—Dr. Alexandra Flynn, Associate Professor and Director, Housing Research Collaborative; Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC Canada
Canada’s housing crisis has reached an alarming scale with a shortfall of nearly five million homes. Rents are climbing by double digits in most cities, and “no-fault” evictions—where tenants lose their homes through no wrongdoing of their own—continue to rise. The country’s constitutional framework offers little clarity about which government is responsible for ensuring that everyone in Canada has a safe and affordable place to live. While housing is indeed a “wicked” intergovernmental problem, there is a useful precedent to turn to: health care.
Canada’s Constitution divides power between the federal and provincial governments, but it says nothing about housing. Under sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, provinces are responsible for local matters such as municipal governments, property and civil rights, while the federal government governs issues of national or international concern. Housing isn’t named on either list and municipalities aren’t even recognized as constitutional actors.
In the country’s fragmented housing landscape, provinces oversee tenancy laws, social housing, and land-use planning, while municipalities handle zoning and homelessness response. More recently, the federal government has reinserted itself into housing policy after decades of abandonment. These activities are happening without integration, with binding human rights standards missing from the conversation entirely.
In 2019, Parliament took an important step by enacting the National Housing Strategy Act (NHSA). The Act declares that “the right to adequate housing is a fundamental human right affirmed in international law” and commits the federal government to the “progressive realization” of that right. It established a National Housing Council and a Federal Housing Advocate to monitor progress, advise ministers, and to hear the voices of those with lived experience of housing insecurity. However, the NHSA’s power stops at the federal level. It doesn’t bind provinces or municipalities to act, nor does it create an individual right to housing enforceable in court.
This is not the first time Canada has faced a jurisdictional gap in an area of urgent national concern. Before the Canada Health Act (CHA), health care was largely privatized and unevenly available. In the 60s, the federal government used its spending power to attach conditions to federal funds in order to encourage provinces to create publicly funded health insurance programs. By making federal health transfers conditional on meeting national principles like universality and accessibility, the CHA established a de facto national health system without altering the Constitution.
The CHA is not perfect. Enforcement depends more on political pressure than legal remedies. Yet it demonstrates how funding agreements between the federal government and provinces can bridge the gap between constitutional division and fragmented policy decisions.
The same legal tool could help turn the NHSA’s vision into enforceable reality. The federal government already transfers billions to provinces, territories, and municipalities for housing and infrastructure. By embedding NHSA principles directly into those agreements, Ottawa could require that recipients uphold human rights standards such as non-discrimination, inclusion, participation, and accountability as conditions of funding.
Conditional funding agreements between the federal government and subnational actors (like provinces and municipalities) serve as a helpful model and tool. Through such mechanisms, the federal government can operationalize the right to housing. These contracts can include the human rights standards enshrined in the NHSA, measurable commitments in the construction and operation of affordable housing, and strong legislative language to make the conditions unambiguous.
Enforcement may be a challenge. The federal government’s leverage depends on sustained financial investment and political resolve. When Ottawa’s share of health funding dropped over time, its influence waned. For housing, the lesson is clear: if the federal government wants to shape outcomes, it can’t just set conditions; it must also maintain meaningful, long-term funding to support them.
This approach provides a concrete, legally coherent mechanism to advance the right to housing within Canada’s complex constitutional order. Federal leadership, backed by human rights requirements and conditional funding, can reshape social policy across jurisdictions. It also shows that intergovernmental agreements, supported by a shared normative vision, can overcome federalism’s inherent fragmentation. Applying that same logic to housing could bring us closer to realizing what the NHSA promises: a Canada where everyone has access to adequate, affordable, and secure housing.
Suggested citation: Alexandra Flynn, Binding Rights: Contractual Federalism and the Right to Housing in Canada, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, Nov. 1, 2025, at: http://www.iconnectblog.com/contractual-federalism-and-the-right-to-housing-in-canada/