THE WESTERN CANADIAN LUMBER WORKER

The tragic lack of adequate housing in Canada presents the greatest social challenge
Canadians face today. If this challenge is not faced up to by the various levels of govern-

ment, every citizen in the country will suffer adverse affects, either directly or indirectly.

The Canadian Labour Congress, concerned by

the inaction of those in authority, has

mounted a massive campaign to bring the problem to the attention of every person in Can-
ada. All Congress affiliates are taking part and the month of February has been designated

as housing month,

The IWA, which has constantly pressed for more housing starts, is vitally interested in

the campai
ployment for its members.

gn as a means of securing both suitable housing for everyone and continual em-

To acquaint the members with the seriousness of the present situation, the Lumber
Worker has published on the following three pages a number of articles reprinted from the
CLC’s booklet on housing. The authors of the articles are all experts in the field of housing
and their findings point up the drastic need for action.

CLC POLICY STATEMENT

No matter how we look at
housing in Canada—whether
from the viewpoint of the
lack of public housing or low-
rental accommodation for
low-income people, or from
the viewpoint of the burden
of home ownership for the
family of modest means, or
the skyrocketing price of land
in urban centres, or the heavy
tax burden resulting in the
construction industry — from
whatever viewpoint we con-
sider it, housing is a matter
of great concern to the mem-
bers of labour unions and to
organized labour generally.

A most concise description
of the housing situation in
Canada was given by a lead-
ing welfare authority, Dr.
Joseph E, Laycock, speaking
in Ottawa in 1963. He said:
“At least one-quarter of our
families are poorly housed
and pay dearly for what
housing they have.” It is
doubtful if the overall situa-
tion in the country as a whole
is much better than when he
spoke three years ago. An
affluent nation such as ours
should be deeply concerned
over the unnecessary gaps in
our housing program. It is
said that perhaps 100,000 Ca-
nadian families live under
very bad housing conditions,
conditions that are a disgrace
to their communities, and,
moreover, it can be safely
said that there is not a single
urban centre of any size in
this country that is without
its quota of bad living condi-
tions and slum areas.

Valid evidence suggests
that the shortcomings in Ca-
nadian housing are to a large
extent due to overlapping
authority and to Jack of clear
responsibility as to municipal,
provincial and federal gov-
ernments. This is true, of
course, but it is all the more
reason why the Canadian
people should strive to find
means to overcome this con-
stitutional handicap and solve
such .an urgent social prob-
lem in the life of the nation.

om present housing
i a sie and pro am under

give priority to the families in
the upper brackets, those
earning above $6,000. Less at-
tention is given to the needs
of the middle third of the in-
come range who earn be-
tween $4,000 and $6,000, and
very little is done to meet the
needs of the lowest third of
the population who earn un-
der $4,000. Observers from
other countries who have
looked at the situation in
Canada say that in the matter
of housing we seem to have
socialism for the rich and free
enterprise for the poor.

Most of the people who are
in a position to benefit from
the present provisions of the
National Housing Act are
those in the upper - income
range. An examination of
housing statistics under the
N.H.A. shows that a very
small percentage of the
N.H.A. loans are made to
those in the range below
$4,000, and since the amount
of public housing in Canada
which is built for those in
the lowest third of the in-
come range is exceedingly
small, this means that, to a
great extent, the lower in-
come people have had to fend
for themselves, and as Dr.
Laycock says: ‘‘They pay
dearly for what they have.”

The labour movement in
Canada as in other countries
has always based its housing
policy to a great extent on
massive public housing for
those families who are unable
to enter the market and ob-
tain housing at a price they
can pay. The actual figure for
public housing units in Can-
ada is approximately 15,000—
a pitfully small figure when
set against the great need of
low-income people. The
amount of federal govern-
ment subsidy is less than $2,-
0C0,000 a year — a shocking-
ly low figure for a country as
rich as Canada.

It is obvious that the Cana-
dian nation, by and large, has
not been convinced of the
desirability of public housing
even though the need exists
all around us. It is reason-
able to suggest that organized
labour could change this situ-
ation if we would only de-
velop the same concentrated
effort to meet Canada’s hous-
ing needs as we have done to

promote human rights and
social welfare legislation.

We therefore recommend
that:

1. The CLC and its affiliates
mount a sustained and co-

ordinated program designed
to give leadership in the field
of housing.

2. All affiliates, Federations
and Labour Councils assign
a high priority to the imple-
mentation of a housing pro-

gram designed to provide an
adequate supply of low-cost
public and co-op housing.

3. Trade unionists on muni-
cipal councils and housing
authorities become well in-
formed in the housing field in
order that the required muni-
cipal initiatives will be taken
by them under existing legis-
lation,

4. All affiliated organiza-
tions give serious considera-

OUSING- CANADA'S NUMBER ONE PROBLEM

tion to the active sponsorship
of housing projects and par-
ticipation in housing pro-
grams,

5. The CLC propose appro-
priate amendments to the
N.H.A. and Provincial Hous-
ing Acts, circulate these for
comment to all - affiliated or-
ganizations and then seek to
have the proposed amend-
ments enacted by the federal
and provincial governments.

WHAT YOU SHOULD SPEND

By MICHAEL WHEELER

Canadian Welfare Council

Though our cultural pat-
terns incline us to “owner-
ship housing,” the fact is that
34% of households in Canada
occupy rental accommoda-
tion.

What can you afford? First
some qualification:

There is much disagree-
ment as to what costs should
be included under the hous-
ing item and whether gross

or net income should be cal-
culated.

WHICH ITEMS?

For example, should only
the basic shelter cost be
counted or should account
also be taken of the cost of
services, such as heat, light,
fuel and water, and, in the
case of house purchase, prop-
erty taxes and insurance too.
Furthermore, as regards
house purchase through a
mortgage, should both princi-
pal and interest charges be
included or only the inter-
est?

The income side of the
equation is similarly subject
to different interpretations.
Should gross income after
taxes be the benchmark? And
when both husband and wife
are working, should their
total combined earnings be
counted or only a portion of
the secondary earner’s wages?
_ Regulations under the Na-
tional Housing Act permit

20% of the wife’s income, in
addition to the borrower’s to
be considered in determining
eligibility for an NHA loan.
(The gross debt service on the
loan, i.e., the annual amount
payable on mortgage loan
principal, interest and prop-
erty taxes, is not supposed to
exceed 27% of gross income
according to the regulations.)

ATTITUDES

The problem of determin-
ing an appropriate income-
housing ratio is further com-
pounded by the highly vari-
able nature of people’s atti-
tudes towards housing and its
importance for them as an ob-
ject of expenditure. For some
people, housing may rank
relatively low in their order
of priorities with other uses
such as education, travel, en-
tertainment, etc, having
greater claim on their in-
come.

RANGE OF CHOICE?

Theoretically, if enough
housing of an adequate stan-
dard were available over a
wide enough price range to
allow some choice to the poor
as well as the wealthy, the
question posed would have no
particular significance, for
public policy and could be
answered quite simply by
stating that a person can af-

ford to spend on housing as
much as he chooses to afford.

We know, however, that
this range of choice does not
exist for the low income fam-
ily nor — to an increasing
extent — to people of so-call-
ed moderate incomes. They
are obliged to pay whatever

price the market dictates, and
the smaller their income, the

less chance there is of ob-

taining accommodation suited
to their needs.

Thus, the twin horns of this
dilemma — the lack of a
reasonable relationship be-
tween housing costs and peo-
ple’s ability to pay, and the
sacrifice in housing quality
which low iricome people are
obliged to make in order to
obtain housing within their
means — give particular

urgency to the question
posed. |

WHAT IS SPENT ?

See “SPEND” — Page 6