Het

ee Dee | |

British Columbia

mene 11 Vt

New B.C. front opens in budget fight

The federal budget brought down Feb.
20 is a financial Meech Lake which aims at
unevenly reducing social programs admin-
istered by provinces. But the howls of pro-
test coming from Finance Minister Mel
Couvelier and Premier Bill Vander Zalm
make for dangerous political demago-
guery, and are designed to prepare the
ground for their own attack on social pro-
grams in the provincial budget now
expected in the first week of April.

There is no justification for those cuts.
The British Columbia government is well
positioned to protect this province from
many of the negative consequences from
the Wilson budget.

Here is how the Tory budget will affect
British Columbia:

Transfer payments for health and post
secondary education: The Tories have
slapped a two-year freeze on the so-called
transfer payments to the provinces,
known Officially as the “Established Pro-
grams Financing”. The transfer payment
is based on a per-capita contribution of
$733 per person, and continuing popula-
tion increases in this province will partially
offset the loss of the four-per-cent increase
in 1990 that the Socred government was
counting on. The bottom line in the fed-
eral accounts sees a reduction of $120 mil-
lion in 1990 and $164 million in 1991 fora
two-year cut of $284 million of federal
funding for B.C.

As expected, our provincial politicians
are desperately milking the federal cuts for
all the political gain they can get. ‘What
are we, chopped liver?” demanded Couve-
lier on CBC radio the morning after the
budget. | We; re being penalized for our

success,” sang Vander. Zalm, Former.

‘ Socrée*minister-and ‘mining industry fob="

‘byist‘Lom Waterland declared he will j join
the Reform Party. The Socreds imme-
diately announced a two-week delay in the
opening of the legislature so that the B.C.
budget can be completely reworked.
There is no doubt that the cuts in the
transfer payments are indeed aimed at
forcing large-scale reductions in social ser-
vices at the provincial level, and the speed-
ing up of the disintegration of Canada-wide

Fred Wilson’

standards. But B.C.’s situation is not like
Newfoundland’s, and there is no justifica-
tion for cuts to social programs in this
province.

The $120 million lost in 1990 is signifi-
cant, but it amounts to just 2.2 per cent of
B.C.’s combined health and universities
budgets at a time when the Socreds are
sitting on a $1.3-billion political surplus
(the combined surplus’ in the so-called
“budget stabilization” or “BS” fund, and
the “privatization benefits fund”).

Transfers under the Canada Assistance
Plan (welfare): The Tories have put a five-
per-cent cap on transfers for social welfare
in three provinces — Ontario, Alberta
and B.C. They claim that this will save $75
million in 1990-91 and a further $80 mil-
lion the year after. However it should be
noted that the average rate of growth in
payments to B.C. under this plan over the
previous five years was just 3.7 per cent,
and in last year’s provincial budget social
assistance was almost at the bottom of
government priorities.

Other transfer payments to B.C.: A ser-
ies of smaller transfer payments to B.C.
under specific programs for training,

highways, economic development, imple- _
- South Moresby-national |

mentation.of, the
park and other items will also. be limited
by the federal: budget.’ These transfers
totalled $170 million last year and were
increasing by 7.3 per cent annually over
the past five years. When these payments
are combined with Canada Assistance
Plan payments, the total increase will be
held to 2.3 per cent for B.C., Alberta and
Ontario. Not so for the rest of the country,
however, where a somewhat more gener-
ous four-per-cent ceiling will apply.

COMMENTARY

‘ Social housing programs: One of the
most brutal spending reductions in the
Tory budget is a $51-million cut in social
housing expenditures over two yeras. This
effectively destroys any hope of securing
special allocations for non-profit housing
at the massive Concord Pacific develop-
ment on Vancouver’s False Creek. The
controversial development was approved
on the basis of 20 per cent social housing,
but the funding for the social component
was dependent on securing additional fed-
eral funding.

The: housing crisis has worsened con-
siderably over the past year and now
extends far beyond Vancouver. Federal
finance officials are throwing the ball to
the provincial governments. “After all,
housing is their jurisdiction,” said one
official quoted in the Financial Post.

Unemployment: The federal budget is
designed to purposefully increase the fed-
eral rate of unemployment to 8.5 per cent
next year, a rise of almost one percentage
point from the current 7.6 per cent. While
the actual impact on B.C. is difficult to
estimate, the unemployment rate in this
province has averaged 25 per cent higher
than the national rate over the cS three
years.

If the ratio holds. the federal budget will
push this province’s 8.5-per-cent unem-
ployment rate back above 10 per cent. In
people terms, these percentages mean an
additional 34,000 persons officially unem-
ployed in this province.

Very specific in this area is the outright
cancellation of the Polar 8 icebreaker pro-
ject for Vancouver and Victoria shipyards,
which would have produced about 1,000
jobs. It is being dumped under the general

heading of defence spending, although the
project is completely unrelated to NATO
and East-West conflicts. The major politi-
cal purpose of the icebreaker, in fact, was
to secure Canadian sovereignty in the Als
tic vis-a-vis the United States.

With the cancellation of the Polar 8,
provincial action to fast-track the 10-year,
$550-million B.C. Ferry Corporation
maintenance and expansion program is
urgent to save the west coast industry.

Real income: While the PM and the
finance minister crowed over the supposed
lack of new taxes in the budget, the fore-
casts associated with it predicted a 1.1-per-
cent decline in real earnings for average
Canadians over the next two years. The

‘effect is likely underestimated.

The Tories are predicting no change in
the inflation rate of 5.1 per cent, while
higher unemployment will reduce wage
increases to 4.7 per cent in 1990 and 3.7 per
cent in 1991. Interest rates are expected to
decline to 11 percent. Almost all analysts
expect higher inflation and interest rates,
and that will generate stronger wage
demands. While wage increases have
averaged 5.4 per cent in B.C. over the past
year, this budget will spark larger wage
demands to prevent another round of real
income cuts in this province.

In one sense the Tory strategy is a com-
plement .to the grass-roots campaigns and
coalitions that have assailed the govern-
ment over its policies since its re-election in
1986.

The Wilson budget strategy is to
implement a traditional neo-conservative
restraint program without enduring any
further political and parliamentary fights _

_like those over the cuts to unemployment

insurance and Via Rail. The majority of

the cuts in this budget will be implemented

by provincial governments.

In many ways the battle-ground over
the right wing’s restraint program has
been shifted to the B.C. legislature, which
will open in six weeks. If the cuts can be
blocked at the provincial level, it will bea
significant victory against the neo-
conservative agenda.

Fred Wilson is leader of the Communist
Party in B.C.

Tenants group shows depth of housing crisis

Human rights such as freedom and
democracy in the abstract are meaning-
less. It’s only when they take on specific
forms that they have real meaning. The
United Nations Charter recognizes this
when it proclaims that everyone has a
right to a job, to adequate housing, access
to necessary health facilities, the opportun-
ity for an education and so on.

In Vancouver an increasing number of
people, tenants, homeowners and would-
be homeowners, are coming to the conclu-
sion that the right to affordable housing
must also become a basic human right and
that society has a responsibility to provide
It.

That was the thought that went through
my mind when I received a copy of a
brochure put out recently by the Tenants
Rights: Coalition entitled “Housing: A
right for everyone!” Without mincing any
words it points out:

“The housing crisis in the Lower Main-
land is mounting, threatening tenants and
homeowners alike. Tenants are being
evicted to make way for high-priced lux-
ury condominiums. Seniors are being
forced out of their suites where they have
lived for 40 years. People on low and fixed
incomes, particularly women, are the
hardest hit. Perfectly livable, affordable,

older apartment buildings are facing the
wrecking ball in Kerrisdale, Kitsilano and
other neighbourhoods. Rent increases of
30 and 40 per cent are common.
Homeowners have been hit with major
property tax increases that will force some
to leave their life-long homes and neigh-
bourhoods.”

The coalition also points out that
“speculation and flipping have caused
land values to skyrocket.” It notes that the
private market for the most part has
stopped building rental housing, and that
over 25,000 illegal suits have appeared in
Vancouver where the vacancy rate is zero.

It is highly critical of the fact that “B.C.
has one of the worst records for funding
seniors’ housing, non-profit housing pub-
lic housing and co-ops.” The coalition

puts forward 13 steps for a way out of the
housing crisis. They include:

e A fair rent review system requiring
landlords to justify rent increases on the
basis of increased operating costs.

© Full relocation costs borne by land-
lords who evict people when. they re-
.develop properties.

@ Demolitions only when the developer
provides an equal number of affordable
housing units or contributes to a social
housing replacement fund.

@ Increased pension and welfare rates

to reflect current rents.

@ City moratorium on conversions
from rental housing to-condominiums.

@ City moratorium on demolition of
affordable rental housing.

© Speculation tax on profits made by
flipping property, with exemption for
long-time owners.

@ An equitable system of property
taxes to protect low and middle income
homeowners.

@ Municipal, provincial and federal
funds to upgrade existing affording hous-
ing, particularly basement suites.

© Funding to build 20,000 new social
housing units.

@ Municipal, provincial and federal
land-banking to provide free or subsidized

land for non-profit and co-op housing.

@ Free land for social housing from
developments of mega-projects out of the
windfall profits they make when city
council rezones their land.

@ A local area long term planning pro-
cess for the development of affordable
housing.

This plan has been endorsed by scores
of organizations, including tenants, senior
citizen and women’s groups, the B.C.
Teachers Federation, student organiza-
tions and the Vancouver and District
Labour Council.

It’s interesting to note that the Non-
Partisan Association majority on city
council has turned down every one of
these 13 proposals. On the other hand the
three Committee of Progressive Electors’
aldermen, Libby Davies, Bruce Eriksen
and I, have not only endorsed but fought
for them on council at meeting after meet-
ing. The NPA’s position has been sup-
ported by the developers. COPE’s posi-
tions has been supported by tenants and
homeowners.

It’s clear that we still have a big fight
ahead of us before we can convince all
levels of government that affordable hous-
ing is a human right for all, not just the
wealthy.

2 Pacific Tribune, February 26, 1990