Gregor Robertson, Canada’s new housing minister, was likely tapped on the basis of his decade as Vancouver’s mayor, where he introduced

Those moves nudged supply but fell short: housing designed specifically for renting trickled in slowly and the city’s homeless count hit a

Robertson once blamed the housing shortfall on tight-fisted provincial and federal budgets. Now that he controls part of that money, he can test his claim. He can plug a hole his municipal toolkit never could by being, as he vowed in 2018, , and by coupling fresh federal dollars with legal protections that empower tenants to bargain collectively.

The urgency is clear: of Canadians rent, yet tenant unions,

This absence of statutory protection for tenants is often treated as a policy oversight. By withholding legal recognition, lawmakers preserve a model that allows landlords to negotiate from a position of structural dominance as tenants confront systemic harms — rent hikes, unsafe conditions and evictions — all on their own.

Canada’s rental ‘crisis’

Soaring rents and evictions have been described as a temporary

But researchers at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives counter that the market is not broken; it works exactly as designed. Calling it a crisis justifies fixes — most often lower interest rates that lure , according to Canadian policy scholar Ricardo Tranjan in his book The Tenant Class.

The results are structural, not temporary: median national rent for a and on shelter. That’s the .

Since the 1990s, the CMHC has replaced public construction with mortgage-insurance programs that flood markets with credit, Meanwhile, Prime Minister Mark Carney’s choice of Robertson as housing minister has advanced a familiar GST rebates for first-time buyers.

When asked whether housing prices should fall, arguing that wages will eventually catch up — an adjustment economists project would take even if prices stopped rising today.

Expanding credit under these conditions is more likely to trading a housing emergency for an indebtedness emergency.

Collective action without collective rights

���Գٲ�������’s typifies Canada’s token approach to renter power. It affirms tenants’ right to form associations but, in the very next clause, excuses landlords from any obligation to meet or negotiate with them. The result is performative legality: tenants can speak but landlords are free to ignore them.

The chilling effect resembles pre-industrial labour markets, where organizing invited dismissal. Recent history confirms the weakness.

In 2023, the tenants of 33 King Street in northwest Toronto mounted a five-month rent strike and won partial rollbacks, but the tribunal still refused to recognize their union; By settling disputes that way, the system drains collective power and drags cases through attritional timelines that encourage capitulation.

Canada confronted a parallel power imbalance during industrialization. Early 20th-century governments criminalized picketing and blacklisted organizers. The upheavals of the Great Depression forced Ottawa to adopt the and

Those statutes codified three enduring principles:

1. Workers may unionize free from employer interference;
2. Employers must bargain in good faith with a certified union;
3. Violations trigger meaningful remedies, including reinstatement and damages.

Legislators acted not from moral awakening, but to temper exploitation and preserve social stability.

Housing now mirrors that earlier asymmetry: corporate landlords command capital, legal expertise and mobility, while tenants have none of that power. Extending labour-style protections to tenant unions would simply apply a proven formula to rental housing.

Counter-arguments

Landlord associations often voice four main objections to statutory tenant-union rights: the anticipated administrative burden, the spectre of disinvestment, purported constitutional limits and a moral claim that responsible owners don’t need to be legally compelled to act in good faith.

Labour history suggests these concerns are overstated.

reputable employers already paid decent wages and offered sick leave before such standards were legislated. Regulation merely imposed a baseline on those profiting from exploitation.

In housing, conscientious landlords who maintain units, honour rent control and eschew predatory fees wouldn’t require mandatory bargaining or anti-retaliation clauses. But those enriching themselves through vacancy decontrol, or steep rent hikes would. Their resistance to tenant protections underscores their necessity.

Empirical evidence further weakens objections.

First, administrative overload is improbable: and the system would work the same in landlord-tenant tribunals.

Second, claims that stronger tenant rights deter investment clash with comparative experience. In Vienna, where nearly half of all dwellings fall under tenant councils wielding union-like powers and stringent rent regulation, construction activity remains

Third, constitutional concerns are overstated. Although landlord–tenant law is chiefly provincial, the federal government already shapes rental markets through CMHC insurance, targeted tax expenditures and the which recognizes adequate housing as a human right.

Ottawa could condition financing on tenant-union recognition or incentivize provinces to harmonize standards, echoing its mid-20th century push for uniform labour legislation.

Historical precedent and evidence across the country make clear that formalizing tenant-union protections is constitutional, would streamline dispute resolution and sustain construction — substantially benefiting the one-third of Canadians who rent without destabilizing the housing market.

Collective rights for collective problems

To make housing genuinely affordable, Robertson must see Canada’s rental sector not as a malfunctioning “crisis” but as a lucrative system of organized inequality.

Legislators once recognized that individual workers could not bargain fairly with industrial adversaries and created the collective-bargaining framework that undergirds labour relations today. Housing demands the same logic.

Tenant unions already operate in neighbourhoods such as , and . But without legal status, landlords can simply ignore them.

Federal legislation could correct this imbalance. Automatic certification would follow when a simple majority of tenants in a building sign membership cards, triggering a duty for landlords to bargain in good faith over rent increases, maintenance schedules, security of tenure and essential services.

Anti-retaliation clauses would bar eviction or harassment of organizing tenants, with remedies mirroring labour law: reinstatement, damages and arbitration to deter stalling.

Negotiated standards could be applied across neighbourhoods while still allowing investors reasonable but socially responsible returns.

Granting labour-style protections to tenant unions is hardly radical; it simply extends a principle Canada embraced nearly a century ago: collective problems require collective rights.

Renters cannot wait for market forces to self-correct. Recognizing and regulating tenant unions is the most direct route to balancing power, safeguarding homes and treating housing as a human right rather than an asset class.

By PhD Student , Political Science, 91��ɫ, and PhD Candidate , Political Economy, Queen's University

The post Why Canada should apply labour protections to the rental housing sector appeared first on News@91��ɫ.

During the COVID-19 pandemic, ���Գٲ�������’s Ministry of Children, Community and Social Services placed a that requires youth to leave foster care and group homes once they turn 18. At the same time, the province committed to a to strengthen support for youth leaving care.

The moratorium expires on March 31, with a coming into effect on April 1. While the new policy appears promising for youth leaving care, there are some important gaps that require the Ontario government’s attention.

Aging out

The pandemic illuminated shortcomings in ���Գٲ�������’s child welfare policy. High numbers of youth aging out of care face , and have .

Under these circumstances, many experience victimization and . It is clear this framework does not effectively support youth leaving care to enter adulthood on a steady footing.

The ministry’s commitment to a child welfare redesign is welcome and timely. The new policy will replace two policy directives: and .

It also outlines new requirements to prepare youth for a successful transition from care to adulthood. Taking a youth-centred, strengths-based and trauma-informed approach, the policy aims to:

“assist youth to achieve physical and emotional well-being, acquire basic life management skills and develop social networks that include connections to caring adults and the community while respecting a child’s identity characteristics and cultural connections.”

Earlier intervention, extended involvement

Currently, child protection workers initiate transition planning when youth are still in care. When they turn 18 and leave care, most youth are eligible to access CCSY. Through CCSY, youth receive financial support, health benefits, and may connect with a . These supports expire when they turn 21.

Evidence shows that to prepare youth for their transition to adulthood. Youth will now begin transition planning on their 13th birthday. Between the ages of 13 and 18, planning will focus on health, education, identity, family and social relationships, emotional and behavioural development and self-care skills.

At age 18, most youth will still be required to leave their care placements. However, they will be eligible to receive transition supports, like those available under CCSY, until they turn 23. This amounts to at least 10 years of concentrated transition support which will hopefully reduce the likelihood of them facing poor outcomes.

While prioritizing early intervention for youth, the new policy makes no mention of providing early support for families. that investigations of parental neglect — which comprise a significant proportion of reports for investigation — are often more indicative of structural issues, like poverty. And add that there is an intergenerational continuity of child welfare system involvement.

Targeted preventive supports for families could address structural issues and prevent youth from being in foster care. It would also support the ministry’s goals of family reunification and minimizing child removals. Not including familial supports is a missed opportunity.

Building supportive connections

Both the previous and new policies emphasize the importance of developing youths’ . While no age was specified previously, network building is now supposed to begin as early as age 13.

Research emphasizes . Independence is a false construct, as everyone depends on others through their lives. Youth in care need continuous support to achieve interdependence.

Ongoing social support is critically important, however, it is unclear how the new policy will improve where its predecessor fell short.

Community organizations that have developed programs that emphasize permanency and natural relationships make clear that this work is highly specialized. Helping youth to find meaningful, long-term and natural supports takes time and constant support to build and maintain these relationships.

It is likely this work will fall to child protection workers who are already overladen with high caseloads. It is difficult to see how they can meaningfully or effectively add this to their existing workload.

It is also important to question the appropriateness of tasking child protection workers with this responsibility when they are often involved in breaking familial bonds, which can both create irreparable harm to the family unit and limit workers’ efficacy when it comes to helping young people develop social networks.

Importantly, the policy requiring youth to leave their care placements at 18 remains in place. Many youth experience a loss of their social supports when they age out of care. Around . It is important to distinguish between being in care (living in foster care or group homes) and simply receiving transition supports without having stable, secure housing and a social network.

Ready, set, go

The new policy also includes the which begins targeted transition planning when youth turn 16. The program will help child protection workers to assess with youth their readiness to leave care across nine indicators. Assessment will continue at six month intervals following their 18th birthday.

The program prioritizes youth voices, remains responsive to youths’ needs and connects them with services they will need in the long-run. However, the program does not connect readiness to leave care with being housed. It is difficult to imagine how young people will be able to meet their transition goals without a stable home.

Ultimately, the policy remains silent on what will happen if youth are not ready to leave care. Will youth receive support beyond age 23 if needed? Will anyone monitor their progress after they turn 23?

But really, should anyone be ready to be independent, isolated and alone?

Aspects of the new policy require more refinement and explanation. But as a whole, the spirit of the policy is promising. There is a feeling of hope for the future. The provincial government must now invest in these programs to make good on their promise to deliver for young Ontarians.

This article was co-authored by social science Professor in the Department of Social Science, 91��ɫ, and Heather O’Keefe, Executive Director of StepStones for Youth, which supports youth in and leaving the child welfare system in Ontario. Before founding StepStones, Heather worked as a child protection worker.

This article is republished from .

The post ���Գٲ�������’s new child welfare policy is promising, but youth leaving care need more support appeared first on News@91��ɫ.