Subscribe
Share
Share
Embed
Welcome to She They Us, a podcast about making room in housing for women and gender-diverse people brought to you by the Pan-Canadian Voice for Women’s Housing.
Join host Andrea Reimer to hear about why Canada’s housing crisis is hitting households led by women and gender-diverse people harder and what you can do about it.
Please be advised that the topics discussed in this series can be challenging to listen to and explore topics of homelessness, abuse, torture, racism, transphobia, and drug use. Please take care while listening and if you need support, unfortunately there isn't a national crisis line in Canada, but you can find provincial crisis lines and other resources on the podcast website.
So I'm currently still living in a house with my ex-husband and my two children. And that's basically because financially there's absolutely no way for me to pay rent in this city. I don't even make enough like post deductions to pay rent in my city.
Welcome back to She They Us, a podcast brought to you by the Pan-Canadian Voice for Women's Housing. I'm Andrea Reimer. I'm a former city councillor for the City of Vancouver, an adjunct professor of practice at UBC's School of Public Policy and Global Affairs, and a housing advocate who has experienced homelessness firsthand. In the last episode, we learned about NEHA, a review panel established by the federal government's National Housing Council.
on the right to housing for women, two-spirit, trans and gender diverse people and the government's duty to uphold this right. We also met Margaret Wanyoike, who shared her shocking story, which illustrated the specific challenges women face when Canada's current housing system fails them. Neha is a big opportunity to change things for women like Margaret, but in order for Neha's work to make a difference on the ground, the federal government needs to act on their recommendations.
In today's episode, we will look at the work the federal government has been doing, or at the least should be doing, to help women and gender diverse people in the housing crisis and some of the structural barriers to greater action. First, let's meet Ashley, an HIV Support Services Coordinator based in North Bay, Ontario. You heard Ashley in the opening, and as you heard, even though Ashley is separated from her husband,
She still lives with him in the house he owns as she simply cannot afford other housing for herself and their children. Here's Ashley. My name's Ashley. ⁓ I am working as the HIV Support Services Coordinator in North Bay out of an ASO, an AIDS service organization. I always use acronyms, That's the nature of my job. But I'm also just a, I refer to myself as an advocate for pretty much any social service
or human experience in our city. So I'm a member of the queer community here and I advocate for all kinds of inclusion and sustainability in our community, both in my personal time and at work. Unless you're from Ontario and even then, you may not be familiar with North Bay. It's a small city that is referred to as the gateway to Northern Ontario. It's situated northeast of Algonquin Provincial Park, roughly a four hour drive north of Toronto.
We have about 50,000, 55,000 I think is our population now. ⁓ It's really spread out, the North Bay and areas, a very vast geographical spread. And there really is just a lack of most resources. We have 20,000 people without a doctor in our city. We have all kinds of like lack of accessibility to things. But I mean, it is a beautiful town. There's a lot of, if you like the outdoors, it's the place to be. Lots of trails, lots of lakes
which I'm an outdoor nut and I spend a lot of my time camping and being outdoors. So being here and growing up here hasn't been so bad. Lots of little like mom and pop shop kind of places. It's starting to get a little bit more of like the corporate feel of like places opening up big box stores, things like that. But for the most part, we have a really beautiful downtown core with small independent local businesses that are still thriving, which is nice to see.
North Bay is growing and like any growing city in Canada, the cost of growth is a quickly rising cost of living. Our housing market is terrible now and I separated from my husband two years ago. Luckily, you know, we're not in a toxic place, but we still live together and that's not really great, right? So I'm currently still living in a house with my ex-husband and my two children. And that's basically because financially there's
absolutely no way for me to pay rent in this city. I don't even make enough like post deductions to pay rent in my city at all. I don't even bring in that money. Like rent for a two bedroom unit where my kids would be sharing a bedroom is $2,800 a month plus utilities. And I bring in less than that after deductions and I still have daycare fees and I still have
insurances and food and utilities and all of those things that come with being a human being and a parent to pay for. So, ⁓ financially speaking, there is no way out right now unless I find a way to make more money. I had to fight back a gasp when Ashley said how much rent would be for a two bedroom in North Bay. The prices that Ashley lays out here aren't far off of the price of rents in Toronto or even Vancouver.
I asked her to tell me more about the housing market in North Bay so that I could get a better understanding of why exactly the prices are so steep. Yeah. mean, really, like the best way I can describe it is ⁓ just even in the difference in, I guess, two ways. The difference in like what I paid for rent 15 years ago when I was renting was, you know, 1500 inclusive for a two or three bedroom unit. And that was like inclusive of utilities and everything else. It was all in kind of
1500 bucks and the ratio of that to your income made sense. I could do it, right? It fell within your, you know, 10 % of what you're making kind of thing to pay for rent, 20 % of what you're making to pay for rent kind of situation. And so it was doable. And now, you know, I look at my income now versus that, and I look at the ratios of housing costs and...
And even comparing it to like 12 years ago when we bought our home, like we bought our home 12 years ago, our mortgage is roughly $800 a month right now for a five bedroom house. And that I think is the biggest thing in North Bay though, is that like these housing prices have dramatically increased, but our wages and the job availability in our small town hasn't, right? So I'm lucky enough right now that I do have that opportunity to continue living in that home and have that lower cost, but
I'm also in the position that if I choose to leave that because of my relationship situation, then I am now entering a market that is substantially more expensive and my wage doesn't change, right? It's hard to even imagine what that would look like. I've looked at situations where I would be sleeping on a couch while my kids got the one bedroom and both shared it and...
Even at that, I would be sacrificing like a safe neighborhood. I'd be sacrificing a place where I felt okay to let my kids like play outside and the quality of home, right? And that there's not a lot of honest landlords in our city. It's something that I battle with every day with my clients at work. And it's something I battle with when I was renting. And even still now is that there are a lot of landlords in the city that take advantage of people and they don't
maintain properties and they don't uphold people's rights under landlord tenant acts. So entering into all of that stress as well as a single mom just is like, how do I even fathom getting through all of that, right? I was curious if Ashley and her ex-husband had discussed Ashley keeping the house and her ex-husband moving into a rental. That's been discussed. Unfortunately, I'm in the same situation that a lot of
my friends have been in similar positions is that my ex has been actually bought the house before we were married and he is the primary mortgage holder of that home. I mean, my ex, as great of a person as he is, makes like more than double my income. So his ability to sustain living in this market is a better chance than me. And yes, it's a marital home and yes, I could fight for it and all of those things, but I would actually be required to qualify for a mortgage to have that home.
And on my income, I've already been told that's likely not going to happen. And it's like even comparing his income in mind and then doing all what he would potentially owe for child support, even with that, I would still be making less than like $3,500 a month and putting that towards like daycare and all of those costs. And again, you know, we talk about the Ontario political climate right now that also contributes to the housing insecurity for women is
I pay $900 a month in childcare for one of my two children. And that's because even with the subsidized daycare, it's like specific licensed daycares get that subsidy to lower their daily rates. But we also have a daycare shortage in North Bay and my kids have been on a wait list for licensed daycare for four years and haven't gotten a spot. So I'm in a private daycare that's not subsidized. So I still have to pay full price regardless.
So it's like, there's just this disparity in barriers and like systemic barriers put up nonstop that you're just trying to navigate the world. So it's like, it's just this vicious cycle. My heart was aching as I listened to Ashley's story, especially knowing that whether they are in cities, towns, or rural and remote communities, many women and gender diverse people and their families across the country are in similar situations.
with so many people suffering, but no real policy attention on it. It's hard not to think there are structural barriers. I wanted to understand that better and particularly unpack how we got here. So I talked to Frances Bula, a journalist and longtime advocate for more attention on housing issues based in Vancouver.
I am a journalist who has primarily covered urban issues and urban politics and housing and development and homelessness and drug policy and various other things related to city Since 1994. I've actually been a journalist since 1983 where I also covered a few of those things in other communities in BC. In 1999, 26 years ago,
Frances received a one-year fellowship from the Atkinson Foundation that allowed her to study homelessness and affordable housing options around the world. I asked her to tell me a bit about that and what she learned. What I learned, I would say, is the places that did the best had a plan for how you address homelessness and housing issues all through the continuum.
Like you can't just do one thing. You can't just do shelters. You can't just do low income housing. You can't just do middle income market rental. You can't just do social housing or co-ops or whatever. It has to be this really comprehensive complex set of solutions that addresses the housing issues that are very different at different income levels. So I would say that was number one. Number two.
I'll never forget this woman in Florida who was trying to find housing for seniors who were constantly being evicted out of, you know, the cheapo places they'd had in Miami for a long time. And she said, it's like there's a homelessness factory out there. You know, like no matter how much I do, how many people I place, there's just like this increasing stream. And I have thought of her so often because that's what we essentially have seen throughout North America.
It's like a homelessness factory because the housing system that used to function somewhat for poor people has just fallen apart in many ways. So what happened? How did the system that used to quote unquote somewhat work for people with lower incomes fall apart? How did North America get to the point of, as Frances calls it, being a homelessness factory? One of the ways that societies housed poor people
in Canada and the US for very long time was they allowed very shitty buildings to be built that poor people could afford. So terrible tenements in New York, falling apart wooden shacks, you know, in various small towns and so on. Things built with no fire code, no, you know, whatever. Whatever you think of it, the reality is that's why a lot of poor people could live indoors is because there was
terrible shitty housing that was built and was allowed. Now, increasingly, we see the standards for housing have gone up steadily. There's more and more required all the time for any new unit that you build, and that costs more money. It costs enough money that you cannot build that kind of, even the cheapest housing that you can come up with is still more than people in the lowest income levels can afford.
There is just no way for the market to respond without going back to 19th century practices of, you know, building terrible shit. So that was number one. While Frances was explaining this, it reminded me a part of my conversation with Ashley. Frances is referring to buildings built throughout the 19th and a big chunk of the 20th century. But unfortunately, even though we do have a higher standard of housing now, we still see people housed in unsafe housing.
Here is Ashley. My real struggles in housing started when I moved out on my own at 17. Luckily I found a place that I don't even think was a legal apartment. It was this little old couple who took pity on me because I reminded them of their granddaughter and it was a ⁓ one car garage that they had turned into an apartment. I didn't really have a bathroom. I had a toilet and a sink with a curtain.
I couldn't stand up in my bedroom because the roof was so short and my fridge was like a bar fridge, not even a full fridge. And then I had a cooktop. So I stayed there for about two years and went to school, was putting myself through school. And then somewhere along that line, I ended up in a not so great relationship and lived with that person for a bit. It was an abusive relationship, which I escaped with the clothes on my back and ended up homeless for almost a year.
living in my car with my dog and showering at gyms or random couch surfing with friends while I worked my full-time job and still went to school until I could save up first and last month's rent for an apartment. According to Frances, a move to safer building standards isn't the only reason that North America is seeing rising levels of homelessness. She says that the deinstitutionalization of individuals with mental health challenges played a role as well. Number two.
You know, that a lot of people point to was the deinstitutionalization of people with mental health issues. And the idea was that they would get all kinds of supports once they were out in the community and that didn't happen. And so they ended up losing their housing because their behavior was not tolerated by a lot of private landlords. So that's another factor. You just generally have this incredible squeeze on housing.
that we saw a move from the poorest people up to pretty middle class people over the last 10 years. Just cities weren't building as much. They weren't building enough for the population growth that was happening. And so people just bid up what was available. And that is what helps create the homelessness factory. asked Frances if she thought that there were market solutions for folks whose housing needs mean that they can't access the market rates for housing. There is no way that
any developer, no matter what magic they work out with various parts of their plan for building, that they can get it down to $500 a month or $800 a month. Like even the CCPA, the Canadian Center for Policy Alternatives, Alex Hemingway, the economist there, calculated what the minimum rent was that you could get to if you had free land and no marketing.
and just the building costs and the lowest that he could come to I think was $1350 or something like that, which is way beyond the reach of anyone on welfare, anyone on disability, anyone who's alone and making minimum wage, like maybe two minimum wage people could pay that. But that's with free land and you know, all the costs reduced as much as you possibly can. So what about the federal government? What has their role in housing been?
And do governments have the responsibility to fill in safe, affordable housing where there are gaps for people who don't make enough money to afford market rates for housing? So the conservative government in 1994 ended CMHC direct support for housing, for social housing, for co-ops, for everything. And previous to that in the 70s, know, various liberal governments had cut things like
you know, investor tax breaks, you know, a lot of the four story old apartment buildings, and then the CMHC direct subsidies for social housing and various other things ended in 1994. And what you've seen is it got ignored for a long time. And I always say people thought there was no problem because the jet plane, even though it was out of gas, was still kind of gliding.
through the air. And so for a while it seemed like, no, the market can take care of anything, everything, and it doesn't really matter that the government doesn't support social housing or co-ops or whatever anymore. And then as things got worse and worse, it became more and more apparent that no, actually the market.
housing system is not functioning. Increasingly, people at the bottom of the income slash housing continuum are just falling out onto the street. And then the federal liberal government came in in 2015 and also tried to move the needle a little bit on housing. But here's the political problem that I always see. You get very little political capital reward for building housing.
It's way more attractive for politicians to put money into transit or even water filtration plants or something like that because a whole bunch of middle class people benefit from that and they use it every day. When you put money into housing for poor people, the only people who really know about it are the poor people who moved in and
Even they don't realize all the time, like this only happened because of the federal government doing this. So you don't get any political kudos for it. And because housing is so expensive, you have to spend billions of dollars to be able to move the needle even one little bit. My conversation with Frances took place about two weeks prior to the 2025 federal election in Canada. I asked her she was hopeful when it came to the election. I think it's
partly that it's very hard to come up with anything new. Like the few things I have heard Poilievre talk about mostly seem like ideas that I've heard many times over the last 30 years. Like use federal land, know, eliminate taxes on certain types of, you know, housing that's more geared to the lower end of the market and things like that. it's, housing's been studied by a lot of people and...
There isn't a huge amount under the sun that's new. So it does really take someone coming in and saying, we're going to do 15 different things. And that's a really hard political sell. And even when you're doing the 15 things, every time there's an announcement about one part of one of the 15 things, people are like, well, this isn't going to solve the housing problem. No, that's right. It won't.
You know, because you have to do all 15 and you have to do them for like 20 years to start to make a dent in what it took 30 or 40 years to, you know, erode. This rings so true with my own experience in government. In my time on Vancouver City Council, we spent a decade doing substantially more than any council had ever done in Vancouver trying to bend the curve on housing.
But as Francis points to, it's a very complex problem and the negative attention we drew didn't always inspire other governments to action. To better understand how the government could improve solving complex problems, I spoke with Mike Moffatt, an economist based in Ottawa who happens to have unique qualifications to speak about the intersection of housing policy, solving complex problems, and the federal government.
Yeah, so my name is Mike Moffatt. I'm an economist. I've done a number of things over my career, but currently I am the founding director of a think tank called the Missing Middle Initiative, housed at the University of Ottawa, dedicated to looking at the decline of Canada's young middle class and how we can reverse this trend. Mike spent time with the federal government as Canada's Chief Innovation Fellow.
In this position, he learned a lot about the ins and outs of decision making processes in the federal government. I was Canada's Chief innovation Fellow, which is a fancy title, which I still don't know entirely what it means. basically, I was advising ⁓ the federal government and specifically industry Canada on a variety of innovation programs. So it was.
It was a great experience. I got to see how the sausage was made at the highest levels of federal government. And it does show the tensions that governments have to deal with. That obviously there's public opinion, but they're constrained obviously by the Constitution and different orders of government and just the capacity of the public service to deliver on their promises.
Yeah, when you kind of get in the inside, you see that, yeah, this is a very, very complex system with a lot of moving parts. In my personal experience in government, albeit local government versus Mike's federal experience, government working in its best form is providing stable, predictable, and replicable services. Things that people need on a daily basis so that they can get on with their lives. The garbage is picked up. The water flows when you turn on the tap.
transportation works the way you want it to. Innovation isn't an easy fit when your main job is reproducing the same outcome every day. I asked Mike how it felt to be the one to bring innovative ideas into these settings. It's certainly challenging. No question about it.
Because in part, you know, as somebody who's been in the outside most of my life, I tend to have a bit of a tech bro approach where it's going to move fast and break things. And that's exactly what you don't want to be doing in government. tends to what's up people. the system for the system to work, it naturally has to be somewhat risk averse. has to make sure that, you know, it's taking kind of a do no harm approach. So that does.
limits what the federal government or any government can do. And because a lot of what I dealt with was issues of procurement, know, governments buying things and working with folks. There's, you know, there's never been a story in the Globe and Mail on the front page of the Globe and Mail that says like procurement process went well, everybody happy with the results, right? That the only news you ever get for these programs is when they break.
So it changes the incentives where governments, particularly in the civil service, are not trying to maximize a positive outcome. They're trying to minimize bad things from happening. then if bad things do happen, have trying to limit the damage. There's the additional concern is that they're
They're always dealing with the current crisis. They're always dealing with the situations and don't ⁓ have the time or energy and space to really kind of do a foresight analysis of, what's coming around the corner or what if there is something that we don't deal with today, what happens tomorrow? Right. So you spend all of your time putting out fires and not that much time making your home fireproof.
I asked Mike if he would do anything differently based on what he learned during his tenure at the federal government. Yeah, I think I would. One of the things I really learned is the importance of simplification and not over engineering things that, you know, the more failure points you have, then the more things that can go wrong. So it's really kind of changed how I think about public policy, because I have a background in public policy.
you know, taught it at Ivey Business School for over decade before I went in. And, you know, I do think coming out of that, the sort of advice that I give government and the work that we do here at the missing middle tends to be less complex, tends to have fewer moving parts and that kind of thing, and really kind of focus on that implementation side rather than coming up with the most elegant, over-engineered solution.
which is going to break in a thousand and one ways because of either events or is just too hard to implement. This season and last season, everyone I talk to tells me how complex housing is. There's so many moving parts and that even if there are solutions for some parts, if all the parts aren't working, it's easy for people to fall into cracks. It's a structural systemic failure.
So fixing it is inherently going to involve a lot of what Mike calls failure points. I asked Mike how change could work in a system that favors projects with less failure points. It's kind of how we got in this mess to begin with that, you know, there were, I would say, at least a couple dozen different factors that created a perfect storm. And I noticed that when I post online, you know, I'll talk about one factor and I'll get people saying, no, it wasn't that it was this other one. And I don't.
wholly ever disagree with them. said, no, actually, you're right. That's important too. And we have to look at these things. So I think it does ⁓ require ⁓ each order of government to sort of figure out, what are the things that we can do? How can we ⁓ contribute to a solution? Because each order of government has their own set of tools.
But ideally, it should involve governments working together and kind of rowing in the same direction and coming up with coordinated plans. Ideally, I would love to see the federal government kind of take a Team Canada approach where they bring together the premiers of the 10 provinces and three territories, along with some of the mayors of the biggest cities and sit everyone in a room.
The housing czar, I'd lock everybody in a room and say, OK, you're not getting out until you can come up with a coordinated plan. that's so challenging to do in this country, because, again, even just at the provincial and territorial level, you you've got 13 different premiers who have different priorities, different ideologies and so on. It makes it very challenging to ⁓ coordinate housing policy. And it's also a different crisis across the country where ⁓ even
⁓ Northern Ontario, the housing challenges are different than Southwestern Ontario, let alone the challenges between, say, British Columbia and Saskatchewan, which are quite a bit different from each other. And that's the other challenge. As we found out in the first season, the housing crisis isn't a crisis for everyone. It's primarily felt by those who don't own homes. For those who do own, the so-called housing crisis can be more of a housing windfall.
And a lot of folks in government, both elected and staff, are in this very position. So how can we act in this situation when a lot of the people in power don't fully grasp the crisis? You know, I use the term housing crisis, and that's not entirely accurate. I would say that there are a set of overlapping crises from the homelessness side of it to what we look at at the missing middle, which is...
young middle class Canadians, and there's a variety of challenges that overlap and intersect with each other. But as you point out, there's also a lot of folks and I have to admit myself included that at least on paper benefit from the status quo. Example I like to use is I bought my first home in London, Ontario, brand new home 2004.
I paid $168,000 for it. I no longer own that home, but if I did, it's worth about $700,000 now. So, there's been years in my career where my home has made more money than I have, at least on paper. The appreciation of my real estate is higher than my salary. So I basically get paid on paper for doing absolutely nothing. that's one of the things that does make the housing crisis
difficult. ⁓ We've had a few blog posts and reports on this on the Missing Middle Initiative saying that house prices have to go down ⁓ in many markets to retain affordability. Like we can't, it's not going to be enough to just say, OK, well, if house prices stay flat for a while and wages go up at three percent a year like they have been for the last 20 years, you know, that's just going to be enough to create affordability. And I'm like,
Yeah, maybe, but we did the math and depending on the market, that takes anywhere from 20 to 50 years. You know, the oldest the oldest millennials are going to be collecting Canada pension plan before they can afford a home. So that's not a viable solution. But at the same time, know, homeowners don't want to hear from from politicians. Hey, you know, we got to solve this crisis. And it means that, you know, your home price is going to go down 20, 30, 40 percent. ⁓ And furthermore, you know, they don't necessarily want
even if politicians aren't framing it that way, which of course they wouldn't frame it that way, they don't necessarily want the policies that would lead to that outcome. So it does make for a challenge in a different way than a pandemic or something like that, that kind of affects.
everybody. You know, this is just affecting a large but only, you know, a subset of the population and the rest of the population is actually benefiting from the status quo, at least on paper. what does this all mean for women and gender diverse people? After all, 40 % of households in Canada are led by women or gender diverse people, and they are three times more likely to be in core housing need. Yet we rarely hear these stories. One of my
favorite unfortunate stories is like we were one of the things we were we were looking at was just again the percentage like who who was farming new households that kind of thing and I had a planner from the Kitchener Waterloo region ⁓ accused me of being pro-divorce to as it was suggesting that hey you know maybe the fact that we have you know higher rates of you know higher rates than average of
couples being together might be a might be problematic. And this older white planner was like, what are you, pro-divorce? like, in some instances, yes. I think people should have that choice. And I mentioned that in part to ⁓ illustrate what often happens at the municipal level, and I'm sure you experienced this as well, that you get...
this kind of ideology of older planners who are kind of like, well, family's good, couple's good. ⁓ know, hey, we have very few single people living on their own. That must mean we're doing well. no, that doesn't necessarily mean that at all. So even when planners have the data, it can often be misinterpreted in or interpreted in ways that aren't particularly helpful. Mike was talking.
I couldn't help but think about Ashley and how she can't afford housing without the help of her ex-husband. She should have the choice to leave the household, but she can't. I even asked Ashley if she would consider leaving North Bay for somewhere cheaper if she could find it. But she said she wants her children to grow up near their father. He's very involved and of course that makes good sense. But in the meantime, she lives in a situation out of her control. I asked her what secure safe housing would look like for her.
That's a hard one. mean, I don't know that I've ever, or maybe not, I can't say ever, but I don't know that there is a long period of time where I've ever lived in a place where it felt like home, where I felt like I could take that armor off and just like not be in that constant survival mode, the constant problem solving mode, the constant stress and anxiety of like, am I enough? Am I doing enough? Am I a good enough mom? Am I, am I working hard enough?
should there be something else I'm doing to make more money or have a better home or have a better situation. if I could wake up in a bed that felt like home, that I could put my feet on the ground and feel safe and not at risk of losing, ⁓ that I could go to a job that I'm not like, can I do it for one more day to get one more paycheck just so that I could survive? I think it, I don't even know, I feel like that.
almost as unattainable. I don't know that that exists. I've never really had it. I think it would feel light. I think it would feel probably healthier than most days. Feel waking up and wondering and not feeling like anything is really your home. You know, even though I've lived in this house for 12 years, like my name's not on the mortgage, I don't make enough to sustain it on my own. If he were to leave, I can't qualify for the mortgage to keep it. So is it really mine?
Is it really my home? Like to wake up and feel like something's actually mine and I'm not just one bad decision away or one bad day away from losing it. Like, it would feel safe, it would feel secure. A dream?
As we close today's episode, I'm reflecting on the points that Frances and Mike made, as well as the story that Ashley shared with us and how far in the future change feels. Is this housing crisis an issue that can be solved by federal government or should we be looking more locally? In the next episode, I'm going to get closer to home, very close to home for me, in fact. We're going to take a deep dive into what's been happening in Vancouver. We will meet Lisa Guerin.
Former tenant turned program manager of a Downtown Eastside SRO, talk to the former mayor of Vancouver and now the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure in the federal government, Gregor Robertson, and hear from BC Nonprofit Housing Associations CEO Jill Atkey to look at the good, the bad and the ugly when the burden of solving the housing crisis falls on local governments. Here's Lisa. You can't take away.
supportive housing. You can't remove people from their community into other communities that they're unfamiliar away from their supports and expect them to be successful in their housing. It's just not going to happen. Thank you to Frances, Mike and Ashley for sharing their expertise on today's episode.
And an especially big thank you to Ashley for helping us better see what life looks like for her and her family. No doubt you know a woman or gender diverse person in a similar situation. Maybe you are that person. Sharing this episode helps more people understand what life looks like for those living at the front lines of Canada's housing crisis. Thank you for joining us. I'm Andrea Reimer on behalf of the Pan-Canadian Voice for Women's Housing.
Another Everything Podcast production.
Visit everythingpodcast.com, a division of Patterson Media.