The mortality rate (a leading statistical indicator of premature death) is only one of more than two dozen health indicators set out in detail in a new report from Toronto Public Health called “The Unequal City: Income and Health Inequalities in Toronto, 2008”. The Toronto report comes on the heels of major research reports from the Canadian Public Health Officer and the World Health Organization that document the same trend on the national and the global scale.
Poverty is driving the health crisis set out in the Toronto report. Deep and persistent poverty in Canada’s richest city is leading directly to increased sickness and to early death. But it’s not just the poorest of the poor who are suffering (although they are paying the heaviest burden).
]]>The mortality rate (a leading statistical indicator of premature death) is only one of more than two dozen health indicators set out in detail in a new report from Toronto Public Health called “The Unequal City: Income and Health Inequalities in Toronto, 2008”. The Toronto report comes on the heels of major research reports from the Canadian Public Health Officer and the World Health Organization that document the same trend on the national and the global scale.
Poverty is driving the health crisis set out in the Toronto report. Deep and persistent poverty in Canada’s richest city is leading directly to increased sickness and to early death. But it’s not just the poorest of the poor who are suffering (although they are paying the heaviest burden).
“The relationship between income and health in Toronto is not just about the extremes of wealth and poverty,” according to Toronto Public Health. “As the data in this report show, for most indicators there is a continuous gradient of health in relation to income – health status improves through each income increment. Toronto residents who live in high income areas are healthier than those living in middle income areas, and those who live in middle income areas are healthier than those living in low income areas. This means that health inequalities affect all Torontonians.”
“We cannot rate our collective health and well-being by looking only at those who are healthiest,” said Dr. David Butler-Jones, Canada’s Chief Public Health Officer, in the introduction to his “Report on the State of Public Health in Canada ” (June 18, 2008). “In short, health inequalities are fundamentally societal inequalities that we can overcome through public policy, and individual and collective action. Just as there is no sector of society that is untouched by health inequalities, there is no person or organization that cannot make a positive contribution to their resolution.”
“Social justice is a matter of life and death,” writes the World Health Organization’s Social Determinants of Health Commission in their report “Closing the Gap in a Generation ” (August 28, 2008). “Inequities in health, avoidable health inequalities, arise because of circumstances in which people grow, life, work and age, and the systems put in place to deal with illness. The conditions in which people live and die are, in turn, shaped by political, social and economic forces.”
Inevitably, there may be some who will say that poorer people are the authors of their own misfortune, arguing that they suffer an overwhelming weight of poor health and premature death because they choose to live unhealthy lives.
For those inclined to blame the poor for their poor health, consider these facts:
* there is a 40% increase in low-birth weight babies among the poorest Torontonians versus the richest. Toronto Public Health estimates that if poor and middle-income people enjoyed the same health as the richest people, then there would be about 1,300 fewer low-birth weight babies annually (that’s 1,300 newborns who would start their lives with an equal health advantage).
]]>Mayor Bloomberg's campaign was prompted, in part, by the Blueprint to End Homelessness in New York City (available in the Housing and Homelessness section of the Wellesley Institute web site). The NYC Blueprint was, in turn, a major inspiration for the Wellesley institute's Blueprint to End Homelessness in Toronto (released last fall).
]]>Mayor Bloomberg's campaign was prompted, in part, by the Blueprint to End Homelessness in New York City (available in the Housing and Homelessness section of the Wellesley Institute web site). The NYC Blueprint was, in turn, a major inspiration for the Wellesley institute's Blueprint to End Homelessness in Toronto (released last fall).
So, why are the numbers climbing up in NYC despite Mayor Bloomberg's political commitment? The answer is a cautionary tale for Toronto. Homeless solutions require a dedicated financial commitment to affordable homes. The U.S. federal government has been falling short in funding affordable homes (despite the oft-repeated call by George Bush's housing czar, Philip Mangano, for "housing first" as the solution to homelessness), and NYC itself has been trying to get the job done without making a serious financial commitment. It's rent subsidy program is pretty thin and there's not enough new homes being built. And, to top it all off, poverty is growing rapidly in NYC - generating even more need for affordable homes.
The lesson for Toronto: Ending homelessness requires more than earnest proclamations from politicians. It requires the specific application of practical resources (including money for new affordable homes and for rent subsidies for existing housing). Toronto has been abandoned by senior levels of government in recent years when it comes to housing funding.
]]>
The plan has four key elements:
It focuses of some critical sectors including:
The plan has four key elements:
It focuses of some critical sectors including:
- Michael Shapcott
]]>- Michael Shapcott
]]>- Michael Shapcott
]]>- Michael Shapcott
]]>- Michael Shapcott
]]>- Michael Shapcott
]]>Ontario's share of the affordable housing trust fund dollars is $312 million (plus $80 million for off-reserve Aboriginal housing), but the money was delayed by a federal-provincial squabble. In February of 2007, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty announced that the housing dollars would start flowing, saying: I believe that it would be unfair to allow people in need of adequate housing to have their needs go unmet because two governments are engaged in an argument.
The Ontario plan for the federal dollars was set out in the March 22 provincial budget. About 60% ($185 million) was allocated to a $100 per month housing subsidy for working families. The McGuinty government has been criticized for failing to meet its 2003 election promise to provide 35,000 housing allowances. Housing advocates have noted that the scheme falls short of the gap between household income and housing costs. For instance, the gap between the average income of a labourer in Ottawa ($21,268) and the income needed for a two-bedroom apartment ($36,800) is $15,532 annually " or almost $1,300 per month (Source: Where's Home? 2006).
In addition to concerns about the adequacy of the Ontario program, the provincial plan contradicts federal operating principles. The Government of Canada recognizes the significant role that provincial and territorial governments play in the design and delivery of housing policies and programs within their respective jurisdictions, according to the federal operating principles. The Affordable Housing Trust Fund is not intended to support ongoing operational funding for existing housing stock, rent subsidies, or to replace provincial and territorial investment in affordable housing. The full federal operating principles are posted here.
Ontario's housing subsidy will target families on social housing waiting lists (who are either in rental housing, or would like to be in rental housing). Federal officials say that it is up to the Ontario government to honour the trust fund operating principles, and Ontario officials say that they intend to continue with the rent subsidy scheme.
]]>The federal government says housing is primarily a provincial and municipal issue. Over the past two decades, it has cut housing funding and downloaded programs. The Ontario government, following suit, has cut provincial housing funding and downloaded programs to municipalities. Provincial housing spending has been flat-lined in recent years. Municipal politicians in Toronto call federal and provincial politicians dead-beats and say it's all their fault " even as local officials cut housing and homelessness funding.
Meanwhile, the hundreds of thousands of Torontonians trapped in inadequate or unaffordable homes, the tens of thousands in shelters and the uncounted thousands of hidden homeless are left to watch federal, provincial and municipal politicians squabble and pass the buck and point an accusing finger at each other.
Instead of delivering the housing dollars that Torontonians so urgently need, Toronto's proposed 2007 operating budget of $7.8 billion (which makes it one of the biggest government budgets in Canada " larger than any of the Atlantic provinces and almost the size of Manitoba or Saskatchewan's provincial budgets) cuts funding for municipal housing and homelessness programs. Toronto's 2007 municipal operating budget proposes:
* a 3.5% cut in homeless shelter beds, which means fewer beds available for people forced out on the streets.
* a total of 863 affordable housing units on the 2007 target list, but almost 350 of those were on the 2006 list and weren't developed, so the number of net new affordable homes is barely above 500 homes (well below the 1,000 target set by City Council).
* overall, spending for Toronto's Shelter, Support and Housing Administration is set at $692.5 million for 2007, down by $25 million from the 2006 approved budget of $717.8 million.
In 2007, as in previous years, Toronto is not allocating a single penny of municipal funding for new affordable housing. The city is relying on federal and provincial funding, plus reserve funds created in previous years using federal and provincial funding.
The city has no plans in its 2007 budget to support the tens of millions in additional federal housing funding that will flow to Toronto within days (following the re-announcement, in last Thursday's provincial budget, that the $392.5 million in federal housing dollars will be released by the end of March 2006).
More than 175,000 Toronto households have annual incomes below $20,000 " which puts them well below the poverty line and struggling just to pay the rent and cover other necessities such as utilities, food, medicine, transportation and clothing (Source: Statistics Canada, 2001 Census). An all-time record of 31,000 renter households faced eviction in 2006 " almost all because they couldn't afford to pay the rent (Source: Ontario Landlord and Tenant Board).
Almost 400,000 Toronto households have annual incomes below $40,000 " which is the annual income required to afford this city's average market rent. These are the renter and owner households trapped in the affordability squeeze " not rich enough to afford their shelter costs, but not poor enough to qualify for the limited housing supports that are available. (Source: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, 2006 Rental Market Report)
About 500,000 Toronto households (that's half of all the households in the city) have annual incomes below $60,000 " which is the annual income required to afford an average condominium. For them, the idea of owning even a tiny condominium (including a down payment of $65,000, along with mortgage, utility, common fees, and property taxes) is at best a remote fantasy. (Source: RBC Economics, Housing Affordability, 2007)
And less than 20% of all Toronto households (or about 170,000 households) have annual incomes above $100,000 " which is the annual income required for a standard two-storey home in Toronto (in addition to a down payment of $110,000). (Source: RBC Economics, Housing Affordability, 2007) More than eight out of every ten Toronto households have been shut out of the conventional home ownership market.
Other municipalities " such as Waterloo Region " have a better housing record than Toronto because they have put municipal dollars on the table, and leveraged the federal and provincial dollars that are available to them. For instance, in recent years, Waterloo has developed about 1,200 new affordable homes " almost the same as the 1,400 new homes developed in Toronto, even though Waterloo is only one-tenth of the size of Toronto.
Hundreds of thousands of Torontonians are caught in the double bind of shrinking renter household income and rising rents, plus growing need for new affordable homes set against a dwindling supply of affordable rental stock.
Toronto faces major financial challenges. Federal and provincial cost-cutting and downloading, especially in social programs such as housing and welfare, have forced property taxpayers to cover the cost of income-transfer programs. In its most recent budget, the Ontario government announced plans to upload the cost of these programs in the 905 municipalities surrounding Toronto, but the City of Toronto, and the rest of Ontario beyond York, Durham and Peel Regions, are still forced to cover a significant portion of provincially-mandated programs that should be covered by provincial funding.
The 65,000 households on Toronto's affordable housing waiting list (and the hundreds of thousands of others in housing core need) are left to watch the political squabbling and realize that " seven days and three budgets later " they are no closer to finding a good place to call home.
The City of Toronto's doesn't have a comprehensive and fully-funded affordable housing strategy. City staff was supposed to deliver a housing strategy last year, but that initiative has been delayed to this year. Neither the federal nor the provincial governments have comprehensive housing and homelessness plans either, just a patchwork of short-term funding and programs.
The Wellesley Institute's Blueprint to End Homelessness in Toronto is a fully-costed, practical and effective plan that sets realistic targets for Toronto.
The Wellesley Institute has also launched a housing and homelessness wiki " an on-line tool for information-sharing and collaboration.
- Michael Shapcott
]]>At a time when 600,000 Ontario households are in core housing need', the Ontario budget merely recycles federal housing dollars that were authorized in 2005. Two years later, the province has finally announced that it will allow the federal dollars to be spent, but there is no new provincial dollars, says Michael Shapcott, Senior Fellow at the Wellesley Institute.
Two days ago, Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty complained that Monday's federal budget fell short of the dollars that Ontario was seeking. Justice delayed is justice denied, said the Premier of the Harper budget. The same can be said of Premier McGuinty's own budget, which falls far short of delivering the dollars that would lift Ontario children, and their families, out of poverty.
After years of Ontario governments that put a priority on tax cuts rather than an investment in people and programs, today's budget signals a welcome change, says Shapcott. But kind words are not enough. Budgets are about choices, and they are about dollars and cents. Today's budget doesn't deliver the dollars that are needed.
For instance, today's provincial budget announces that some of the recycled federal housing dollars will be devoted to a new housing allowance program for 27,000 low-income working families, even though more than 1.6 million Ontarians are living in poverty. Each household will receive a mere $100 per month, even though poor families face a housing poverty gap of hundreds of dollars.
Renter household incomes have been falling in recent years, even as average market rents have increased. The housing poverty gap " the difference between what landlords are charging and what tenants can afford to pay " is wide and growing. Tenant households caught in the financial squeeze are facing an all-time record number of evictions " almost 67,000 households in 2006 (about 183 families facing eviction every day of the year).
Budget 2007 does provide some more details on the previous announcement by Premier Dalton McGuinty that the Ontario government will start to flow $392 million in federal housing dollars that were authorized by Parliament in 2005. However, there will be at least one more round of announcements on this funding before the money is finally allocated. Some details:
- $127 million will be divided among to municipalities to fund new housing or repair existing homes, with details to be announced later. The money will be allocated by the end of March and there will be few guidelines for municipalities. There is a danger that few of the dollars will actually go to desperately-needed new supply and will instead be diverted to fund much-needed repairs of existing rundown housing.
- $80 million will go to off-reserve Aboriginal housing, following a consultation with Aboriginal housing and service providers.
- the remainder will go to a five-year housing allowance program for working families that will provide a bare $100 per month to help narrow the gap between household income and rents.
Here are some specifics on income issues in the Ontario budget:
- a 2% increase in social assistance (welfare rates in all categories remain well below the poverty line).
- a new Ontario Child Benefit which, when it is fully phased in over five years, will amount to a maximum of $1,100 annually per child.
- an end to the provincial clawback of federal children's benefits.
- an increase of 75 cents per year in the minimum wage until it reaches $10.25 in the year 2010.
One surprising development is the partial uploading of social services and social housing spending in the 905 municipalities. Social services costs were downloaded by the Harris government in the 1990s and the McGuinty government had promised to reverse this policy. But today's budget only uploaded the costs for York, Peel and Durham Regions, without uploading the same set of costs borne by Toronto or municipalities in the rest of the province.
The people of Ontario have been demanding that the McGuinty government honour its promises, going back to the 2003 election campaign, to reinvest in the vital services that will help to rebuild the province, says Shapcott. Today's budget echoes those concerns, but fails to provide the dollars.
The Wellesley Institute is completing a review of the growing housing poverty gap in communities across the province. Working families, along with low, moderate and even middle-income Ontarians are being caught in the squeeze between rising housing costs and stagnant incomes.
- Michael Shapcott
]]>The 2007 federal budget entirely ignores Canada's nation-wide affordable housing crisis and homelessness disaster, and is light when it comes to other social determinants of health.
More detailed analysis will follow in the coming days as experts and analysts dig through the 477-page federal budget. Here is a first look and a few overall comments.
First, on housing:
]]>The 2007 federal budget entirely ignores Canada's nation-wide affordable housing crisis and homelessness disaster, and is light when it comes to other social determinants of health.
More detailed analysis will follow in the coming days as experts and analysts dig through the 477-page federal budget. Here is a first look and a few overall comments.
First, on housing:
Federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's budget speech is entirely silent on housing and homelessness, even though at least 1.5 million households (more than 4 million women, men and children) are officially classified as being in core housing need, and hundreds of thousands of Canadians experience homelessness annually.
The hundreds of pages of budget documents barely mention housing, except to repeat some previously announced housing spending. There is one brief reference to a youth and housing initiative, but no other details appear in the budget.
Second, on the broader area of social determinants of health " and social spending:
There are modest increases in some social programs (such as elderly benefits, and health and social transfers).
However, the significant spending increases are in the crime and terror agenda. For instance, there is almost $1 billion in spending over the next two years on the military (up $354 million); federal jails (up $106 million); Canadian Security Intelligence Service (up $80 million); and an additional $200 million for Afghanistan.
Corporations and wealthy individuals have received close to $1.5 billion in tax cuts over the next two years in today's federal budget. In overall terms, individual Canadians have been picking up a bigger share of federal taxes in recent years, and budget 2007 continues the trend.
Personal taxpayers will pay $3.5 billion more in income taxes in fiscal 2007 for a total of $115 billion, while corporations will only pay $1.3 billion more in fiscal 2007 for a total of $36 billion. In fiscal 2008, corporate income taxes will actually drop by $1 billion while personal income taxes will increase by another $5.6 billion. In recent years, corporate profits have been at record levels, yet the corporate share of the federal tax pie is shrinking.
The federal budget sets as a key goal clarifying roles and limiting the use of federal spending power " which means, in simple terms, a continued erosion of federal spending in key social policy areas in favour of some increased federal funding to the provinces and territories.
However, there is no guarantee of national standards or accountability, which threatens a further balkanization of social policy across Canada. Federal funding cuts and downloading have been a feature of federal governments for almost two decades (including, notably, the 1995 federal budget which saw the cancellation of the Canada Assistance Program) and today's federal government accelerates that trend.
One key measure of the ongoing deterioration is the chart of page 305 of budget 2007 which shows that federal spending as a percentage of the gross domestic product remains stalled in the low teens. This means limited dollars for investment in key social priorities (like housing and the other social determinants of health), along with other priorities like climate change (such as public transit).
The bottom line is that budgets are about choices " and, of course, about spending. Opinion polls consistently show that Canadians want their governments to invest more dollars in social, health, education and environmental priorities, including public transit.
Budget 2007 fails to meet the standard set by Canadians for a government that delivers programs that meet the fundamental values and visions of people across the country.
More details will follow in the coming days
- Michael Shapcott
]]>So, the two-billion-dollar question is: Will the federal government finally deliver the comprehensive and fully-funded affordable national housing program that millions of Canadians so desperately need?
The federal government currently spends about 17 cents per person per day on housing - about half of the bare minimumn that is required for investment in a new national housing program.
Investing in good qualify, affordable homes is good for:
* people (better housing leads to better health and longer lives);
* communities (better housing leads to stronger communities and increased economic competitiveness);
* governments (better housing reduces overall spending by governments and is better for taxpayers).
- Michael
]]>- Michael Shapcott
]]>In the 1970s ad 1980s, Canada had among the best housing policies and programs in the world. But two decades of cuts by neo-liberal governments (Conservative and Liberal) at the federal level and in most provinces have led to massive spending cuts and downloading of housing programs to municipalities.
The theory was that local governments are "closest to the people" and therefore best able to assess local housing needs. It's true that Winnipeg is different from Victoria which has different needs that Toronto. But local governments don't have the revenue base to support affordable housing intiatives, even if they can assess local needs. That's one reason why the Wellesley Institute launched our Blueprint to End Homelessness in Toronto last October, and why we are working with local governments and community groups across the country to develop practical local plans, and identify the tools that senior governments need to supply to realize those plans.
The governments making the cuts also hoped that private developers would pick up the slack. But while there has been a record level of activity by private home builders in most parts of the country, there have been few new truly affordable homes. Low, moderate and even middle-income households have been left standing on the sidelines, watching the affordable housing crisis and homelessnes s disaster grow steadily worse. Homelessness and housing insecurity has jumped dramatically.
As bad as the cuts have been for the entire spetrum of affordable housing (co-op, non-profit, municipal), Aboriginal housing providers have been among the hardest hit. And yet Aboriginal people (First Nations, Inuit and Metis) have an historic, treaty and fiduciary relationship with the federal government - a relationship that the federal government has neglected and abused.
Day one was spent doing a detailed environmental scan. In addition to a survey from the national scene, there were reports from British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Quebec and New Brunswick. B.C. is leading the country. It has transferred the administration of Aboriginal housing programs to an Aboriginal-controlled agency called the Aboriginal Housing Management Association. Aboriginal housing providers are full partners, not treated as children who need constant supervision. Ontario was conspicuous by its absence. There has been virtually no positive policy change in that province, even though it is the biggest and richest province in Canada.
Day two will focus on the key components of a new national Aboriginal housing policy - the housing delivery mechanisms, policies and legislative changes, capacity-building and funding supports - that are required, and the strategies to achieve them.
I am always inspired by the energy and creativity of Aboriginal housing providers - and at the gains that they can make in a mostly hostile policy environment. Day two promises even more inspiration.
- Michael Shapcott
]]>But it was a major policy win,an important step in a housing initiative that started back in the spring of 2005 in the halls of the Parliament of Canada as the then-Liberal minority government was casting about forpolitical support. The New Democratic Party agreed to supportPaul Martin'sbudget, but only if he shifted a multi-billion corporate tax cut into spending on post-secondary education, the environment and $1.6 billion for new affordable housing. Bill C-48 was authorized by Parliament in June of 2005, but theMartin government didn't get around to actually allocating the funds before the federal eleciton of January, 2006, which saw the election of Stephen Harper's Conservatives. A strong campaign was launched at thenational level to secure Conservative support for C-48 (Harper's party had voted against Bill C-48 the previous year) and, in its 2006 federal budget, the Conservative government announced that it would allocate $1.4 of the $1.6 billion in C-48. Ontario's share of the $1.4 billion includes $312.3 million for affordable housing and $80.2 million for off-reserve Aboriginal housing.
But no sooner had thenew federal government agreed to honour the vote by the previous Parliament, than the Ontario government of DaltonMcGuinty declared that it was being short-changed bythe federal government in a number of areas and - until the broad range of fiscal issues was resolved - it wouldn't take a penny in the housing money.
The Wellesley Institute, along with our partners at the national,provincial and local levels, has been at the centre of the work to get the federal housing dollars put to practical use in building new homes. In recent months, we've been working with housing and homelessness groups, faith communities, community organizations, municipal governments and many others to deliver a strong message to the Ontario government. As we said to provincial Treasurer Greg Sorbara recently: "It makes no sense to punish poorly-housed Ontarians to make a political point."
We're delighted that, with Premier McGuinty's announcement, the province has decided not to use the federal housing dollars as a hostage in the federal-provincial fiscal dust-up. In making his announcement, Premier McGuinty echoed the sentiments of a great many Ontarians: "I believe that it would be unfair to allow people in need of adequate housing to have their needs go unmet because two governments are engaged in an argument, so we will use this housing trust money to help people with their housing needs."
Now, the focus shifts to ensuring the funds roll out quickly, that the money is wisely spent and that Ontario doesn't adopt the sharp practices sometimes used by other provinces and simply use the federal dollars to replace provincial dollars - leaving no net benefit to the people of Ontario. So, more policy work to do, but first a moment to pause and savour a nice $392.5 million housing policy win.
- Michael Shapcott
]]>