Housing, homelessness, health, and the 2008 federal election

Over the next number of weeks, leading up to election day on October 14, the Wellesley Institute will be bringing you backgrounders, data, and key resources on a number of issues regarding housing and homelessness, health reform, community health, and other social determinants of health. Visit our federal election issues page and follow us along via our blog to keep up with the WI's monitoring and review of the elction progress.

Federal election 2008: Digging into numbers shows some surprises

Most people agree that civic engagement is one important measure of a healthy community. And one key indicator is participation in democratic processes, including federal elections. On that score, a quick review of the numbers from Tuesday’s general election paint a dismal picture and point to a discouraged electorate; as well an electoral structure that yields surprising, and unexpected, results.

Overall, a total of 13,832,972 voters cast their ballots in the 2008 election. That’s down by more than a million people from the 14,908,703 voters in the last general election in 2006 (all voting numbers are from Elections Canada).

Canada’s population grew over the past two years, and the number of eligible voters increased, but slightly more than 40% of voters decided not to turn up at their local polling station. The voter turnout in Tuesday’s election was an all-time low of 59.1% - the worst in the history of Canada.

It will take some time to parse the reasons for the profound disengagement from electoral politics in the 2008 federal election. However, political scientists believe that electoral structures have an influence on participation in elections. Canada is one of the few countries in the world (along with the U.S.) that still uses an electoral system that counts votes in local jurisdictions instead of the popular vote.

Canada’s voting system can produce some electoral surprises – such as majority governments elected with a minority of votes. This also happens in the United States, most famously in the year 2000, when Democratic presidential candidate Al Gore earned more votes (51,003,926 votes or 48.38% of the total ballots cast) than Republican candidate George W. Bush (50,460,110 votes or 47.87% of ballots cast), yet the U.S. electoral system handed the presidency to Bush.

Most people believe that in a democracy like Canada’s, the number of seats that a political party gets in Parliament depends on the number of votes that they earn. But our “first-past-the-post” electoral system doesn’t reward parties with a number of MPs proportional to their popular vote at the national level.

When the electoral structure doesn’t fully count votes, or delivers skewed results, political scientists worry that voters get discouraged and disengaged. In the U.S., voter turnout in presidential elections has been below 60% for the past four decades. Voter participation rates are lower in the U.S. than Canada, but the 2008 federal election is part of a steady downward trend among Canadian voters over the past two decades.

Voting in democratic elections is seen as a basic responsibility of citizenship, but the drooping voter turnout in Canada and the U.S. is one important measure of declining civic participation, and that’s simply unhealthy.

Dig into Tuesday’s election numbers a bit, and here’s what you find:

CONSERVATIVES: In 2008, the Conservatives earned fewer votes than the last election, but received more seats in Parliament. On Tuesday, the Conservatives received 5,205,334 votes – that’s 168,737 votes less than the 5,374,071 they received in 2006. The Tories got fewer votes, but on Tuesday, they received 143 seats, up 19 from the number of MPs elected in 2006. In 2008, the Conservatives received 37.6% of the national vote, but won 46.4% of the seats in Parliament.

NEW DEMOCRATS: On Tuesday, the NDP received 2,517,075 votes – almost exactly the same number as in 2006. But they jumped from 29 to 37 seats in Parliament from the last election. While there are more New Democrats in Parliament, the overall number is still short of the proportional share that they should have received based on the popular vote. In 2008, New Democrats won 18.2% of the votes, but only received 12% of the seats.

LIBERALS: The Liberal vote count was way down in 2008 from 2006. On Tuesday, the Grits earned 3,629,990 votes – down by almost 850,000 votes from the 4,479,415 they received in 2006. The Liberal seat count of 76 in 2008 (down from 103 in the last election) was pretty close, in percentage terms, to the proportion of the vote that they received. They got 26.2% of the vote in 2008, and received 24.7% of the seats in Parliament.

GREENS: The Greens earned 940,747 votes in 2008, up from 664,068 in 2006. They didn’t get any seats in 2006, and didn’t get any seats in 2008, even though they received 6.8% of the vote.

BLOC QUEBECOIS: The Bloc only runs candidates in one province (Quebec), so the national numbers are somewhat skewed. In 2008, the Bloc earned 1,379,565 votes, but received 50 seats in Parliament. Their vote count was down from the 1,553,201 they received in 2006 and they won one fewer seat in 2008 from two years ago. The Bloc received 10% of the national popular vote, but received 16.2% of the seats in Parliament.

There are plenty of other ways to look at the election numbers, and they also produce some remarkable results. Here are just two (there are plenty of other anomalies):

ALBERTA: in Alberta, the electoral system rewarded the Tories. They received less than two-thirds of the vote (64.6%), but received almost all the seats (96.4%). New Democrats received a significant 12.7% of the votes (which put them in second place in terms of party standings in the province that many consider one of Canada’s most conservative) but only received one seat (3.6% of the total number of MPs).

GREATER TORONTO: In Toronto, the electoral system favoured the Liberals. They earned less than half the popular vote (43.6%), but received three-quarters of the seats in Parliament (76.2%). The Conservatives earned one out of every three votes in Toronto (33.5%), but received less than one-in-five of the Parliamentary seats (19.1%). New Democrats attracted 15.1% of the votes, but only received 4.8% of the seats.

Building a healthy economy: More than just banks and stocks

As the financial crisis continues to unfold and talk of a recession increases, the economy will be an important prism through which Canadians filter information in the run-up to the federal election. While health care, the environment and social justice continue to top the lists of priorities for Canadians, there are some who will attempt to argue that narrow economic issues are more important as voters approach the ballot box. They will argue that our social concerns must be set aside to deal with the so-called fundamentals of economic stability and growth. But it’s not just the economy that really matters. Indeed, the best way to build a healthy economy is to build strong and healthy communities.

Strong public systems and increased public investment in health and social development do not impede economic growth. In fact, they are key ingredients for economic growth and stability – offering what can best be called the Health Economic Advantage. Without this advantage, we jeopardize our chances for economic growth. Increased social investment in health care, child care, income security, affordable homes and other measures to build a fair and inclusive society are not only best for individual men, women and children and therefore the right thing to do. They are also an economically sound strategy for Canada.

Download the full topical paper, Building a healthy economy: More than just banks and stocks, from policy analyst Scott Wolfe, commissioned by the Wellesley Institute.

Housing insecurity at record levels

• One-in-four Canadian households pay 30% or more of their income on housing – that's three million households, or close to eight million women, men and children.
• Housing is the biggest expense for low, moderate and middle-income households; housing costs over the past decade grew faster than inflation even though incomes were stagnant.
• High housing costs forced 720,231 Canadians to line up at food banks in March of 2007.
• In the early 1980s, more than 10 out of every 100 new homes in Canada were truly affordable. By 2007, less than one-in-one-hundred new homes were truly affordable.
• Canada's rental vacancy rate has been below 3% (the danger zone) since the year 2000.
• More than 300,000 Canadians experience homelessness annually; the number of shelter beds in Canada jumped by 22% in one year to 26,872 in 2007.
• Research funded by Wellesley Institute and others links poor housing to poor health; premature death. Housing insecurity disrupts communities; drags down local and national economies.

Federal investments lowest in two decades

• Federal housing investments of $2 billion in 2008 are at their lowest level since 2002. On a per-capita basis, or as a percentage of Canada’s Gross Domestic Product, federal housing investments in 2008 are at their lowest level in two decades.
• Federal per capita spending on housing of $61 is half the $115 average among the provinces.
• Canada has slipped from number two in 1980 to number seven in 2003 among our partners in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development.
• In 2006, the United Nations called housing and homelessness in Canada a "national emergency", a finding confirmed by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing during his official fact-finding mission to Canada in 2007.
• From 2004 to 2012, net income for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (the federal housing agency) is projected to rise by 49% to $1.4 billion annually, but CMHC affordable housing spending will drop by 95% to $8 million for the entire country in 2012.

Key federal investments renewed, but funding frozen despite growing need

• The federal homelessness program (Homelessness Partnering Initiative – $135 million annually) was renewed for five years just three days before the election was called. HPI funds hundreds of programs and services in 61 communities, but the need outstrips the available resources.
• The federal housing repair program (Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program - $128 million annually) also renewed for five years.
• Before election, the federal government also announced a five-year extension of its affordable housing program at $125 million annually (which will fund less than 900 homes each year).
• Funding for all three programs have been frozen at previous levels, so federal housing investments – even with extensions – remain at lowest level in two decades, on per capita basis.September 2008

Analysis of housing in 2008 political party platforms

HOUSING INVESTMENTS: The NDP, Bloc and Greens propose new investments to fund a significant amount of urgently-needed new homes. The dollars proposed by the Liberals are far short of the goal they have set and would fund less than 15% of the new homes they promise. Just three days before calling the election, the Conservative government extended funding for five years for three housing and homelessness programs, but froze funding at previous levels. Under the Conservatives, federal housing spending, on a per capita basis, is at its lowest level in two decades.

RE-INVESTMENT OF FEDERAL HOUSING DOLLARS: Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the federal housing agency, has been recording significant surpluses in recent years. Also, the federal government is reducing its commitment to existing social housing. Both are leading to substantial national housing surpluses. The NDP and the Bloc propose to partially re-invest federal housing surpluses in new housing initiatives.

COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAMS, SPECIFIC TARGETS: The NDP has a plan for an Aboriginal housing strategy (on and off-reserve) and for specific elements of a new national housing strategy (affordable homes, supportive housing, homeless programs and services, home repairs). The NDP, Greens and Liberals propose investments in energy conservation programs.

Downlaod the full backgrounder - The state of the nation’s housing: Federal election 2008

Election Housing Primer

Housing insecurity at record levels

• One-in-four Canadian households pay 30% or more of their income on housing – that’s three million households, or close to eight million women, men and children.
• Housing is the biggest expense for low, moderate and middle-income households; housing costs over the past decade grew faster than inflation even though incomes were stagnant.
• High housing costs are a key reason that 720,231 people across Canada lined up at food banks in March of 2007.
• In the early 1980s, more than 10 out of every 100 new homes in Canada were truly affordable. By 2007, less than one-in-one-hundred new homes were truly affordable.
• Canada’s rental vacancy rate has been below 3% (the danger zone) since the year 2000.
• More than 300,000 Canadians experience homelessness annually; the number of shelter beds in Canada jumped by 22% in one year to 26,872 in 2007.

Federal investments lowest in two decades

• Federal housing investments of $2 billion in 2008 are at their lowest level since 2002. On a per-capita basis, or as a percentage of Canada’s Gross Domestic Product, federal housing investments in 2008 were at their lowest level in two decades.
• Federal housing investments of $2 billion in 2008 are at their lowest level since 2002. On a per-capita basis, or as a percentage of Canada’s Gross Domestic Product, federal housing investments in 2008 were at their lowest level in two decades.
• Compared to our partners in the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Canada has slipped from number two in 1980 to number seven in 2003.
• In 2006, the United Nations called housing and homelessness in Canada a “national emergency”, a finding confirmed by the UN Special Rapporteur on the Right to Adequate Housing after his official fact-finding mission to Canada in 2007.

Key federal investments set to expire

• The federal homelessness program (Homelessness Partnering Initiative – $135 million annually) expires in fiscal 2008. Hundreds of programs and services in 61 communities will be forced to wind down in the fall of 2008.
• The federal housing repair program (Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program - $128 million annually) expires in fiscal 2008. Tens of thousands of homes are assisted annually.
• The $1.4 billion in affordable housing investments authorized by Parliament in 2005 (Bill C-48) has been fully allocated and no new affordable investments are scheduled.
• From 2004 to 2012, net income for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (the federal housing agency) will rise by 49% to $1.4 billion annually, but CMHC affordable housing spending will drop by 95% to a mere $8 million for the entire country in 2012.

Michael Shapcott, Director of Community Engagement