.d.-d; f; g; VINK Consulting, 2020).

Indigenous and Culturally Appropriate Housing

Urban Indigenous community housing models, such as the Urban Native Housing Program, funded culturally appropriate housing administered by Indigenous organizations, demonstrating better tenant outcomes than mainstream social housing. Self-determination allowed Indigenous organizations to design and manage housing responsive to cultural and social needs, including tenant counselling and culturally grounded services (BC Housing, n.d.-d; f; g). Governance typically took the form of Indigenous non-profit corporations governed by community boards, integrating federal housing expansion with Indigenous autonomy (Cappe, 2021).

Structural funding dependence required long-term operating agreements, RGI models, and federal subsidies. Policy retrenchment after 1993 replaced stable operating agreements with short-term initiatives, undermining financial stability and limiting long-term expansion. Expiring operating agreements threaten ongoing affordability, as revenue streams are insufficient to cover operating costs without continued support, demonstrating the ongoing need for public subsidies to reconcile low rents with market costs. Community housing alone cannot fully address urban Indigenous housing needs; effective self-determination must be paired with long-term, stable public investment.

Mapping the Community Housing Sector in Canada

In this section we provide an overview of the community housing sector’s composition, the key categories of community housing providers, and the broad network of intermediaries and infrastructure which has developed to support the sector.

Overview of Sector Composition

Canada’s community housing sector is institutionally diverse and multi-scalar, encompassing housing providers, land stewards, financial intermediaries, governance networks, research institutions, and advocacy organizations operating across federal, provincial/territorial, municipal, and community levels. The distribution of community housing stock is uneven, with a strong concentration in large metropolitan regions, particularly in Ontario and British Columbia, alongside emerging models in suburban, rural, and northern contexts (CMHC, 2025a). 

The sector includes long-established institutional forms such as housing co-operatives and municipal housing corporations, as well as newer models including Community Land Trusts (CLTs), social finance intermediaries, and Indigenous-led housing governance bodies (Kamizaki, 2025). As underscored earlier, organizational capacity varies significantly by region, reflecting differences in provincial policy frameworks, municipal land and planning tools, and access to capital (Pomeroy et al., 2015; Pomeroy 2017).

Figure 3 below includes a diagrammatic illustration of the community housing landscape in Canada. This mapping highlights the key structural roles and institutional forms shaping development, financing, governance, and long-term stewardship of community housing in Canada. It is intended as a system-level overview rather than an exhaustive inventory, particularly for smaller provinces or northern contexts where institutional capacity may be more fragmented. Quebec is excluded from the core analysis due to its distinct institutional and policy framework.

Figure 3. Canada’s Community Housing Sector: A Diverse and Multi-Scalar Ecosystem

Key Categories of Community Housing Providers

Community housing in Canada comprises a diverse ecosystem of institutional forms distinguished by ownership structure, governance model, land relationship, and embeddedness within multi-level policy systems (CHRA, n.d.; Evans, 2021). While all providers share a non-market orientation and a long-term affordability mandate, they function as interdependent actors within a broader governance and finance architecture, often coordinating through sectoral networks, municipal partnerships, and intergovernmental frameworks (Pomeroy et al., 2015).

Rather than operating in isolation, community housing providers frequently overlap in functions, target populations, and governance responsibilities. This includes housing co-operatives, which embed governance directly within residential communities, providing stable affordability while engaging with municipal planning departments and provincial funding programs (Agency for Co-operative Housing, n.d.; Gibson, 2024). Furthermore, non-profit housing organizations vary from single-project agencies to multi-site portfolio managers. They often partner with co-operatives, Indigenous organizations, or municipal corporations to deliver mixed-income, supportive, and culturally appropriate housing (Chen, 2019; CHRA, 2021). Faith-based landholders contribute critical non-market land assets that can be leveraged in partnership with non-profits and co-operatives. These partnerships complement capital financing strategies while introducing governance considerations tied to mission alignment (CHTC, 2023; Cecco, 2023). Additionally, Indigenous housing providers operate within unique governance frameworks, connecting federal, provincial, and urban Indigenous funding streams while integrating culturally appropriate practices and land-back initiatives (Low & Breton, 2024; Sowa, 2023). Municipal and arm’s-length housing corporations function as anchor institutions, coordinating land, capital, and policy support while collaborating with smaller non-profit and Indigenous providers to scale supply and preserve affordability (BC Housing & BC Non-Profit Housing Association, 2018). Finally, CLTs bridge gaps between land stewardship and housing delivery, often in partnership with non-profits or municipal agencies, ensuring long-term decommodification of land (Gansworth, 2024).

Across these categories, providers interact through sector associations, knowledge networks, and financial intermediaries, enabling technical assistance, pooled financing, and shared governance standards (CHRA, n.d.; Evans, 2021). This perspective illustrates that community housing is not solely defined by institutional form but by the functional interconnections, shared resources, and complementary roles that sustain affordability, expand capacity, and manage sector-wide risk. Recognizing these overlaps makes it clear that policy interventions must consider both individual organizational capacity and the interdependent networks that underpin the Canadian community housing system (Fraser et al., 2022).

Housing Co-operatives

Housing co-operatives represent a longstanding pillar of Canada’s community housing sector, characterized by collective ownership, democratic governance, and permanent affordability (CHF Canada, n.d.; Gibson, 2024). Members serve as both residents and decision-makers, embedding governance directly within the residential community rather than through external boards.

Co-operatives expanded significantly between the 1970s and early 1990s under federal programs that provided long-term operating agreements tied to affordability requirements. These agreements combined RGI subsidies with market-rate units within mixed-income developments, enabling internal cross-subsidization and financial stability (Suttor, 2016). The collective ownership structure prevents individual equity extraction and speculative resale, positioning co-operatives as de-commodified housing forms. Comparative research associates co-operative systems with enhanced tenure security, affordability stability, and social cohesion (Bates, 2022; Gibson, 2024).

The Agency for Co-operative Housing plays a central role in administering co-operatives on behalf of the federal government, providing technical support, compliance oversight, and sector-wide capacity-building to ensure co-operatives can navigate increasingly complex funding and regulatory frameworks (Agency for Co-operative Housing, n.d.).

Despite this institutional support, governance capacity challenges persist, particularly where volunteer boards manage complex financial and regulatory environments (BCNPHA, 2005; CMHC, 2022b). The expiry of federal operating agreements has introduced additional pressures, necessitating asset reinvestment, refinancing strategies, and strategic engagement with municipal and provincial funders. Nevertheless, housing co-operatives remain foundational to Canada’s non-market housing system, functioning both as direct providers and as anchor institutions within broader community housing networks (Gibson, 2024; CHF Canada, n.d.).

Faith-Based Landholders

Faith-based institutions occupy a structurally distinct role within Canada’s community housing ecosystem, functioning primarily as land stewards rather than conventional housing operators (Simon Fraser University (SFU) Renewable Cities, 2025). Many congregations hold underutilized urban land acquired decades earlier at below-market prices, creating a potential non-market asset in high-value real estate markets. While these institutions can contribute land to non-profit housing development, actual deployment is inconsistent, contingent on congregational governance, financial priorities, and mission alignment (CMHC, 2023).

Mechanisms for land contribution include long-term ground leases, co-development agreements, and partnership arrangements with community housing providers. These arrangements allow faith-based landholders to support housing development while retaining stewardship over the land, helping to preserve affordability and limit speculative resale (SFU Renewable Cities, 2025). However, not all faith-based institutions engage in such partnerships, and the scale of land contribution varies significantly across municipalities. This role is particularly critical in cities facing intense real estate speculation, where land costs are a primary barrier to non-market housing development (Capital Region Interfaith Housing Initiative, 2015). Redevelopment efforts can generate internal governance tensions within congregations, as institutions balance potential revenue, mission objectives, and community expectations (Cecco, 2023; SFU Renewable Cities, 2024)

To address these challenges, several initiatives have emerged to support faith-based institutions in partnering with community housing providers. For example, municipal programs in Vancouver, Toronto, and Montreal provide technical assistance, planning guidance, and financial incentives, such as density bonuses, tax exemptions, and land-value concessions, to encourage the productive use of faith-owned land for non-market housing (Braganza, 2018; City of Vancouver, 2024). These interventions aim to align congregational objectives with broader public housing goals, demonstrating how policy tools can unlock underutilized land while respecting institutional autonomy.

Indigenous Housing Providers

Indigenous housing providers operate within governance frameworks shaped by colonial legal structures, treaty rights, land tenure distinctions, and self-determination movements (Belanger et al., 2012; Walker, 2008). Urban Indigenous housing organizations navigate provincial and federal funding systems while implementing culturally appropriate governance models (Sowa, 2023). On-reserve housing is subject to distinct legal regimes under the Indian Act and band administration, often constrained by chronic underfunding and short-term program cycles (Indigenous Services Canada, 2026).

Indigenous housing governance is shaped by sector-level institutions, advocacy networks, and governance bodies that coordinate policy, research, and capacity-building. Organizations such as AHMA in British Columbia and the Indigenous Housing Caucus of the CHRA support governance capacity, policy advocacy, and technical assistance (Christensen et al., 2025). These networks are central to developing Urban Rural and Northern Indigenous housing strategies, emphasizing predictable funding, culturally appropriate design, and community-led decision-making (Walker, 2008).

Indigenous providers frequently integrate housing with cultural programming, community health services, and land-based governance systems. Housing delivery is inseparable from broader struggles for land restitution, sovereignty, and community self-determination (Sowa, 2023). Emerging Indigenous Community Land Trusts extend these frameworks, linking land-back initiatives to decommodified, culturally grounded tenure systems (Gansworth, 2024). Recent efforts to scale Indigenous housing governance include the National Indigenous Community Housing Initiative (NICHI), designed to improve coordination, capital deployment, and capacity-building across urban, rural, and on-reserve contexts (Indigenous Services Canada, 2026). While NICHI earmarked substantial funding for Indigenous housing, progress has been slower than anticipated, with only approximately $273 million of allocated funds delivered to date. Challenges include administrative bottlenecks, multi-level government coordination, and aligning program requirements with culturally grounded governance models (Belanger et al., 2012; Sowa, 2023).

Indigenous-led housing governance must therefore be assessed through a self-determination lens rather than conventional non-profit metrics. NICHI and similar programs illustrate both the potential of larger-scale governance mechanisms to support equity-oriented expansion and the persistent structural constraints, including funding delays, multi-jurisdictional coordination, and capacity limitations, that shape sector outcomes (Belanger et al. 2012; Walker, 2008). These dynamics highlight the ongoing need for programmatic, technical, and financial support that respects Indigenous autonomy while addressing systemic gaps in capital and operational resources (Christensen et al., 2025). Indigenous housing must be understood as a distinct, self-determined housing system grounded in Indigenous rights, governance traditions, and nation-to-nation relationships with the Canadian state. Contemporary policy frameworks increasingly recognize housing as a component of Indigenous self-determination and a legal and moral obligation arising from treaty relationships, constitutional protections, and international human rights instruments (Porter, 2021; Walker, 2008).

The United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) affirms Indigenous peoples’ rights to self-determination, cultural continuity, and control over lands, territories, and resources, all of which intersect with housing and land governance systems (United Nations, 2007; Centre for International Governance Innovation, 2018). In Canada, UNDRIPA (federal) and DRIPA (British Columbia) require governments to align laws and policies with UNDRIP principles, reinforcing the need for Indigenous-led housing strategies and governance models (Belanger et al., 2012; Walker, 2008).

Housing inequities facing Indigenous communities have also been highlighted through the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) Calls to Action, which identifies safe, culturally appropriate housing as central to addressing systemic inequality, violence, and social exclusion (Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada, 2015; United Nations, 2007). These frameworks collectively position housing as a rights-based obligation and a component of reconciliation, requiring governments to support Indigenous-led housing solutions rather than imposing externally designed programs. Distinct Indigenous housing systems include:

1. On-Reserve Housing: Housing on First Nations reserves operates under a distinct legal regime shaped by the Indian Act, federal program funding, and band governance structures. The federal government retains primary responsibility for funding housing infrastructure and programs on reserve through agencies such as Indigenous Services Canada, although First Nations governments increasingly exercise control over housing management through local housing authorities and self-government agreements (Indigenous Services Canada, 2026). Despite federal responsibilities, on-reserve housing has long faced chronic underinvestment, overcrowding, and infrastructure deficits, reflecting broader colonial governance constraints on Indigenous jurisdiction over land and housing (Walker, 2008). Many First Nations have responded by developing local housing policies, asset management systems, and community planning processes to assert greater autonomy within this constrained environment (Belanger et al., 2012; Sowa, 2023).
2. Urban, Rural, and Northern (URN) Indigenous Housing: The majority of Indigenous people in Canada now live off-reserve, in urban, rural, and northern communities. Housing for these populations is typically delivered by Indigenous housing providers, including non-profit organizations, housing societies, and service agencies governed by Indigenous boards and community leadership (CMHC, 2022b). URN housing often falls between federal, provincial, and municipal jurisdictions, creating policy fragmentation and inconsistent funding streams. Unlike on-reserve programs, URN housing providers rely on a combination of provincial funding, federal capital programs, and municipal partnerships, contributing to structural funding gaps and administrative burdens. Urban Indigenous housing organizations often integrate housing delivery with culturally grounded services, including health programs, community supports, and cultural programming, reflecting holistic Indigenous conceptions of housing as part of community wellbeing (Belanger et al., 2012).
3. Métis and Inuit Housing Systems: Métis and Inuit populations face distinct governance realities. Inuit housing systems are shaped by northern geography, climate conditions, and land governance structures, particularly in Inuit Nunangat, where territorial governments and Inuit organizations share housing responsibilities (Belanger et al., 2012). Severe overcrowding and infrastructure challenges in northern communities reflect federal underinvestment and high construction costs. Métis housing governance is typically delivered through Métis housing organizations and provincial Métis governments, reflecting the unique political and legal status of Métis peoples. National and regional Métis organizations increasingly advocate for distinct Métis housing strategies, addressing historical exclusion from federal programs designed for First Nations or mainstream urban housing systems (Belanger et al. 2012).
4. Indigenous Housing Governance Networks and Sector Institutions: Indigenous housing governance is shaped by sector-level institutions, advocacy networks, and governance bodies that coordinate policy, research, and capacity-building. Organizations such as AHMA in British Columbia and the Indigenous Housing Caucus of the CHRA support governance capacity, policy advocacy, and technical assistance (Christensen et al., 2025; Sowa, 2023). These networks are central to developing URN Indigenous housing strategies, emphasizing predictable funding, culturally appropriate design, and community-led decision-making (Belanger et al., 2012).

Despite growth, Indigenous housing continues to face systemic funding disparities and administrative challenges, particularly in URN contexts. Chronic underfunding, elimination of federal incremental housing programs (1993), and fragmented governance structures have constrained housing supply (Belanger et al., 2012). Providers contend with complex reporting requirements, limited technical capacity, and constrained access to capital financing. Gaps in asset management and building condition data further limit long-term planning and development. These challenges are linked to systemic racism and colonial governance legacies, underscoring the need for Indigenous-led policy reform (Walker, 2008).

Indigenous leaders advocate For-Indigenous-By-Indigenous housing strategies in urban, rural, and northern contexts. These strategies prioritize (i) Predictable long-term funding, essential for providers serving low-income tenants; (ii) Governance autonomy, enabling self-determined program design and operations; (iii) Culturally appropriate programming, integrating housing with health, community, and cultural supports.

Simplified funding processes, flexible reporting requirements, and dedicated technical assistance are also critical to reducing barriers for smaller Indigenous housing providers. Strengthening Indigenous housing governance requires recognizing Indigenous housing systems as distinct policy domains, grounded in rights, self-determination, and nation-to-nation relationships. Integrating these principles into Canada’s broader housing framework is essential for addressing longstanding inequities and advancing reconciliation (Belanger et al., 2012).

Municipal and Arm’s-Length Housing Corporations

Municipal and arm’s-length housing corporations function as anchor institutions within local housing systems, combining large-scale asset ownership, operational capacity, and access to public land and planning tools. Typically municipally owned, but corporately managed, their hybrid governance structure allows alignment with municipal policy objectives while maintaining operational autonomy to undertake complex redevelopment, financing, and mixed-income strategies.

Mixed-income redevelopment models often cross-subsidize deeply affordable units with market-rate components, though scholars caution about potential displacement and tenure insecurity risks. Embedded within collaborative governance frameworks, these entities partner with non-profits, co-operatives, Indigenous organizations, and private developers to preserve affordability and catalyze new non-market supply. Notable examples include Toronto Community Housing (TCH), Vancouver Affordable Housing Agency (VAHA), Ottawa Community Housing (OCH), Winnipeg Housing & Renewal Corporation (WHRC), Office de l’habitation de Montréal (OHM), and Calgary Housing Company (CHC).

Community Land Trusts (CLTs)

Community Land Trusts represent a distinct institutional form that separates land ownership from housing improvements. By retaining land in perpetual trust and leasing it for affordable housing use, CLTs remove property from speculative markets. This model is widely recognized as a durable anti-speculation mechanism (McConnell Foundation, 2024; The Squamish Chief, 2025). In Canada, CLTs have gained prominence as acquisition-based strategies within financialized markets. Resale restrictions and community-based governance structures embed long-term affordability and local control. Key examples include the Community Land Trust Foundation of BC (CLTFBC) and the Parkdale Neighbourhood Land Trust. Emerging Indigenous CLTs extend land trust principles into self-determined governance and decommodified tenure frameworks, linking housing provision to cultural and sovereignty objectives (Kamizaki, 2025; Trana et al., 2023).

Sector Intermediaries, Networks, and System Infrastructure

Community housing systems rely not only on direct providers but also on intermediaries, research institutions, advocacy organizations, and hybrid partners that sustain sector coherence and expansion. Sector associations provide advocacy, governance coordination, standards-setting, policy development, and capacity-building functions (Fraser et al., 2022). Examples of organizations which support governance, policy coordination, and capacity building include, but are not limited to:

• CHRA; national advocacy and networking for affordable and social housing (CHRA, 2026)
• CHTC; advancing system transformation and technical supports for community housing (CHTC, 2021) 
• CHF Canada and CHF BC; co‑operative governance and technical support (CHF Canada, 2023)
• BC Non-Profit Housing Association (BCNPHA) and Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association (ONPHA); strengthening non‑profit housing providers through advocacy, education, and sector supports (BCNPHA 2026a, ONPHA, 2026)
• Aboriginal Housing Management Association; Indigenous housing management and sector development (AHMA, 2022)
• Homelessness Services Association of BC and Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness (CAEH); supporting community‑level homelessness solutions (CAEH, 2025)

Financial intermediaries and philanthropic institutions provide non‑market capital, technical assistance, and balance‑sheet support for acquisition, development, and expansion. Blended finance models combine grants, subordinated debt, and patient capital to reduce development risk and improve credit access (Wellman, 2016; Lawson et al., 2014). Examples include the Community Forward Fund (CFF) – offering loans to non‑profits, charities, and social enterprises to support community and housing initiatives (Community Forward Fund, 2026), Real Estate Foundation of BC (REFBC) – a philanthropic funder supporting sustainable, equitable land use and community development (REFBC, 2026), New Market Funds, and municipal corporations leveraging portfolio assets. While blended finance enhances scalability, it may introduce quasi‑market discipline pressures within non‑profit governance (Petterson et al., 2017).

Research, knowledge mobilization, and practice networks form another critical dimension. Evidence-informed policy relies on research ecosystems and knowledge mobilization networks that translate findings into practice and inform system design. Institutions include but are not limited to:

• The School of Cities – Bundling Assets Solutions Lab
• Institute on Municipal Finance & Governance (IMFG)
• Canadian Housing Evidence Collaborative (CHEC) – a research and knowledge hub supporting evidence‑informed housing strategies (CHEC, 2026)
• Canadian Housing First Network – Community of Interest (CHFN‑COI) – supporting Housing First program implementation and improvement (Canadian Housing First Network, 2026)
• Homeless Hub – an online homelessness research repository hosted by the Canadian Observatory on Homelessness 
• Housing Research Collaborative (HRC)

Advocacy organizations shape public discourse and advance rights-based frameworks, reframing housing from a commodity to a human right (Porter, 2021). These actors influence legislative reform, accountability mechanisms, and public investment strategies.

Hybrid and private‑sector actors, including mission‑aligned developers, construction managers, and lenders, contribute technical expertise, project delivery capacity, and capital market access (Amaro, 2020). While collaborative governance models enhance production capacity, cross‑sector partnerships introduce accountability complexities and potential risks of mission drift (Petterson et al., 2017; Lawson et al., 2014).

Contemporary Financing and Governance Architecture: From Operating Subsidies to Capital-Based Models

Financing in Canada’s community housing sector extends far beyond capital acquisition; it is embedded within a governance-driven fiscal system characterized by vertically layered intergovernmental arrangements, institutional intermediation, and constrained revenue models. Housing finance choices in Canada are shaped by which level of government pays, with costs increasingly downloaded to provinces and municipalities, even though municipalities are poorly positioned to finance major infrastructure like low-cost housing (Carlson, 2014; Whitzman, 2026). The sector operates under structural asymmetries: development and construction costs are indexed to market forces, while revenue streams are capped by affordability mandates. Moskalyk (2008) notes that high land costs, delayed approvals, and rising capital and operating expenses limit the ability of private actors to deliver social housing without subsidy. This asymmetry generates persistent financing gaps, requiring layered capital stacks, public subsidies, and intergovernmental coordination to sustain operations and support expansion (Carlson, 2014; Moskalyk, 2008; Pomeroy, 2017; Whitzman, 2026).

Structural financing constraints continue to limit sector growth. Contemporary regimes are characterized by short-term program horizons that misalign with the 30- to 50-year lifecycles of housing assets, rising land values, construction inflation, interest rate volatility, and complex compliance burdens (Bray, 2023; Canadian Chamber of Commerce, 2025; Carlson, 2014; Moskalyk, 2008; Whitzman, 2026). Co-funding requirements often disadvantage smaller non-profit and Indigenous providers, while financialization pressures shift operational and investment risk onto community-based organizations (Carlson, 2014; CHF Canada, 2023). Historically, the RGI model reconciled socially constrained rents with market-determined costs through predictable, long-term operating subsidies (Moskalyk, 2008). In contrast, contemporary financing relies on capital-based instruments, low-interest and forgivable loans, and competitive application processes, replacing stable operating agreements with time-limited initiatives across federal, provincial, municipal, and private sources (Carlson, 2014; Moskalyk, 2008; Pomeroy, 2017; 2018; Whitzman, 2026). This shift redistributes financial risk to non-profit providers while increasing administrative complexity (Carlson, 2014; Siribour, 2024; Pomeroy, 2017).

Federal programs under the National Housing Strategy have reactivated capital investment at scale (Whitzman, 2025; 2026). The National Housing Strategy emphasizes increasing aggregate rental supply and delivering broadly defined “affordable” units, rather than expanding deeply subsidized RGI housing targeted at households in core housing need. Affordability benchmarks are frequently tied to median market rents rather than household income, raising concerns about accessibility for very low-income households (Whitzman, 2026). Program design features, including loan-based financing, co-funding requirements, and administrative complexity, tend to favor larger developers and constrain access for smaller or Indigenous providers (Carlson, 2014; Ecotrust Canada, 2025; Pomeroy, 2017). Preservation mechanisms for existing low-rent stock remain limited, particularly as properties face pressures from financialization (CHF Canada, 2023).

Beyond federal programs, the pool of financial institutions actively supporting community housing remains narrow (Carlson, 2014). Aside from a small number of engaged institutions, such as VanCity (Amaro, 2020), most Canadian financial institutions have not been systematically mobilized to provide patient capital for non-profit community housing developers, limiting non-governmental financing options (Carlson, 2014). Blended finance arrangements and layered philanthropic contributions help fill some gaps, but broader financial sector engagement remains underdeveloped (Carlson, 2014; Financial Post, 2025).

Provincial housing authorities, such as BC Housing, illustrate both the potential and limitations of more comprehensive approaches (Carlson, 2014). While these organizations provide multi-year operating and pre-development support, they are often subject to retrenchment, fiscal belt-tightening, and shifting budget priorities, which constrain long-term project sustainability and affordability depth (Carlson, 2014; Moskalyk, 2008; Pierre, 2007). These fiscal pressures underscore the dependence of community housing expansion on broader public finance conditions, including intergovernmental cost-sharing arrangements, municipal revenue capacity, and the predictability of federal transfers (Moskalyk, 2008; Whitzman, 2025).

The Build Canada Homes (BCH) initiative, launched in 2025 as a new federal housing agency, projects delivery of roughly 26,000 units between 2025 and 2030, representing only a small proportion of the national housing gap. Approximately half of these units are targeted to low-income households, yet affordability depth remains limited: 60% at market rents, 20% at median-income rents, and 20% at moderate-income rents, benchmarked at a national median rent of $1,100 in 2021 (Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, 2026b). These figures highlight a central tension in contemporary housing policy: capital expansion and aggregate supply growth do not automatically generate deep affordability, particularly within a fiscal environment constrained by time-limited programs, retrenchment pressures, and limited institutional financing participation (Carlson, 2014; C.D. Howe Institute, 2026; Whitzman, 2026). 

Governance-Embedded Housing Finance

Community housing finance in Canada operates within a vertically layered governance system, in which capital formation, operational sustainability, and long-term asset stewardship are co-produced through intergovernmental fiscal arrangements and the institutional capacity of non-profit housing providers (Carlson, 2014; Moskalyk, 2008; Whitzman, 2025). Affordable housing development is structurally disadvantaged relative to market-rate housing because rent ceilings limit revenue generation, constraining the level of debt that projects can sustain (Moskalyk, 2008; Pomeroy, 2019; Whitzman, 2026). As a result, community housing developments typically rely on multi-layered capital stacks combining federal funding programs, provincial cost-sharing arrangements, municipal land or regulatory contributions, and supplementary philanthropic or mission-oriented investment (Carlson, 2014; Moskalyk, 2008; Whitzman, 2026). Each layer performs distinct fiscal and risk-allocation functions within the overall financing structure (Carlson, 2014; Moskalyk, 2008).

Historically, federal programs administered through CMHC have provided anchor capital within these financing arrangements (Moskalyk, 2008; Whitzman, 2026). Under the National Housing Strategy, programs such as the Canada Community Housing Initiative, Affordable Housing Fund, and National Housing Co-Investment Fund have supported community housing through low-interest loans, forgivable contributions, acquisition financing, capital repair funding, and new construction support (Government of Canada, 2026a). This federal re-engagement marked a significant shift after the withdrawal of large-scale federal social housing programs in the early 1990s (Moskalyk, 2008; Whitzman, 2025; 2026).

However, many current National Housing Strategy funding streams are time-limited, with several major program envelopes already fully committed or approaching full allocation. Long-term replacement frameworks have not been clearly defined (Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, 2026b). This introduces policy uncertainty, as non-profit housing providers often rely on multi-year planning horizons to assemble financing packages and secure land (Carlson, 2014; Whitzman, 2026). The absence of predictable, long-term federal capital programs can slow development pipelines and constrain sector planning (Whitzman, 2026). Stable intergovernmental funding frameworks have historically been critical in enabling large-scale social housing development in Canada, particularly under earlier federal–provincial cost-shared programs (Moskalyk, 2008; Pomeroy, 2017).

Federal support establishes baseline project viability by lowering borrowing costs and extending amortization periods. However, program design embeds intergovernmental dependency, as most federal initiatives require provincial cost-matching and municipal contributions (Carlson, 2014; Moskalyk, 2008; Pomeroy, 2019). Governance–finance interactions are further shaped by conditional requirements, including compliance reporting, affordability thresholds, accessibility standards, and energy or environmental performance criteria, which guide project design and development sequencing (BC Housing, n.d.-b; Federation of Canadian Municipalities, 2021). Administrative timelines for approvals, land acquisition, and construction commencement create temporal dependencies between governance processes and financial deployment (Whitzman, 2026).

Provincial and territorial governments act as both fiscal partners and delivery intermediaries (Carlson, 2014; Moskalyk, 2008). Through bilateral agreements with the federal government, they administer housing programs, provide capital grants, operating subsidies, rent supplements, and other complementary supports (Carlson, 2014; Moskalyk, 2008; Whitzman, 2025). These arrangements produce jurisdictional variation in program design, capital access, and delivery structures. Provincial operating supports are particularly important for sustaining deeply affordable housing because they stabilize revenue streams that would otherwise be insufficient to support long-term viability (Carlson, 2014; Moskalyk, 2008). At the same time, variation in provincial priorities and fiscal capacity can produce uneven development conditions across regions (Moskalyk, 2008; Pomeroy, 2017). Cost-matching requirements institutionalize intergovernmental dependence and shape long-term affordability sustainability (Whitzman, 2025).

Municipal governments influence housing feasibility primarily through land-based and regulatory mechanisms, including public land transfers, long-term ground leases, density bonuses, development charge waivers, and property tax exemptions (Moskalyk, 2008; Whitzman, 2026). In high-cost urban regions, land acquisition often represents a substantial portion of development costs, making municipal contributions a form of implicit equity within capital stacks (Whitzman, 2026). Governance–finance interactions are evident in zoning approvals, entitlement processes, and permitting timelines, which directly affect carrying costs and exposure to construction cost escalation (CMHC, n.d.-a; Whitzman, 2026). Variation in municipal fiscal capacity and land availability therefore creates uneven conditions for non-profit housing development across cities and regions (Pomeroy, 2019).

Philanthropic actors and mission-oriented investors increasingly contribute to early-stage development financing. Foundations and non-profit intermediaries provide pre-development grants, feasibility funding, and recoverable capital that absorb risk during stages where revenue certainty is low (Pomeroy, 2019). These resources are particularly important for smaller non-profit providers with limited internal development capacity or balance sheet strength (Carlson, 2014; Siribour, 2024). Private and impact investors often engage through blended finance arrangements, in which public or philanthropic capital assumes a first-loss position, de-risking private investment (Thrive Impact Fund, 2025). While this approach expands the pool of available capital, affordability mandates constrain revenue generation, producing ongoing tension between social policy objectives and financial return expectations (Carlson, 2014).

Taken together, these institutional arrangements illustrate how community housing finance is embedded within a multi-level governance framework, in which federal, provincial, and municipal policy design, fiscal capacity, and institutional coordination jointly shape development outcomes (Carlson, 2014; Moskalyk, 2008). While recent federal initiatives have re-established a national presence in housing policy, the time-limited nature of current funding streams and the absence of clearly defined long-term replacement programs create uncertainty for non-profit housing providers (Whitzman, 2026). Sustained expansion of the community housing sector depends not only on individual program design but also on the development of durable, intergovernmental financing frameworks capable of supporting long-term development pipelines (Carlson, 2014; Moskalyk, 2008; Whitzman, 2025; 2026).

Operational Funding and Revenue Sustainability

Operational sustainability depends on constrained revenue streams, primarily rent, which forms the core income source for community housing. Rent revenues are limited by affordability mandates, while operating costs, including maintenance, utilities, insurance, and staffing, remain exposed to market dynamics (Moskalyk, 2008; Whitzman, 2026). This asymmetry restricts debt servicing capacity and necessitates layered subsidies, mixed-income models, and cross-subsidization mechanisms (Carlson, 2014; Whitzman, 2026). Provincial rent supplements, operating subsidies, and housing allowances are critical to maintaining affordability, particularly for deeply subsidized units (Cooper & Zell, 2023). The expiry of historical operating agreements introduces long-term uncertainty in asset stewardship, as providers may face revenue shortfalls without renewed subsidy support (Carlson, 2014). Short-term funding cycles exacerbate temporal mismatches, constraining capital reserve planning and requiring repeated administrative engagement, which diverts capacity from tenant services and long-term reinvestment strategies (BCNPHA, 2026b).

Smaller and Indigenous housing providers face additional constraints, including limited collateral, restricted balance sheet capacity, higher borrowing costs, and complex compliance requirements (AHMA, 2022; Carlson, 2014). These barriers reduce equitable access to layered capital instruments and may reinforce sector consolidation dynamics (Carlson, 2014). Rising construction and financing costs, including land value escalation and interest rate volatility, expand feasibility gaps, further deepening reliance on subsidies and public intervention (Bray, 2023; Carlson, 2014; Whitzman, 2026). At its core, the financing system reflects a structural contradiction: development costs are market-indexed, while revenues are normatively constrained, requiring ongoing governance-embedded intervention to sustain affordability at scale (Moskalyk, 2008; Whitzman, 2026).

Financial Mechanisms for Housing Development and Expansion

Financial mechanisms in Canada’s community housing sector translate capital commitments into built housing, operating within governance-defined constraints and institutional intermediation (Carlson, 2014; Moskalyk, 2008). Public and quasi-public tools, including capital grants, pre-development funding, and operating subsidies, reduce upfront equity requirements, mitigate early-stage development risk, and maintain long-term affordability (Pomeroy, 2019). Loans and debt instruments, including conventional mortgages, low-interest loans, bridge financing, and pre-development loans, can lower annual servicing burdens but may expose providers to financial risk if project revenues underperform (Carlson, 2014).

Much of the existing policy architecture focuses on project-based financing mechanisms, which support individual housing developments (Carlson, 2014; Whitzman, 2026). Capital grants, development loans, land contributions, and tax incentives allow non-profit and cooperative housing providers to assemble project-level financing packages from multiple sources (Carlson, 2014; Moskalyk, 2008; Whitzman, 2026). However, research increasingly highlights the importance of organizational capacity supports, which operate at the level of the housing provider rather than individual projects (Carlson, 2014; Pomeroy, 2017; Siribour, 2024). These supports, including technical assistance, staffing resources, asset management systems, and balance sheet strengthening, enable non-profit providers to plan, finance, and manage development pipelines over time (Carlson, 2014; Pomeroy, 2017; Siribour, 2024).

This distinction has become more salient as policy discussions shift toward portfolio-level asset management and institutional scaling within the sector. Portfolio approaches enable housing providers to manage multiple properties as integrated asset portfolios, facilitating cross-subsidization, refinancing, and long-term capital planning (University of Toronto, School of Cities, 2024). International evidence indicates that non-profit providers with larger asset bases and stronger balance sheets are better able to access financing markets and sustain development activity (Carlson, 2014). Yet many non-profit providers in Canada operate with limited organizational capacity (Carlson, 2014; Siribour, 2024). The sector is highly fragmented, composed of numerous relatively small organizations with varying levels of technical and financial expertise. This fragmentation constrains the ability to scale development activity or navigate complex, multi-layered financing programs effectively (Carlson, 2014).

Social and innovative finance mechanisms further enhance sector capacity (Carlson, 2014). Blended finance models combine public, private, and philanthropic capital to distribute risk and enable otherwise infeasible projects (Thrive Impact Fund, 2025). Equity mechanisms, such as member equity, community investment funds, and philanthropic contributions, reduce reliance on commercial debt while strengthening governance alignment (Drimonis, 2025). Revolving loan funds and community bond models provide patient capital for portfolio growth, acquisitions, and reinvestment (Carlson, 2014; Cueto, 2024; Pomeroy, 2019; Whitzman, 2026). Land-based approaches, including CLTs, municipal land banking, long-term ground leases, and public land allocations, reduce upfront costs and preserve long-term affordability (Kamizaki, 2025; Moskalyk, 2008; Whitzman, 2026). Tax incentives, such as property tax exemptions, development fee waivers, and inclusionary development bonuses, also improve financial feasibility (Moskalyk, 2008; Whitzman, 2026). 

Membership-based sector associations, such as the CHF Canada and AHMA, primarily provide policy advocacy, training, and peer-learning networks for non-profit and cooperative providers (AHMA, 2022; Pomeroy, 2017). Because these organizations are accountable to member providers, capacity-building activities typically focus on guidance, governance support, and knowledge exchange rather than direct intervention in operational management or financing structures (Pomeroy, 2017). However, the sector’s fragmentation can limit membership associations’ ability to standardize development practices (Carlson, 2014).

Alongside membership associations, development intermediaries and financing organizations, including CHTC, the Community Forward Fund, and New Market Funds, play a more direct role in strengthening non-profit development capacity (CMHC, n.d.-b). These intermediaries provide technical assistance, bridge financing, and access to social finance instruments, enabling providers to assemble complex capital stacks combining federal housing programs, provincial contributions, municipal land supports, and philanthropic investment (Community Forward Fund, 2026; New Market Funds, n.d.). Evaluations indicate that such intermediaries can improve organizational knowledge and financial capacity, although smaller providers often face barriers due to limited internal resources and expertise (Carlson, 2014; Siribour, 2024).

Research and policy institutions further contribute to sector development by generating evidence on financing mechanisms and governance practices. Academic and policy initiatives examining portfolio-level asset management and financing models emphasize the importance of intermediaries capable of coordinating financing, technical expertise, and program access across a decentralized housing governance system (UBC Housing Assessment Resource Tools, 2022; University of Toronto, School of Cities, 2024; n.d. ). Studies consistently highlight organizational capacity, financing structures, and land availability as key structural constraints affecting non-profit housing development (Carlson, 2014; Moskalyk, 2008; Whitzman, 2026).

Taken together, these institutional arrangements illustrate a vertically layered financing system, in which federal, provincial, and municipal policies interact with sector intermediaries, financial institutions, and membership associations to support capital formation and operational sustainability. However, this governance architecture raises questions regarding scale and institutional coordination (Carlson, 2014; Moskalyk, 2008). Many providers lack the administrative capacity, technical expertise, and financial resources to navigate complex funding programs or assemble multi-layered financing structures (Carlson, 2014; Siribour, 2024).

These structural dynamics highlight a central tension in Canada’s community housing system: while intermediaries and sector associations strengthen knowledge mobilization and financing capacity, fragmented institutional structures and uneven organizational capacity continue to constrain the sector’s ability to scale non-profit housing development (Carlson, 2014). Addressing these limitations may require expanded intermediary financing institutions, stronger technical assistance programs, and greater coordination across federal, provincial, and municipal housing policies (Carlson, 2014; Moskalyk, 2008; Whitzman, 2026).

Supporting Organizational Infrastructure

Financial mechanisms alone are insufficient to expand community housing (Carlson, 2014; Siribour, 2024). Sector-wide institutional infrastructure, including associations, intermediaries, research bodies, and Indigenous governance organizations, is essential for effective implementation (AHMA, 2022; Carlson, 2014). These organizations do not typically provide direct capital, but they strengthen governance, coordination, policy coherence, and technical capacity, enabling financial mechanisms to operate equitably and sustainably (Carlson, 2014; Siribour, 2024). Housing development is administratively complex, requiring compliance with layered funding agreements, asset management planning, governance standards, and regulatory frameworks (Carlson, 2014). Smaller non-profits, co-operatives, and Indigenous housing providers often lack the internal administrative capacity to navigate this complexity, making sector infrastructure organizations critical as “institutional scaffolding” (Carlson, 2014; Ecotrust Canada, 2025; Siribour, 2024). 

Sector associations provide governance guidance, policy advocacy, training, and coordination across funding systems, enhancing organizational resilience and reducing transaction costs in complex funding environments. The Homelessness Services Association of BC supports governance, cross-sector coordination, and policy development, aligning housing providers with broader homelessness response systems (Adamo et al., 2016). CHF Canada provides technical assistance in asset management, refinancing, and compliance with funding agreements, supporting co-operatives in restructuring financing and building replacement reserves (Pomeroy, 2017). Provincial federations, such as CHF BC, align local co-operatives with provincial funding programs and regulatory frameworks, offering training, collective advocacy, and compliance support (BC Housing, n.d.-a). The BCNPHA strengthens provider capacity through research, training, and policy engagement, improving financial literacy, risk management, and long-term operating viability (CitySpaces Consulting Ltd., 2018). ONPHA contributes to program coherence by providing structured sector feedback, advocacy, and policy guidance (Wiebe, 2016).

Supporting organizational infrastructure is foundational to the success of community housing finance (Carlson, 2014; Siribour, 2024). Sector associations, research institutions, and Indigenous governance bodies enable financial mechanisms to function effectively by reducing administrative fragmentation, enhancing governance and technical capacity, strengthening policy coherence, supporting equitable access to capital, and advancing culturally grounded housing models. Without strong intermediary and governance infrastructure, even well-designed financial instruments risk underperformance, inequitable access, and long-term instability (Carlson, 2014; Siribour, 2024).

Structural Financing Gaps

Community housing faces several structural financing gaps that constrain long-term sustainability (Carlson, 2014; Whitzman, 2026). Short-term program horizons remain misaligned with the multi-decade lifecycles of housing assets, creating temporal risks in both capital and operational planning (Moskalyk, 2008; Whitzman, 2026). Rising land costs, construction inflation, and interest rate volatility further exacerbate operational risk (Bray, 2023). Multi-layered compliance requirements and administrative burdens disproportionately affect smaller and Indigenous providers, limiting access to capital and participation in programs (Carlson, 2014; Ecotrust Canada, 2025; Siribour, 2024). Additionally, the financialization of housing markets threatens the preservation of low-rent stock, as community housing must compete with market-driven investment models (Canadian Centre for Housing Rights, 2023a).

A major challenge in addressing homelessness in Canada is the persistent lack of coordination across governance levels and service systems, which often results in fragmented responses and gaps in service delivery (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2018a; b). Research consistently shows that homelessness policy operates across multiple jurisdictions, including federal housing and income programs, provincial responsibilities for health and social services, and municipal roles in local service delivery, without fully integrated planning or accountability mechanisms (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2018a; b). In addition to intergovernmental fragmentation, coordination challenges also occur at the local level, where housing providers, shelters, health services, and social service agencies frequently operate through separate funding streams and program mandates. These divides limit the effectiveness of integrated responses. Scholars argue that such structural gaps can undermine prevention strategies and make it difficult to transition individuals from emergency responses, such as shelters, into stable housing with long-term supports (Donaldson et al., 2025). Consequently, strengthening system-level coordination across governments, programs, and community agencies is widely identified in the literature as a critical component of more effective homelessness policy (Employment and Social Development Canada, 2018a; b). 

Addressing Structural Governance, Risk, and Policy Context in Canada’s Community Housing Sector

This section examines the structural challenges and policy conditions that shape community housing in Canada, with particular attention to governance complexity, organizational capacity, sector autonomy, Indigenous housing governance, and the broader policy logics influencing sector expansion.

Governance Complexity as a Cost Driver 

Canada’s community housing system enables policy responsiveness across jurisdictions, but produces significant administrative burdens for housing providers, particularly through fragmented funding programs, overlapping regulatory requirements, and differentiated reporting obligations (Pomeroy et al., 2015; Pomeroy, 2017; Mongrain et al., 2025). These governance arrangements translate directly into project-level constraints. Affordable housing development frequently depends on assembling financing from multiple sources—including federal programs, provincial subsidies, municipal land contributions, and private or philanthropic capital—into layered capital stacks (Carlson, 2014; Pomeroy et al., 2015; Mongrain et al., 2025; Moskalyk, 2008). Each funding stream introduces distinct compliance requirements, underwriting conditions, and timelines, increasing transaction costs and delaying project delivery (Carlson, 2014; Pomeroy et al., 2015; Mongrain et al., 2025). These burdens are especially pronounced for smaller providers with limited administrative capacity (Pomeroy, 2017; Cooper & Zell, 2023; Wiebe, 2016). In this sense, governance complexity functions not only as an administrative burden but as a structural constraint that shapes which organizations are able to participate effectively in development processes (Pomeroy, 2017; Mongrain et al., 2025).

Fragmented program design further shifts coordination responsibilities and financial risk onto housing providers without corresponding increases in operational support, reinforcing structural inefficiencies across the sector (Pomeroy, 2017; Carlson, 2014; Cooper & Zell, 2023).

These dynamics indicate that improving sector performance requires not only increased funding, but also governance reform. Streamlining reporting requirements, aligning program criteria across funding sources, and strengthening intergovernmental coordination are essential to reducing administrative costs and enabling more efficient project delivery (Atkey et al., 2022; Mongrain et al., 2025; Pomeroy et al., 2015).

Organizational Capacity versus Project Financing

Canadian housing policy has historically emphasized project-level financing tools—such as capital grants, construction loans, and mortgage insurance—while paying comparatively limited attention to the organizational capacity of housing providers (Moskalyk, 2008; Pomeroy et al., 2015; Pomeroy, 2017). However, sector performance depends not only on access to capital, but also on the ability of organizations to manage assets, plan development pipelines, and navigate complex financing systems (Pomeroy, 2017; Wiebe, 2016).

Many non-profit providers operate with limited capital reserves, asset management systems, and development expertise (Cooper & Zell, 2023; Pomeroy, 2017; Wiebe, 2016). This includes not only operational capacity, but also development, financial, and portfolio management capacity required to sustain multi-project pipelines over time (Pomeroy, 2017). This constraint has become more significant as governments shift toward portfolio-based funding approaches and developer pre-qualification systems, which assume that organizations can manage multiple projects simultaneously (Pomeroy, 2017). Capacity-building supports have historically been underfunded or treated as secondary to capital programs, contributing to uneven development capability across the sector (Pomeroy et al., 2015; Wiebe, 2016).

Earlier social housing programs incorporated stronger institutional supports through federations and sector development initiatives, particularly within the co-operative housing movement (CHF Canada, n.d.; Penfold et al., 2016; Wiebe, 2016). The erosion of these supports since the 1990s has contributed to fragmentation and variability in organizational capacity (Cooper & Zell, 2023; Pomeroy, 2017; Suttor, 2016).

Scaling the community housing sector therefore requires parallel investment in organizational infrastructure. Expanding technical assistance, strengthening intermediary institutions, and supporting asset management capacity are necessary complements to project financing if providers are expected to operate at scale (CHTC, 2024; Pomeroy et al., 2015; Wiebe, 2016).

Sector Positioning and Autonomy

Community housing organizations are often framed primarily as recipients of government support. However, they also function as governance actors involved in policy design, program delivery, and sector coordination (Penfold et al., 2016; Pomeroy, 2017). Their role extends beyond service provision to include stewardship of long-term housing assets and participation in institutional decision-making. This suggests that policy frameworks should not only support the sector, but also recognize and enable its independent governance and development role within the housing system (Penfold et al., 2016; Evans, 2021).

The relationship between public support and sector autonomy varies across jurisdictions. In some cases, close integration with provincial housing authorities facilitates coordinated delivery but may limit organizational independence. In others, policies that emphasize asset ownership, such as acquisition strategies, CLTs, or portfolio growth, support greater long-term autonomy and financial resilience (Bates, 2022; Fraser et al., 2022; Pomeroy et al., 2019). In British Columbia, for instance, provincial partnerships remain central to delivery, while portfolio and asset-based approaches can strengthen long-term community-sector control (Pomeroy et al., 2019; BC Housing, n.d.-a).

International research suggests that sectors capable of maintaining institutional autonomy while benefiting from public investment tend to achieve greater stability and development capacity (Lawson et al., 2014; Pomeroy, 2017).

Effective policy design must balance coordination with autonomy. Governments can support sector growth by enabling non-profit providers to accumulate assets, build reserves, and exercise long-term stewardship, while maintaining accountability through appropriate regulatory frameworks (Lawson et al., 2014; Pomeroy et al., 2015).

Fiscal Context and Policy Uncertainty

Canada’s housing policy environment remains dynamic and transitional. Following the federal withdrawal from large-scale social housing development in the 1990s, responsibility for program delivery shifted to provinces and municipalities, producing uneven institutional capacity across jurisdictions (Leone & Carroll, 2010; Pomeroy et al., 2019; Suttor, 2016).

Recent federal re-engagement through the National Housing Strategy has reintroduced substantial funding and policy direction (Government of Canada, 2018; 2026a; Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, 2023). However, many initiatives operate through time-limited funding envelopes and program-specific delivery mechanisms. This uncertainty is driven in part by program-based funding structures with fixed timelines rather than permanent institutional frameworks, creating challenges for long-term planning (Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, 2026a; b; Segel-Brown, 2025; Whitzman, 2025). Housing providers must therefore plan projects over multi-year timelines while navigating evolving eligibility criteria and funding availability (Cooper & Zell, 2023; Pomeroy, 2016).

Broader economic conditions, including rising construction costs, interest rate volatility, and rental affordability pressures, further compound these uncertainties (Bray, 2023; Canadian Chamber of Commerce, 2025; CMHC, 2025a; OECD, 2025). Sustained sector expansion depends on predictable, long-term funding frameworks aligned with the lifecycle of housing assets. Stable intergovernmental cost-sharing arrangements and clear program continuity are critical for enabling providers to plan and deliver housing at scale (CMHC, n.d.-a; Suttor, 2016; Whitzman, 2025).

Indigenous Housing Governance and Coordination

Indigenous housing providers represent a critical component of Canada’s community housing system, operating across urban, rural, and northern contexts (AHMA, 2022; Brant & Irwin-Gibson, 2019; Low & Breton, 2024). These organizations often combine culturally grounded service delivery with affordable housing provision, emphasizing community control and self-determination (Walker, 2008; 2020).

However, Indigenous housing policy has historically been fragmented across multiple federal departments and funding streams, creating coordination challenges and limiting program effectiveness (Brant & Irwin-Gibson, 2019; Congress of Aboriginal Peoples, 2022; National Indigenous Collaborative Housing Inc., n.d.). Fragmented and program-based funding structures can constrain long-term planning and weaken the development of stable, Indigenous-led housing systems (AHMA, 2022; Ecotrust Canada, 2025).

Research consistently highlights that Indigenous housing outcomes improve when governance structures are Indigenous-led and supported by sustained, long-term funding rather than short-term programmatic initiatives (AHMA, 2022; Christensen et al., 2025; Walker, 2008).

Strengthening Indigenous housing requires structural reform, not only increased funding. Supporting Indigenous-led governance institutions, consolidating fragmented funding approaches, and establishing stable long-term financing frameworks are essential to improving outcomes (AHMA, 2022; Brant & Irwin-Gibson, 2019; Whitzman, 2025).

Rights-Based Frameworks and Policy Logics

Canada’s housing policy increasingly incorporates a rights-based framework, particularly through the recognition of housing as a human right in the NHSA (Government of Canada, 2019; Canadian Human Rights Commission, n.d.-b; Porter, 2021). This approach emphasizes accountability, participation, and the progressive realization of adequate housing (Canadian Human Rights Commission, n.d.-b; Whitzman, 2025).

At the same time, housing systems operate through multiple overlapping policy logics, including welfare-based redistribution, market-oriented supply strategies, and asset-based approaches (Evans, 2021; Suttor, 2016). These frameworks shape how policies are implemented, particularly in relation to affordability definitions, risk allocation, and program design (Whitzman, 2025).

Clarifying how rights-based principles interact with existing policy frameworks is necessary for effective implementation. Aligning financing mechanisms and program criteria with rights-based objectives can improve accountability and ensure that policy outcomes address affordability needs more directly (Porter, 2021; Whitzman, 2025).

Crosscutting Policy Dynamics

Risk Allocation: Housing finance structures increasingly transfer financial and operational risks to non-profit providers through loan-based financing, compliance frameworks, and operating agreements (Carlson, 2014; O’Brien, 2012a; Cooper & Zell, 2023; Pomeroy, 2016). While these arrangements protect public investment, they can constrain organizational flexibility and increase administrative burdens (Cooper & Zell, 2023; Pomeroy et al., 2015). Policy design should make risk allocation more explicit and balanced, ensuring that providers are not required to absorb disproportionate financial risk relative to their capacity (Lawson et al., 2014; Pomeroy, 2017).

Mixed-Income Models and Residualization: Mixed-income housing models are widely used to support financial sustainability and social integration, but they encompass a range of approaches and policy objectives (CHRA, 2021; Perwani & Whitzman, 2025). These models reflect tensions between serving households with the greatest needs and maintaining broader political and financial support for housing programs (Perwani & Whitzman, 2025; Suttor, 2016). In some cases, these dynamics may contribute to the residualization of deeply affordable housing, where support becomes increasingly concentrated among the most vulnerable households while broader affordability needs remain insufficiently addressed (ONPHA, 2025; Whitzman, 2025). Clearer policy definitions and targeting frameworks are needed to ensure that mixed-income approaches do not undermine the provision of deeply affordable housing (CHRA, 2021; Whitzman, 2025).

Sector Intermediaries: Intermediary organizations, including financing bodies, development intermediaries, and sector associations, play a key role in supporting housing delivery by providing technical assistance, facilitating partnerships, and improving access to capital (Carlson, 2014, CHTC, 2024; Community Forward Fund, 2026; New Market Funds, n.d.). However, their growing role also raises governance considerations related to coordination, representation, and influence within the sector. While intermediaries can enhance sector capacity, they may also concentrate expertise and decision-making influence, raising questions about representation and sector-wide governance (Pomeroy, 2017). Expanding intermediary capacity should be accompanied by clear governance frameworks to ensure accountability, equitable access, and alignment with sector-wide objectives (CHTC, 2024; Pomeroy et al., 2015).

Assessment of Public Policy Approaches to Sector Expansion: Public policy plays a central role in shaping the scale, speed, and equity of community housing expansion in Canada. Community housing depends on intergovernmental coordination, legal frameworks, and institutional capacity rather than purely market-driven mechanisms (CMHC, 2022a; CHRA, n.d.; Suttor, 2016). Recent federal initiatives have increased investment and expanded housing supply and repair activity (Government of Canada, 2018; Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada, 2022; 2023). However, non-market housing production remains insufficient relative to demand, and structural barriers, including fragmented governance, regulatory constraints, loss of lower-rent stock, and limited organizational capacity, continue to limit scalability (CHRA, 2021; Pomeroy, 2022; 2025; Whitzman, 2026). Municipal land-use regulation further affects project timelines and costs, particularly in high-demand regions where zoning constraints and approval delays increase financial risk (Atkey et al., 2022; CMHC, n.d.-b; Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria, 2023; Government of British Columbia, 2022; 2023).

Policy innovations: Policy innovations such as land-based mechanisms, blended finance approaches, and portfolio-level asset management, have emerged to address these constraints (Bates, 2022; Fraser et al., 2022; Kamizaki, 2025; Perwani & Whitzman, 2025). Portfolio approaches, in particular, enable cross-subsidization, refinancing, and risk pooling across multiple assets, strengthening long-term financial sustainability (Pomeroy, 2017; Pomeroy et al., 2019). While these tools expand financing capacity and improve long-term planning, they also introduce new governance and risk considerations, particularly regarding financialization and affordability preservation (CHF Canada, 2023; Fraser et al., 2022; Pomeroy, 2022). These innovations should complement, rather than replace, direct public investment. Achieving large-scale sector expansion requires aligning financial tools with governance design, regulatory frameworks, and institutional capacity (CHRA, 2021; University of Toronto, School of Cities, 2024; Whitzman, 2026). Sustained growth ultimately depends on stable intergovernmental funding, coordinated policy implementation, and strengthened sector capacity. Without these structural conditions, policy interventions are likely to produce incremental gains rather than transformative change (Pomeroy et al., 2015; Suttor, 2016; Whitzman, 2025).

Conclusion

This report has examined the structure, governance, and financing of Canada’s community housing sector, situating it within a broader context of escalating housing affordability pressures, institutional complexity, and evolving policy frameworks. The analysis demonstrates that community housing, encompassing public, non-profit, co-operative, and Indigenous housing systems, remains a critical pillar of Canada’s housing system, uniquely positioned to deliver stable, income-responsive affordability outside speculative market dynamics (Suttor, 2016; CMHC, 2018a). At the same time, the sector operates within a constrained and fragmented governance and financing environment that limits its capacity to expand and sustain affordable housing at the scale required.

A central finding of this report is that Canada’s community housing system is fundamentally shaped by a multi-level governance architecture in which authority, financing, and delivery responsibilities are distributed across federal, provincial, municipal, and non-governmental actors. Federal institutions, particularly through the National Housing Strategy, establish broad policy direction and provide capital funding instruments, while provinces administer programs and regulatory frameworks, and municipalities control land-use planning and development approvals. Non-profit, co-operative, and Indigenous organizations function as primary delivery agents and long-term stewards of housing assets. This layered governance model enables collaboration and resource pooling but also introduces coordination challenges, administrative burdens, and uneven implementation capacity across jurisdictions (Pomeroy, 2017; Atkey et al., 2022). As the report highlights, vertical fragmentation and jurisdictional variation can delay project delivery, increase transaction costs, and constrain access to funding, particularly for smaller and Indigenous housing providers.

The report further demonstrates that financing arrangements within the community housing sector are structurally constrained by a persistent mismatch between market-based development costs and income-restricted rental revenues. Development costs, including land, construction, and financing, are indexed to market conditions, while rents in community housing are capped by affordability requirements. This structural gap necessitates layered financing approaches that combine federal, provincial, and municipal funding with private and philanthropic capital (CHRA, 2021; Segel-Brown, 2025). While such “capital stacking” enables project feasibility, it also increases institutional complexity and financial risk, particularly in the absence of predictable long-term operating subsidies. The shift from operating subsidies to capital-based financing models, characteristic of post-1990s housing policy, has therefore altered the financial foundations of the sector, transferring greater responsibility and risk to non-profit housing providers (Pomeroy, 2022).

Historically, Canada’s social housing system relied on long-term operating agreements and rent-geared-to-income (RGI) subsidies, which ensured deep affordability and financial stability over multi-decade periods. However, the gradual expiration of these agreements since the 1990s has significantly weakened the sector’s financial base. Evidence suggests that a substantial proportion of legacy housing units may face financial instability or loss of affordability as subsidy flows end, with some estimates indicating that up to 80 percent of units could be at risk without renewed support (Pomeroy, 2022; BCNPHA, 2018). Although recent federal initiatives, including the NHS and Build Canada Homes (BCH), signal renewed investment, their emphasis on capital financing and market-relative affordability raises important concerns regarding the depth and durability of affordability outcomes. Affordability benchmarks tied to market rents rather than household income may fail to adequately address the needs of households in core housing need, thereby limiting the redistributive potential of these programs.

The report also underscores the institutional diversity and ecosystemic nature of the community housing sector, which includes not only housing providers but also intermediaries, financial actors, research institutions, and advocacy organizations. Sector associations, such as CHF Canada, BCNPHA, and CHRA, play critical roles in governance coordination, capacity building, and policy advocacy, while financial intermediaries and philanthropic organizations support blended financing models that enable project development. Emerging institutional forms, including community land trusts and faith-based land partnerships, further illustrate the sector’s adaptive capacity and potential for innovation. However, these ecosystem dynamics also introduce governance complexity and raise questions regarding accountability, coordination, and the potential for mission drift in hybrid financing arrangements.

A particularly important dimension of the analysis concerns Indigenous housing governance, which highlights both the potential of community-controlled housing systems and the structural inequities embedded within existing policy frameworks. Indigenous housing providers operate within fragmented funding systems and complex jurisdictional arrangements, particularly in urban, rural, and northern contexts. While initiatives such as the National Indigenous Community Housing Initiative (NICHI) represent important steps toward strengthening Indigenous housing capacity, persistent challenges, including underfunding, administrative barriers, and misalignment between program design and Indigenous governance models, continue to constrain outcomes. The findings emphasize that Indigenous housing must be understood as a distinct policy domain grounded in self-determination, cultural appropriateness, and nation-to-nation relationships, requiring sustained and predictable investment alongside governance autonomy.

Across these dimensions, the report identifies a set of interrelated structural constraints, financial, governance, regulatory, and capacity-related, that collectively limit the sector’s ability to scale. Rising land and construction costs, limited access to flexible financing instruments, fragmented policy frameworks, and administrative complexity all contribute to a system in which expanding supply and maintaining affordability remain challenging. At the same time, the relatively small scale of the sector, representing approximately 3–5 percent of Canada’s total housing stock, underscores the magnitude of the gap between existing provision and national housing need (Pomeroy, 2022). 

In response to these challenges, the report outlines several strategic policy directions. Reintroducing sustained operating subsidies linked to income-based affordability would help stabilize revenue streams and support long-term asset management. Establishing affordability benchmarks tied to household income, rather than market rents, would strengthen equity outcomes and ensure that programs effectively target households in greatest need. Expanding preservation funding is essential to protect existing affordable housing stock from financial pressures and market conversion. Additionally, adapting international financing mechanisms, such as tax incentives or regulatory frameworks that mobilize private capital, could complement existing funding models if carefully designed to preserve affordability.

Equally important is the role of municipal governments, which can significantly influence housing outcomes through zoning reforms, land-use planning, and the strategic deployment of public land. However, municipal tools alone are insufficient without sustained provincial and federal support, highlighting the need for coordinated intergovernmental policy frameworks. Strengthening the sector also requires recognizing non-profit, co-operative, and Indigenous housing providers as active institutional actors with the capacity to innovate, leverage assets, and deliver community-responsive housing solutions.

Ultimately, this report argues that Canada’s community housing sector represents a foundational component of an equitable and resilient housing system, but one that faces structural shortcomings. Achieving meaningful expansion will require a rebalancing of policy approaches, moving beyond a predominantly capital-focused model toward one that integrates long-term operating support, income-based affordability, and strengthened governance capacity. Such a shift would not only enhance the sector’s ability to deliver deeply affordable housing but also its role as a stabilizing force within increasingly volatile housing markets.

In conclusion, the future of community housing in Canada depends on the ability of governments and sector actors to align governance, financing, and policy frameworks with the long-term requirements of affordability, sustainability, and equity. By addressing structural constraints and building on existing institutional strengths, the sector has the potential to play a transformative role in addressing Canada’s housing crisis and advancing a more inclusive and rights-based housing system.

References

Aboriginal Housing Management Association. (2022). British Columbia Urban, Rural, and Northern Indigenous Housing Strategy. https://static1.squarespace.com/static/573e02ab62cd943531b23633/t/61f16e25e94d296b241a7c85/1643212332359/AHMA_BCURNIHousingStrategy_220124.pdf

Aboriginal Housing Management Association. (n.d.). About AHMA. https://www.ahma-bc.org

ACCESS Newswire (2026, March 13). Inclusionary zoning in Canada: How smart policy can bridge the affordable housing gap without killing development. The Globe and Mail https://www.theglobeandmail.com/investing/markets/markets-news/ACCESS%20Newswire/738501/inclusionary-zoning-in-canada-how-smart-policy-can-bridge-the-affordable-housing-gap-without-killing-development/

Adamo, A., Klodawsky, F., Aubry, T., & Hwang, S. W. (2016). Ending homelessness in Canada: A study of 10 year plans in 4 Canadian cities. Canadian Observatory on Homelessness. https://homelesshub.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/12/Ending-Homelessness-in-Canada_October-2016.pdf

Agency for Co-operative Housing. (n.d.). About Us. https://www.agency.coop/about-us

Alberta Assisted Living and Social Services. (2025). Affordable housing partnership framework. Government of Alberta. https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/d06022b0-d1e4-4392-abfc-ba46c62cd62b/resource/ab3e4644-45e3-48dc-8240-a2abeb8243b3/download/alss-affordable-housing-partnership-framework-2025.pdf

Alberta Seniors and Housing. (2022). Affordable housing asset management framework. Government of Alberta. https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/da3888d3-29ac-4637-87d7-5ebe49bddecd/resource/9967b0d7-230f-4dea-8827-f2c231150d7b/download/sh-affordable-housing-asset-management-framework.pdf

Ali, A. (2025, August 20). B.C. renters near ‘crisis territory’ for amount of income spent on rent. Daily Hive. https://dailyhive.com/vancouver/bc-renters-income-spent-rent-crisis

Amaro, A. (2020, April 24). Parkdale Neighbourhood Land Trust: Affordability through community ownership. VCIB. https://vancitycommunityinvestmentbank.ca/parkdale-neighbourhood-land-trust-affordability-through-community-ownership/#_ftn1

Atkey, J., Chau, L., Falvo, N., Flynn, A., Gurstein, P., Jones, C., Suttor, G., & Whitzman, C. (2022). The municipal role in housing (Who Does What Series No. 1). Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance, University of Toronto, Munk School of Global Affairs & Public Policy. Editors: G. Eidelman, T. Hachard, & E. Slack. https://imfg.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/04/imfgwdw_no1_housing_april_5_2022.pdf

Bates, L. K. (2022). Housing for People, Not for Profit: Models of Community-Led Housing. Planning Theory & Practice, 23(2), 267–302. https://doi.org/10.1080/14649357.2022.2057784

BC Housing. (2025, May). BC Housing program guide: Housing provider kit. BC Housing. https://www.bchousing.org/publications/Housing-Provider-Kit-Program-Guide.pdf

BC Housing. (n.d.-a). Community Housing Fund Program. Rent Geared to Income. https://www.bchousing.org/projects-partners/funding-programs/CHF#rent-geared-to-income-rgi

BC Housing. (n.d.-b). Design Guidelines & Construction Standards. BC Housing. (n.d.). https://www.bchousing.org/projects-partners/asset-management-redevelopment/construction-standards

BC Housing. (n.d.-c). Federal agreements. https://www.bchousing.org/about/federal-agreements.

BC Housing. (n.d.-d). Indigenous housing programs: Supportive housing, women’s transition housing, outreach and other supports. BC Housing. https://www.bchousing.org/indigenous#:~:text=Supportive%20Housing%3A%20Stabilizing%20Lives%20in,Elders%2C%20their%20culture%20and%20communities

BC Housing. (n.d.-e). Non profit governance. https://www.bchousing.org/projects-partners/non-profit-resources/governance

BC Housing (n.d.-f). On reserve housing. https://www.bchousing.org/indigenous/on-reserve-housing

BC Housing. (n.d.-g). Women’s Transition Housing and supports program. BC Housing. https://www.bchousing.org/housing-assistance/women-fleeing-violence/womens-transition-housing-supports

BC Housing & BC Non-Profit Housing Association. (2018). Expiring operating agreements: A planning guide for BC’s non-profit housing societies. BC Housing. https://www.bchousing.org/publications/Expiring-Operating-Agreements.pdf

BC Non-Profit Housing Association. (2005). Sustaining the non-profit housing sector in British Columbia. https://bcnpha.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/14-SustainNP.pdf

BC Non-Profit Housing Association. (2025). BCNPHA Strategic Plan 2025–2027. BCNPHA, 2025, https://bcnpha.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/05/BCNPHA-New-Strategic-Plan.pdf

BC Non-Profit Housing Association. (2026a). About. https://bcnpha.ca/about/mission/

BC Non-Profit Housing Association. (2026b, February 19). Scaled back investments in housing will hurt most vulnerable British Columbians. https://bcnpha.ca/resource/scaled-back-investments-in-housing-will-hurt-most-vulnerable-british-columbians/

Belanger, Y. D., Weasel Head, G., & Awosoga, O. A. (2012). Housing and Aboriginal people in urban centres: A quantitative evaluation. https://journals.library.ualberta.ca/aps/index.php/aps/article/view/17705/pdf_1

Benchetrit, J. (2025, November 4). Young people are facing a crisis of high unemployment. Here’s how the budget addresses that. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/federal-budget-young-people-youth-jobs-employment-9.6966638

Bendaoud, M. (2018). Public Versus Non-profit Housing in Canadian Provinces: Learning, History and Cost-Benefit Analysis. In: Dunlop, C., Radaelli, C., Trein, P. (eds) Learning in Public Policy. International Series on Public Policy . Palgrave Macmillan, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-76210-4_8

Biss, M., & Raza, S. (2021). Implementing the Right to Housing in Canada: Expanding the National Housing Strategy. Ottawa, ON: The National Right to Housing Network, 2021. https://housingrights.ca/wp-content/uploads/NRHN-OFHA-Expanding-the-NHS-2021.pdf

Braganza, C. (2018, May 17). How Ontario churches are fighting the affordable housing crisis. TVO Today. https://www.tvo.org/article/how-ontario-churches-are-fighting-the-affordable-housing-crisis

Brant, D. J., & Irwin-Gibson, C. (2019). Urban, rural, and northern Indigenous housing: The next step. Canadian Housing and Renewal Association (CHRA). https://chra-achru.ca/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/20190802-urn_indigenous_housing_final_report.aug26.2019.pdf

Bray, M. (2023). Cost escalation in new construction: A 2024 update: Altus Group insights. Cost Escalation In New Construction: A 2024 Update | Altus Group Insights. https://www.altusgroup.com/insights/cost-escalation-in-new-construction-a-2024-update/

Béland, D., Lecours, A., Marchildon, G. P., Mou, H., & Olfert, M. R. (2017). The economics of equalization. In Fiscal federalism and equalization policy in Canada: Political and economic dimension. University of Toronto Press. https://utppublishing.com/doi/10.3138/9781442635418.004

Canadian Alliance to End Homelessness (2025, November 21). Government of Canada and Canadian Alliance to end homelessness work together to reduce homelessness. https://caeh.ca/government-of-canada-and-canadian-alliance-to-end-homelessness-work-together-to-reduce-homelessness/ 

Carlson, M. (2014, August). Alternative sources of capital for the social/affordable housing sector in Canada. Housing Services Corporation & BC Housing. https://www.bchousing.org/sites/default/files/rcg-documents/2022-04/Alternative-Sources-Capital-Social-Affordable-Housing-Canada.pdf

C.D. Howe Institute. (2026, March 4). Breaking the barriers to Housing Supply in Canada: Regulatory, financial, and structural constraints and Policy Solutions. https://cdhowe.org/publication/breaking-the-barriers-to-housing-supply-in-canada-regulatory-financial-and-structural-constraints-and-policy-solutions/

Campbell, S. (2026, February 17). Canadian renters look to Atlantic and Prairie provinces in search of better value. Financial Post. https://financialpost.com/real-estate/canadian-renters-look-to-atlantic-and-prairie-provinces-in-search-of-better-value

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2018a). “About Affordable Housing in Canada.” Government of Canada, 31 Mar. 2018. https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professionals/industry-innovation-and-leadership/industry-expertise/affordable-housing/about-affordable-housing/affordable-housing-in-canada

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2018b). Governing legislation for housing co ops. CMHC.  https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professionals/industry-innovation-and-leadership/industry-expertise/affordable-housing/co-operative-housing-guide/governing-legislation-housing-co-ops

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2018c). Provincial/territorial housing co op regulations. CMHC. https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professionals/industry-innovation-and-leadership/industry-expertise/affordable-housing/co-operative-housing-guide/provincial-territorial-housing-co-op-regulations   

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2022a). National Housing Strategy glossary of common terms: Community housing. Government of Canada. https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/nhs/guidepage-strategy/glossary

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (2022b). Urban, rural, and northern Indigenous housing: Perspectives of Indigenous housing providers (Research Insight). https://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2022/schl-cmhc/nh18-33/NH18-33-59-2022-eng.pdf

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2023). Northern housing report 2023. CMHC. https://assets.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/sites/cmhc/professional/housing-markets-data-and-research/market-reports/northern-housing-report/northern-housing-report-2023-en.pdf

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2024). Progress on the National Housing Strategy – June 2024. https://housing-infrastructure.canada.ca/alt-format/pdf/housing-logement/ptch-csd/prog-nhs-june-2024-juin-snl-en.pdf

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2025a, July 22). CMHC releases 5th cycle Social and Affordable Housing Survey results. https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/observer/2025/cmhc-releases-5th-cycle-social-affordable-housing-survey-results

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2025b, December 11). Rental market report: Major centres. https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professionals/housing-markets-data-and-research/market-reports/rental-market-reports-major-centres

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2026a). Federal provincial territorial housing agreements (National Housing Strategy). Government of Canada. https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/nhs/federal-provincial-territorial-housing-agreements

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (2026b). Spring 2026 housing supply report. https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professionals/housing-markets-data-and-research/market-reports/housing-market/housing-supply-report

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (n.d.-a). Approval delays linked with lower housing affordability. https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/observer/2023/approval-delays-linked-lower-housing-affordability#:~:text=Approval%20times%20can%20be%20costly,prices%20in%20large%20metropolitan%20areas.

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (n.d.-b). Community Housing Transformation Centre. https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professionals/project-funding-and-mortgage-financing/funding-programs/community-housing/chtc?ap=a1-p4

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (n.d.-c). Federal/Provincial/Territorial housing agreements. Government of Canada. https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/nhs/federal-provincial-territorial-housing-agreements

Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. (n.d.-d). Unlock opportunities with the Affordable Housing Fund. https://www.cmhc-schl.gc.ca/professionals/project-funding-and-mortgage-financing/funding-programs/all-funding-programs/affordable-housing-fund?ap=a1-p1

Canadian Centre for Housing Rights (2021, March 9). The National Housing Strategy Act – a primer. https://housingrightscanada.com/resources/the-national-housing-strategy-act-a-primer/

Canadian Centre for Housing Rights. (2023, November 1). A primer on Financialization of housing in Canada. https://housingrightscanada.com/a-primer-on-financialization-of-housing-in-canada/

Canadian Centre for Housing Rights. (2023). Implementing the right to housing in Canada: A toolkit for tenant leaders (Updated Sept. 2023). https://housingrightscanada.com/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/CCHR-ImplementingTheR2H-Toolkit-for-Tenant-Leaders-UpdatedSept2023.pdf

Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. (2024). What happened to the National Housing Strategy?. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/national-housing-strategy/

Canadian Chamber of Commerce. (2025, May 6). The reality of regulation: How political interference in building codes is making housing unaffordable. https://chamber.ca/the-reality-of-regulation-how-political-interference-in-building-codes-is-making-housing-unaffordable/#:~:text=Fifteen%20years%20ago%2C%20construction%20costs,to%20establish%20global%20leading%20standards.

Canadian Housing & Renewal Association. (2021). Building mixed-model housing: Experiences and insights from across Canada (CHRA National Congress paper). https://chra-achru.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/Mixed-Model-Housing_CHRA-2021-Congress-Paper.pdf

Canadian Housing & Renewal Association. (2026). Serving our members. https://chra-achru.ca/

Canadian Housing & Renewal Association. (n.d.). What is community housing?. https://chra-achru.ca/what-is-community-housing/

Canadian Housing Evidence Collaborative (CHEC). (2026). About CHEC. https://chec-ccrl.ca/about-chec/

Canadian Housing First Network. (2026). Canadian Housing First Network – Home. https://canadianhousingfirst.ca/

Canadian Human Rights Commission. (2023). Annex A – The Federal Housing Advocate’s recommendations in 2022–2023. In Federal Housing Advocate’s 2022–2023 https://housing.chrcreport.ca/annex-a-the-federal-housing-advocates-recommendations-in-2022-2023.html

Canadian Human Rights Commission. (n.d.-a). Housing as a human right. Government of Canada. https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/individuals/right-housing/housing-human-right

Canadian Human Rights Commission. (n.d.-b). The National Housing Strategy Act. https://www.chrc-ccdp.gc.ca/individuals/right-housing/national-housing-strategy-act

Capital Region Interfaith Housing Initiative. (2015). Congregational Housing Action Guide For Edmonton Religious and Spiritual Communities. https://interfaithhousinginitiative.wordpress.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/12/2015-congregational-housing-guide.pdf

Cappe, N. (2021). Assessing the internal capacity of urban-Indigenous housing providers in British Columbia. UBC Housing Research Collaborative and Aboriginal Housing Management Association. https://ahma-bc.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/03/FinalMitacsReport11.27.21.pdf

Cecco, T. (2023, October 2). Faith based land and affordable housing: How zoning and planning barriers block development on religious properties. Storeys. https://storeys.com/faith-based-land-affordable-housing/

Chen, J. W. (2019). Community Housing for Resilient Communities (Report). Wabi Sabi Planning Laboratories for BC Housing. https://www.bchousing.org/publications/Community-Housing-for-Resilient-Communites-Report.pdf

Christensen, J., Goldhar, C., McCartney, S., Riva, M., Schiff, R., & Herskovits, J. (2025). Reframing Indigenous housing policy in northern Canada. International Journal of Housing Policy, 25(3), 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1080/19491247.2024.2435093

Centre for International Governance Innovation. (2018). UNDRIP Implementation More Reflections on the Braiding of International, Domestic and Indigenous Laws. https://www.cigionline.org/sites/default/files/documents/UNDRIP%20II%20Special%20Report%20lowres.pdf

City of Vancouver. (2024, October 23). Unlocking community potential: Collaborating with faith based groups for affordable housing and social impact in Vancouver (Motion PSPC A3). Standing Committee on Policy and Strategic Priorities. https://council.vancouver.ca/20241023/documents/pspcA3.pdf

City of Vancouver. (n.d.). The Vancouver Charter. https://vancouver.ca/your-government/the-vancouver-charter.aspx

CitySpaces Consulting Ltd. (2018). Expiring operating agreements: A planning guide for BC’s non-profit housing societies. BC Housing & BC Non-Profit Housing Association. https://bcnpha.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/Expiring-Operating-Agreements-April-4-2018.pdf

Co-operative Housing Federation of British Columbia. (2017). Guide to the Co op Act (Revised Guide). https://www.chf.bc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/CHFBC_CoopAct_R2_revised.pdf

Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. (2020, January 8). Community Housing Transformation Centre launched – will distribute millions in grants to housing providers (including co ops!) CHF Canada. https://chfcanada.coop/community-housing-transformation-centre-launched-will-distribute-millions-in-grants-to-housing-providers-including-co-ops/

Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. (2023). About CHF Canada. https://chfcanada.coop/about-us/

Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada. (n.d.). About co-op housing. https://chfcanada.coop/about-co-op-housing/

Community Forward Fund. (2026). Overview. https://communityforwardfund.ca. \

Community Housing Canada. (2025). How much community housing is there?. https://communityhousingcanada.ca/how-much-community-housing-is-there/

Community Housing Transformation Centre. (2021). Daring and Determination: Annual Report 2020-2021. https://centre.support/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/Centre%20Annual%20Report%202020-21.pdf?_t=1632845774

Community Housing Transformation Centre. (2023, October 4). Unlocking faith-based real estate for community housing. https://centre.support/unlocking-faith-based-real-estate-for-community-housing/

Community Housing Transformation Centre. (2024). 2024–2028 Strategic Plan (Strategic plan 2024–28). https://centre.support/wp-content/uploads/2024/07/Strategic-Plan-EN.pdf

Community Housing Transformation Centre. (n.d.). About us. https://centre.support/about/

Community Social Planning Council of Greater Victoria. (2023). Local government levers for housing affordability toolkit (Municipal housing affordability toolkit). https://communitycouncil.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/08/CSPC-Local-Government-Toolkit.pdf

Congress of Aboriginal Peoples. (2022). Off reserve Indigenous housing: Issues, programs, and policy priorities. https://abo-peoples.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Off-reserve-Indigenous-Housing_-Issues-Programs-and-Policy-Priorities-1.pdf

Cooper, S., & Zell, S. (2023). Staying on board: Non-profit housing provider board capacity in a changing context. Institute of Urban Studies, University of Winnipeg. https://winnspace.uwinnipeg.ca/bitstream/handle/10680/2037/Staying_on_Board%282023%29.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y

Cueto, J. (2024, August 15). Non-profits increasingly using community bonds for affordable housing funding. Canadian Mortgage Professional. https://www.mpamag.com/ca/mortgage-industry/industry-trends/non-profits-increasingly-using-community-bonds-for-affordable-housing-funding/501544

Department of Finance Canada. (2023). Chapter 1: Canada’s housing action plan. In 2023 Fall Economic Statement (Canada’s Budget 2023). https://www.budget.canada.ca/fes-eea/2023/report-rapport/chap1-en.html

Donaldson, J., Wang, D., Escamilla, C., & Turner, A. (2025). Municipalities under pressure: The human and financial cost of Ontario’s homelessness crisis. HelpSeeker. https://www.amo.on.ca/sites/default/files/assets/DOCUMENTS/Reports/2025/2025-01-08-EndingChronicHomelessnessinOntario.pdf

Drimonis, T. (2025, October 31). How philanthropy can help Canada build its way out of a housing shortage. The Philanthropist Journal. https://thephilanthropist.ca/2025/09/how-philanthropy-can-help-canada-build-its-way-out-of-a-housing-shortage/

Ecotrust Canada. (2025). Indigenous Housing Landscape: Report on key civil society actors across Canada (Report). McConnell Foundation . https://ecotrust.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/McConnell-IndigenousHousingLandscape-EN-web.pdf

Employment and Social Development Canada. (2018a). Evaluation of the Homelessness Partnering Strategy. Government of Canada. https://housing-infrastructure.canada.ca/alt-format/pdf/homelessness-sans-abri/reports-rapports/homelessness-partnering-strategy-EN.pdf

Employment and Social Development Canada. (2018b.). Homelessness Partnering Strategy Engagement. What we heard Report. Government of Canada. https://housing-infrastructure.canada.ca/homelessness-sans-abri/reports-rapports/what-we-heard-ce-que-nous-avons-entendu-eng.html

Evans, J. (2021). Building a Theoretical Framework for Researching Community Housing Futures: Key Concepts and Relationships (Year-End Rep. No. 3). Community Housing Canada. https://ualberta.scholaris.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/b4cbdd9e-7042-40bd-afcc-25f565061e23/content

Federation of Canadian Municipalities. (2021, April). Sustainable affordable housing: Application guide: Studies, pilots and capital projects. Green Municipal Fund. https://greenmunicipalfund.ca/sites/default/files/2022-02/sah-application-guide-gmf.pdf

Financial Post. (2025). Partners for affordable housing mobilizes socially-inspired capital to accelerate investment in affordable housing solutions. https://financialpost.com/globe-newswire/partners-for-affordable-housing-mobilizes-socially-inspired-capital-to-accelerate-investment-in-affordable-housing-solutions

Foroughi, B. (2013). Toronto Community Housing: Tenant Participation and Informal Learning. Canadian Journal for the Study of Adult Education, 25(2), 35–52. https://doi.org/10.56105/cjsae.v25i2.1217

Fraser, E., Rockwell, I., Paliwal, N., Hamid, N., & Menon, S. (2022). Acquisition and preservation of affordable rental housing in Canada (Policy Lab Report). Max Bell School of Public Policy, McGill University. https://www.mcgill.ca/maxbellschool/files/maxbellschool/3_-_cmhc.pdf

Gansworth, K. (2024). Land Trusts and indigenous peoples: The Canadian context. IPCA Knowledge Basket. https://ipcaknowledgebasket.ca/wp-content/uploads/2024/05/Land-Trusts_v06.pdf

Gibson, M. (2024, September 26). Cooperative housing – Part of Canada’s housing future. Miller Thomson LLP. https://www.millerthomson.com/en/insights/real-estate/cooperative-housing-part-of-canadas-housing-future/

Government of British Columbia. (2021). Housing glossary. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/affordable-and-social-housing/housing-glossary

Government of British Columbia. (2022). Housing Supply Act (S.B.C. 2022, c. 43). https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/complete/statreg/22038

Government of British Columbia. (2023). Housing Statutes (Residential Development) Amendment Act, 2023 – Bill 44(4th Sess., 42nd Parl.). https://www.bclaws.gov.bc.ca/civix/document/id/bills/billsprevious/4th42nd:gov44-1

Government of British Columbia. (2026a, February 18). Fast-tracking homes across B.C. with federal support. Ministry of Housing and Municipal Affairs. https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2026HMA0017-000165

Government of British Columbia. (2026b, January 23). Housing targets — Local governments and housing. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/gov/content/housing-tenancy/local-governments-and-housing/housing-targets

Government of British Columbia. (2026c, March 9). Minister’s statement on March 2026 rental report. <BC Gov News release. https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2026HMA0021-000240

Government of Canada. (2018). Canada’s National Housing Strategy: A place to call home. https://housing-infrastructure.canada.ca/alt-format/pdf/housing-logement/ptch-csd/canada-national-housing-strategy.pdf

Government of Canada (2019). National Housing Strategy Act, S.C. 2019, c. 29, s. 313. Retrieved from https://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/n-11.2/FullText.html

Government of Canada. (2026a). Canada’s National Housing Strategy. Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. https://housing-infrastructure.canada.ca/housing-logement/ptch-csd/index-eng.html

Government of Canada (2026b). Build Canada Homes: Driving Long Term Affordable Housing Solutions. Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. https://housing-infrastructure.canada.ca/bch-mc/index-eng.html

Government of Canada. (n.d.). Minister of Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Transition Binder (2025): Book 5: State of housing, homelessness and infrastructure in Canada. Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. https://housing-infrastructure.canada.ca/pd-dp/transition/2025/min/5/book-cahier-5-eng.html

Government of Ontario. (n.d.). Housing Services Act, 2011, S.O. 2011, c. 6, Sched. 1. https://www.ontario.ca/laws/statute/11h06

Hardwick, J. (2024, October 15). Why the National Housing Strategy failed. Canadian Dimension. https://canadiandimension.com/articles/view/why-the-national-housing-strategy-failed

Housing Canada Coalition. (2026). About Us – End The Housing Game. https://www.endthehousinggame.ca/about

Housing Central. (2024). Build more. Protect more. A new affordable housing plan for BC. Housing Central (BC Non-Profit Housing Association, Aboriginal Housing Management Association, & Co-operative Housing Federation of BC). https://housingcentral.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/02/BC-Affordable-Housing-Plan_Report.pdf

Housing Partnership Canada. (2015). Business transformation: Promising practices for social and affordable housing in Canada (Housing Services Corporation & BC Housing, Eds.). Housing Partnership Canada. https://www.bchousing.org/publications/Social-Affordable-Housing-Canada-Report.pdf

Housing Research Collaborative. (n.d.). Housing Research Collaborative. University of British Columbia. https://hrc.ubc.ca/

Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. (2022). Progress on the National Housing Strategy. https://housing-infrastructure.canada.ca/alt-format/pdf/housing-logement/ptch-csd/prog-nhs-dec-2022-dec-snl-en.pdf

Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. (2023). Building momentum: Moving Canada’s housing commitments forward: 2023 National Housing Strategy progress report https://housing-infrastructure.canada.ca/alt-format/pdf/housing-logement/ptch-csd/nhs-triennial-report-2023-en.pdf

Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. (2025a, September 19). Accelerating the supply of affordable housing by investing in Build Canada Homes and the Affordable Housing Fund [News release]. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/housing-infrastructure-communities/news/2025/09/accelerating-the-supply-of-affordable-housing-by-investing-in-build-canada-homes-and-the-affordable-housing-fund1.html#

Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. (2025b, February 19). National Housing Strategy Initiatives. Government of Canada. https://housing-infrastructure.canada.ca/pd-dp/parl/2024/05/huma/huma-c-eng.html

Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. (2025c, December). Progress on the National Housing Strategy – December 2025. Government of Canada. Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. https://housing-infrastructure.canada.ca/housing-logement/ptch-csd/reports-rapports/prog-nhs-dec-2025-dec-snl-eng.html

Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. (2026a, January 9). Build Canada Homes: Special Operating Agency Framework Agreement. Government of Canada. https://housing-infrastructure.canada.ca/bch-mc/framework-agreement-entente-cadre-eng.html

Housing, Infrastructure and Communities Canada. (2026b, January 7). Build Canada Homes: Thousands of homes in the pipeline. Government of Canada. https://www.canada.ca/en/housing-infrastructure-communities/news/2026/01/build-canada-homes-thousands-of-homes-in-the-pipeline.html

Hulchanski, J. D. (2003). Community-based social housing: The evolution of non-profit and co-operative housing in Canada. University of Toronto, Faculty of Social Work. https://utoronto.scholaris.ca/server/api/core/bitstreams/35f01845-6c0e-4a3c-b913-69a58570ed53/content

Indigenous Services Canada. (2026, March 13). 2026-27 horizontal initiative – support for indigenous housing. Government of Canada. https://www.sac-isc.gc.ca/eng/1767991314582/1767991345883

Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance. (n.d.). About IMFG. https://imfg.org

Kamizaki, K. (2025). A case for community land trusts in Canada: Promising community practices and public policy options (Balanced Supply of Housing report). Balanced Supply of Housing, University of British Columbia. https://bsh.ubc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/A-Case-for-CLTs-Report.pdf

Lawson, Julie, Mike Berry, Carrie Hamilton, and Hal Pawson. (2014). Enhancing affordable rental housing investment via an intermediary and guarantee. Melbourne: Australian Housing and Urban Research Institute Limited. https://www.ahuri.edu.au/research/final-reports/220

Lee, M. (2016). Getting serious about affordable housing: Towards a plan for Metro Vancouver (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives – BC Office). Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/wp-content/uploads/attachments/CCPA-BC-Affordable-Housing.pdf

Leloup, X., Leviten Reid, C., Muhajarine, N., Desjarlais deKlerk, K., & Simard, L. (2024). Rental housing types and economic wellbeing in Canada. Housing Studies, 39(11), 2058–2084. https://doi.org/10.1080/02673037.2024.2393661

Leone, R., & Carroll, B. W. (2010). Decentralisation and devolution in Canadian social housing policy. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 28(3), 389–404. https://doi.org/10.1068/c09153

Low, M., & Breton, C. (2024). Is municipal planning responsive to urban Indigenous housing needs? An examination of housing plans and policies in British Columbia. Canadian Journal of Urban Research, Special Edition, 38–51. https://cjur.uwinnipeg.ca/index.php/cjur/article/view/434/202

McConnell Foundation. (2024). Housing Spotlight: Canadian Network of Land Trusts. https://www.mcconnellfoundation.ca/news/canadian-network-of-land-trusts/

Mongrain, A., Zerrouki, I., Cotte, G., Bimm, A., & Ghaffari, L. (2025). Tools for overcoming institutional barriers to non-profit housing production. Vivre en Ville & Balanced Supply of Housing, University of British Columbia. https://bsh.ubc.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/10/Tools-for-Overcoming-Institutional-Barriers-to-Non-Profit-Housing-Production-Report.pdf

Morris, M. (2015). The Cooperative Advantage for Social Inclusion Meets Uncooperative Government Regulation: International Cooperative Principles and Cooperative Housing Regulation in the Province of Ontario, Canada, Journal of Entrepreneurial and Organizational Diversity, 4(1): 28-51. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.5947/jeod.2015.003

Moskalyk, A. (2008). The role of public private partnerships in funding social housing in Canada (CPRN Report). Canadian Policy Research Networks. http://archives.enap.ca/bibliotheques/2008/11/030077697.pdf

M’akola Housing Society. (n.d.). About us. https://makola.bc.ca

National Indigenous Collaborative Housing Inc. (n.d.). Home – NICHI (National Indigenous Collaborative Housing Inc.). https://nichi.ca/

New Market Funds. (n.d.). About. https://newmarketfunds.ca

Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association. (2025, March 25). Ask member support: How do we set market rents in community housing?. https://onpha.on.ca/how-do-we-set-market-rents-in-community-housing/

Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association. (2026). https://onpha.on.ca/

Ontario Non-Profit Housing Association. ONPHA, n.d. | Your gateway to community housing in Ontario. Retrieved March 16, 2026, from https://onpha.on.ca/

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2025). Improving housing affordability in OECD Economic Surveys: Canada 2025. OECD Publishing. https://www.oecd.org/en/publications/2025/05/oecd-economic-surveys-canada-2025_ee18a269/full-report/improving-housing-affordability_3d430d2e.html

O’Brien, C. (2012a). Fast Facts: Operating agreements for social housing. Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. https://www.policyalternatives.ca/news-research/fast-facts-operating-agreements-for-social-housing/

O’Brien, C. (2012b). Operating agreements and social housing: The beginning of the   end? Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.  https://www.policyalternatives.ca/wp-content/uploads/attachments/Operating%20agreements%20and%20social%20hous.pdf

Parkdale Neighbourhood Land Trust. (n.d.). Scaling the community based CLT: A case study of the Neighbourhood Land Trust. https://pnlt.ca/learn/research/scaling-the-community-based-clt-a-case-study-of-the-neighbourhood-land-trust

Penfold, G., Rethoret, L., & MacDonald, T. (2016). Non profit and co-operative organizations and the provision of social housing. In M. Gismondi, S. Connelly, M. Beckie, S. Markey, & M. Roseland (Eds.), Scaling up: The convergence of social economy and sustainability. Athabasca University Press. https://read.aupress.ca/read/scaling-up/section/f0130092-ea82-41b5-9826-cd6c6dd9d171

Perwani, P., & Whitzman, C. (2025). Best practices to inform a mixed-income public housing future in Toronto. University of Toronto, School of Cities. https://schoolofcities.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/01/TCHC-best-practices_Whitzman-Perwani_Dec-2025.pdf

Petterson, Steven, McKenzie Rainey, Bruno Lam, and James Tansey. (2017). Investing in Affordable Housing: BC, Canada, and the World. Vancouver, BC: UBC Sauder School of Business. https://newmarketfunds.ca/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/SauderS3i_Affordable_Housing_FINAL.pdf

Pierre, N. (2007). A safer haven: Innovations for improving social housing in Canada. Canadian Policy Research Networks. https://assembly.nu.ca/library/Edocs/2007/001137-e.pdf

Pomeroy, S. (2016). Scenarios for managing the end of operating agreements (Prepared for BC Non Profit Housing Association and BC Housing). Focus Consulting Inc. https://www.bchousing.org/publications/EOA-Scenario-Intro.pdf

Pomeroy, S. (2017). Envisioning a modernized social and affordable housing sector in Canada (Discussion Paper). Centre for Urban Research and Education (CURE), Carleton University.  https://www.focus-consult.com/wp-content/uploads/Envisioning-a-strengthened-social-housing-sector-FINAL-Oct-2018-1.pdf

Pomeroy, S. (2022). Updating Analysis on Erosion of Lower Rent Stock from 2021 Census (Hamilton: Canadian Housing Evidence Collaborative). https://chec-ccrl.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/10/Updated-Analysis-on-Housing-Erosion-from-2021-Census-Steve-Pomeroy.pdf

Pomeroy, S. (2025). I’ll Have a Double-double, Please: Quantifying the base to scale up non-market housing in Canada. Canadian Housing Renewal Association. https://chra-achru.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/11/Scaling-up-non-market-housing-CHRA-report_2025.pdf

Pomeroy, S., Gazzard, N., & Gaudreault, A. (2019). Promising practices in affordable housing: Evolution and innovation in BC and Quebec. Canadian Housing Policy Roundtable. https://chec-ccrl.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/Evolution-and-Innovation-in-BC-and-QC-FINALx.pdf 

Pomeroy, S., Stoney, C., & Falvo, N. (Eds.). (2015). Business transformation: Promising practices for social and affordable housing in Canada (Research report). Housing Partnership Canada in partnership with Housing Services Corporation and BC Housing; Centre for Urban Research and Education (CURE), Carleton University. https://www.bchousing.org/publications/Social-Affordable-Housing-Canada-Report.pdf

Porter, Bruce. (2021). Implementing the Right to Adequate Housing Under the National Housing Strategy Act: The International Human Rights Framework. Prepared for the Office of the Federal Housing Advocate. https://www.socialrights.ca/2021/Porter%20-%20NHSA%20&%20IHRL.pdf

Province of Ontario. (2018). Affordable and social housing (Section 14). In The Ontario municipal councillor’s guide. https://www.ontario.ca/document/ontario-municipal-councillors-guide/14-affordable-and-social-housing

Province of Ontario. (2019). Community housing renewal: Ontario’s action plan under the National Housing Strategy. https://www.ontario.ca/document/community-housing-renewal-ontarios-action-plan-under-national-housing-strategy/taking-action

Rana, U. (2026, March 9). Rents in Canada have fallen to a 33-month low, report finds. Global News. https://globalnews.ca/news/11722205/rents-canada-33-month-low/

Real Estate Foundation of BC. (2026). About. https://refbc.ca

Schiff, R., & Wilkinson, A. (2022). Non Market Housing Models in Canada: A Case Series (Case study booklet). Community Housing Canada (SSHRC & CMHC Partnership). https://communityhousingcanada.ca/wp-content/uploads/2022/11/case-study-booklet-final-version-1.pdf

Segel-Brown, B. (2025, December 2). Build Canada Homes and the outlook for housing programs under Budget 2025(RP 2526 020 S). Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer. https://www.pbo-dpb.ca/en/publications/RP-2526-020-S–build-canada-homes-outlook-housing-programs-under-budget-2025–maisons-canada-perspectives-entourant-programmes-logement-dans-cadre-budget-2025

SFU Renewable Cities. (2024). Brechin Hill: Sustaining a faith community through intentional redevelopment. https://www.sfu.ca/content/dam/sfu/renewable-cities/vahh/case-studies/brechin-hill.pdf

Simon Fraser University Renewable Cities. (2025). Pre-feasibility framework for facilitators working with faith-based organizations. https://www.sfu.ca/content/dam/sfu/renewable-cities/FBO/Pre-feasibility-framework.pdf

Siribour, K. (2024). Strategies for maintaining the financial sustainability of nonprofit organizations during economic downturns (Doctoral dissertation, Walden University). https://scholarworks.waldenu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=16635&context=dissertations

Smith, A. (2024). Housing policy in B.C. (No. 1): An overview of provincial policy. School of Cities, University of Toronto. https://schoolofcities.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Housing-policy-in-B.C.-No.-1-An-overview-of-provincial-policy.pdf

Sowa, R. (2023). Transferring Administrative Control of On-Reserve Housing from the Federal Government to a First Nations Authority: An Assessment of Opportunities and Challenges in BC. https://summit.sfu.ca/_flysystem/fedora/2025-06/etd23760sowa2025.pdf 

Statistics Canada (2022). To buy or to rent: The housing market continues to be reshaped by several factors as Canadians search for an affordable place to call home, The Daily, September 21. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/220921/dq220921b-eng.htm

Statistics Canada. (2023, October 4). A tale of two renters: Housing affordability among recent and existing renters in Canada (Catalogue no. 98 200 X, issue 2021016). Government of Canada. https://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/2021/as-sa/98-200-X/2021016/98-200-x2021016-eng.cfm

Statistics Canada. (2025, June 25). Quarterly rent statistics, first quarter 2019 to first quarter 2025. The Daily. https://www150.statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien/250625/dq250625b-eng.htm

Sullivan, R. (2025, November 20). What’s in a name? Get the job done. Canadian Housing & Renewal Association. https://chra-achru.ca/blog_article/whats-in-a-name-get-the-job-done/

Suttor, G. (2016). Still renovating: A history of Canadian social housing policy. McGill-Queens Press. https://www.mqup.ca/Books/S/Still-Renovating2

Taylor, Z., & Dobson, A. (2020). Power and purpose: Canadian municipal law in transition (IMFG Papers on Municipal Finance and Governance No. 47). Institute on Municipal Finance and Governance, Munk School of Global Affairs and Public Policy, University of Toronto. https://tspace.library.utoronto.ca/bitstream/1807/99780/1/IMFG_Paper_No47_Power_and_Purpose_Taylor_Dobson.pdf

The Agency for Co operative Housing. (2020, January 20). Community Housing Transformation Centre. The Agency for Co operative Housing. https://www.agency.coop/news/community-housing-transformation-centre

The Squamish Chief. (2025). Opinion: Community land trusts offer a fix to Canada’s housing crisis. https://www.squamishchief.com/highlights/opinion-community-land-trusts-offer-a-fix-to-canadas-housing-crisis-11212941

Thompson, A., & Globerman, S. (2025). The crisis in housing affordability: Population growth and housing starts, 1972–2024 (Research report). Fraser Institute. https://www.fraserinstitute.org/sites/default/files/2025-04/crisis-in-housing-affordability-pop-growth-housing-starts-1972-2024.pdf

Thrive Impact Fund. (2025). The current state of blended finance and catalytic capital in Canada (n.d.-b). https://thriveimpactfund.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/09/Report-The-Current-State-of-Blended-Finance-and-Catalytic-Capital-in-Canada_V2.pdf

Trana, M., Wandio, C., Spicer, J., & Pace, Nat. (2023). 2023 census of community land trusts in Canada: Prevalence, Practice and Impact. Canadian Network of Community Land Trusts. (2023). https://www.communityland.ca/wp-content/uploads/2023/09/CNCLT-Census-Report-2023-Complete-Report.pdf

Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada. (2015). Truth and Reconciliation Commission of Canada: Calls to Action. https://www2.gov.bc.ca/assets/gov/british-columbians-our-governments/indigenous-people/aboriginal-peoples-documents/calls_to_action_english2.pdf

Turner, S. (2007). Sustaining Ontario’s subsidized housing by supporting non profit organizations. Canadian Policy Research Networks. https://oaresource.library.carleton.ca/cprn/48846_en.pdf

United Nations. (2007). United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP). https://www.un.org/development/desa/indigenouspeoples/wp-content/uploads/sites/19/2018/11/UNDRIP_E_web.pdf

UBC Housing Assessment Resource Tools. (2022). “How to build 3.5M affordable homes in 10 years: ideas to address Canada’s housing shortage from Europe,” The University of British Colombia. https://hart.ubc.ca/blog/how-to-build-3-5m-affordable-homes-in-10-years-ideas-to-address-canadas-housing-shortage-from-europe/

University of Toronto, School of Cities. (2024, March). Housing supply mix strategy 4b: Not-for-profit and co-op housing: Canada needs to rebuild the not-for-profit housing sector. Task Force for Housing & Climate. https://schoolofcities.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/04/Housing-mix-strategy-4b-Not-For-Profit-and-Co-op-Housing.pdf

University of Toronto, School of Cities. (n.d.). https://schoolofcities.utoronto.ca

VINK Consulting (2020). Off reserve Indigenous housing: Issues, programs, and policy priorities.  https://abo-peoples.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/08/Off-reserve-Indigenous-Housing_-Issues-Programs-and-Policy-Priorities-1.pdf

Walker, R. (2008). Aboriginal self-determination and social housing in urban Canada: A story of convergence and divergence. Urban Studies, 45(1), 185–205. https://www.ontarioaboriginalhousing.ca/wp-content/uploads/2020/02/Aboriginal-Self-determination-and-social-housing-in-urban-canada-Ryan-Walker.pdf

Wellman, T. (2016). Innovative Financing Approaches/Potential Financing Options for Affordable Housing. Ottawa, ON: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. https://eppdscrmssa01.blob.core.windows.net/cmhcprodcontainer/sf/project/archive/research_2/innovative_financing_approaches.pdf

Whitzman, C. (2025). Human rights-based housing targets and mechanisms for Canada Office of the Federal Housing Advocate, Canadian Human Rights Commission. https://homelesshub.ca/wp-content/uploads/2025/08/Human-Rights-Based-Housing-Targets-and-Mechanisms-for-Canada.pdf

Whitzman, C. (2026). Affordable housing finance: What works? University of Toronto, School of Cities. https://schoolofcities.utoronto.ca/wp-content/uploads/2026/02/Affordable-Housing-Finance-What-works.pdf

Wiebe, K. (2016). Increasing Leadership Capacity in the Non-Profit Housing Sector. Canadian Housing and Renewal Association. https://chra-achru.ca/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/increasing_leadership_capacity_in_the_non-profit_housing_sector.pdf

Zimonjic, P. (2025, December 2). Feds to reduce housing spending by half, build only 26,000 homes: Budget watchdog [News article]. CBC News. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/pbo-housing-cuts-report-9.6931844

Acknowledgements

The ideas, views and opinions in this publication belong to the authors. They may not reflect those of the Government of Canada.

ISBN 978-1-997048-26-8 (web)