—Dr. Alexandra Flynn, Associate Professor and Director, Housing Research Collaborative; Allard School of Law, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, BC Canada
[Editor’s Note: This is one of our ICONnect columns. For more information on our 2025 columnists, see here.]
Canada’s housing crisis is deepening, and so too is the confusion about which level of government is responsible for addressing it. In response to rising homelessness and housing precarity, federal, provincial, and municipal governments have largely responded by pointing fingers at one another. Constitutionally, this confusion is understandable. Housing is not explicitly assigned to any level of government in the Constitution Act, 1867, which leads to fragmented policy responses and undermines coordination at precisely the moment when coherence is most needed.
Sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act allocate powers between the federal and provincial governments. Section 91 provides the federal Parliament with authority over matters of national importance, including “Peace, Order, and good Government” (POGG), while Section 92 grants provinces power over property and civil rights and municipal institutions. Housing, however, is notably absent from either list. The result is an unclear division of power, with overlapping jurisdictions and inconsistent efforts.
Despite this ambiguity, all three levels of government do play significant roles in shaping housing outcomes. Provinces are responsible for land use planning, tenancy law, and social housing frameworks. Municipalities oversee zoning and approvals that directly affect housing supply. And the federal government—through funding, national programs, and legislation—has historically taken both a leading and lagging role in housing.
A compelling argument can be made for sustained federal leadership. There are three main reasons.
First, the POGG clause provides constitutional grounding for federal action. Because housing is not explicitly listed in section 92, and because it is now clearly a matter of national concern—with economic, social, and health-related implications across jurisdictions—the federal government has the authority to act. This is consistent with how other shared policy domains, such as health care and income support, have been addressed.
Second, Indigenous housing further illustrates the need for federal involvement. While the federal government has jurisdiction over “Indians and lands reserved for Indians” under section 91(24), decades of neglect and disputes over Indigenous funding led to severe underfunding, with significant Indigenous housing need and homelessness across the country.
Third, Canada has committed, through the 2019 National Housing Strategy Act (NHSA) and international human rights obligations, to recognize housing as a human right. The NHSA mandates that housing policy be grounded in principles of dignity and inclusion, creating a legal framework for federal leadership through programs, funding, and oversight mechanisms such as the Federal Housing Advocate and the National Housing Council.
The recent return of the federal government to housing policy—through initiatives like the Federal Lands Initiative and the Housing Accelerator Fund—represents a partial re-engagement. The new Liberal government under Prime Minister Mark Carney has pledged an even stronger federal leadership role, including active involvement in social and affordable housing. However, these programs are insufficient without meaningful provincial and municipal cooperation. Provinces set social assistance rates and delegate key planning powers to municipalities. Municipalities, in turn, control zoning and approvals—perhaps the most powerful lever for increasing affordable housing supply—but are limited by provincial frameworks and chronic underfunding.
History shows that national coordination, in addition to funding, works. After World War II, the federal government led major housing initiatives, including the development of non-market housing. This approach delivered significant gains. However, by the 1970s and 1980s, neoliberal reforms led to the downloading of responsibilities to provinces and municipalities, coupled with a withdrawal of federal funding. The resulting gaps in capacity and leadership have led directly to the shortfalls we see today.
Ultimately, solving Canada’s housing crisis requires not only clear roles and responsibilities, but also political will and collaboration. The NHSA envisions housing as a shared responsibility—but one that must be guided by federal leadership, enabled by provincial frameworks, and delivered through empowered municipalities. As academic experts and housing advocates alike have observed, progress depends on integrated, intergovernmental action: with federal vision, provincial accountability, and municipal authority to act.
In the absence of constitutional clarity, we must look to constitutional principles, historical precedent, and human rights obligations to guide us. The housing crisis is national in scale, and so too must be the response.
Suggested citation: Alexandra Flynn, Constitutional Silence, Political Noise: The Case for Strong Federal Involvement in Housing Policy in Canada, Int’l J. Const. L. Blog, May 22, 2025, at: http://www.iconnectblog.com/constitutional-silence-political-noise-the-case-for-strong-federal-involvement-in-housing-policy-in-canada/
Comments