BRITISH COLUMBIA Rental housing no priority in Ottawa or Victoria Earlier this month a federal program to build 1,000 new rental housing units in Vancouver was cancelled by the new Con- servative government in Ottawa headed by Prime Minister Brian Mulroney. It’s a below-the-belt blow at our faltering econ- omy that will have far-reaching results. These include: @ The loss the 2,500 jobs; @ The loss of $60 million which will now not go into our economy; @ A shortage of housing during Expo 86 which in turn will mean higher rents with increases up to 50 per cent being forecast by planning consultants and eviction and dis- placement of tenants. The 1,000-unit program was to be under- taken as part of a federal subsidized rental housing scheme called the Canada Rental Supply Plan (CRSP) which provided devel- opers with interest-free loans of $15,000 per unit. So eager were Vancouver builders and developers to take advantage of this offer that by Sept. 5, 124 applications to build 7,000 units had been made. The list was finally pared down to 1,000 and now even these have been cancelled. The rental units were to be built around the Expo site and along the ALRT line, with some 150-200 units planned for B.C. Place. The program could have gone ahead if the provincial government had been willing to put up $7 million towards the housing subsidy, but it refused. Harry Rankin Why was the project cancelled by Ottawa? Why has the B.C. Social Credit government refused to put up a mere $7 million? Obviously the answer can’t be that either Ottawa or Victoria are short of money. The money is there — the Tory government has as much money as the Lib- eral government before it, and the B.C. government has as much money this year as it had last year. It’s all a question of priorities. Building housing for people isn’t one of the priorities of either of these governments. But there’s more to it than that. The cancellation of the program means that both governments have caved in to the pres- sure of the big landlords in Vancouver who want a housing shortage by 1986 so they can jack up rents as much as they like and make a financial killing during the six months of Expo. They want the present vacancy rate of 2.5 per cent reduced to zero by 1986. Corporate ' profits before people, that’s their motto — and to hell with tenants! This latest decision by Ottawa and Victo- ria virtually assures that no rental housing will be built in Vancouver in the near future. The first victims will be tenants who today make up over half of our city population. If you think rent increases have been exorbitant in the past, you ain’t seen nuttin’ yet. They will be horrendous in the future — unless city council and the public are able to persuade the two governments to change their minds. The fallacy of ‘restraint The following is excerpted from material presented to the B.C. Action Caucus conference on “Strategies for The Fightback”’ held in Vancouver, Nov. 25. The “restraint” policies followed by the Social Credit 1975 1983 government and governments in both Ottawa and Washington _UIC benefit are based on the following: payments: 3,144,000,000 10,169,000,000 © High interest rates to curtail the supply of money and _{nterest on Supposedly seg inflation; i ROR Clare a public debt: 5,343,000,000 25,141,000,000 ®@ Cutbacks in government spending involving layoffs, wage controls and reductions of government programs. TOTAL: 8,487,000,000 35,310,000,000 But high interest rates discourage private investment and Government therefore promote unemployment. And cutbacks further reduce _—_ deficit: 4,039,000,000 24,333,000,000 emplovment. The combined effects of interest rates and cutbacks are: © That government revenues are reduced because less income tax and sales tax is collected as a result of reduced expenditures by workers; © That government expenditures are increased because of higher interest rates — paid out on government bonds and other borrowing — and higher payouts for unemployment The following figures compare the situation before and after eight years of restraint by the federal government. ’ “Restraint,” therefore, has increased the cost of interest pay- ments and UIC payments by $26.8 billion while the combined deficits of federal and provincial governments have increased by $20 billion. At the same time, the unemployment went from seven to 12 per cent. In the present period, the provincial government is making this situation worse by further cutbacks, layoffs and restraints of insurance and social assistance. workers’ incomes. Restraint — it cuts into wages... Average Weekly Earnings Average Hourly Earnings B.C. Canada B.C. Canada Construction , July 1983 624.81 513.68 18.16 13.61 July 1984 581.49 502.78 17.48 1321 Percent Change - 7.0% - 2.1% -— 3.75% - 3.0% All Industries July 1983 376.83 322.53 1232 9.85 July 1984 377.08 333.89 12.32 10.13 Percent Change +0.1% + 3:5%" 0.0 + 2.8% Note 1: The Consumer Price Index increased by 4.2 per cent, therefore the real earnings of construction workers in B.C. actually dropped by about 11 per cent per week of eight per cent hour. Average earnings of workers in all industries in B.C. show a zero increase and therefore more than four per cent real decrease, while in the rest of Canada they increased by only 65 to 80 per cent of the CPI increase. ..and it increases unemployment Number of Hourly Paid Employees B.C. Canada Construction July 1983 31,100 280,600 July 1984 24,500 262,900 Percent Change - 22% - 6.4% All Industries July 1983 468,000 4,038,000 July 1984 472,000 4,137,800 Percent Change +0.8% +2.5% Number of Salaried Employees Public Administration July 1983 66,400 687,600 July 1984 62,100 620,500 Percent Change - 6.5% - 9.8% But shorter hours would boost jobs Hours of Work — British Columbia Forestry Sawmills Pulp & Paper Construction Number of Employees July 1983 13,200 26,400 11,900 31,100 July 1984 - 12,000 25,300 11,400 24,500 Reduction 1,200 1,100 500 6,600 ° Average Hours July 1983 38.2 36.8 36.4 34.4 | July 1984 37.0 35.1 38.3 33.3 Reduction in hours - 1.2 ag aps +1.9 -1.1 Average Hourly Earnings July 1983 17.25 14.82 173 18.16 July 1984 18.01 15.41 17.49 17.48 Combined Effect: Reductionin Total Hours: Employment (No. Employees x hrs.) - 10% -6% - 2.4% - 22.1% Reduction in Pay (Hours & Hourly Earnings) - 6% - 2.24% - 1.4% - 25.1% Reduction in normal working hours to 35 hours without reduction in take home pay would reduce the lay-offs, result in increased wage payments and benefit the whole community through greater demand for goods and services. PACIFIC TRIBUNE, NOVEMBER 28, 1984 e 5