"Thousands Hungry in Metro", scream the headlines of the Toronto Star (March 29, 1986) which proceeded to give details of exactly who is starving in metropolitan Toronto, which charity organizations are providing food and which reformist methods the Star advocates should be applied to solve the problem.
As pathetic as the Star's attitude is, the very fact that such an article was published has its positive side. All too many highly-salaried workers in the major industrialized countries, who live pretty well by capitalism's crummy standards, think of hunger and homelessness — in a word the very 'pits' — as being problems folks have in Ethiopia, other parts of Africa and various sundry banana republics, but don't realize the same problems face some folks in the same city. This further emphasises one of capitalism's greatest contradictions: though the tools of production exist to supply an abundance of the necessaries of life, people still live in want, and in the parts of the world where those tools have reached their most developed form.
Toronto is a bustling modern metropolis with over 2 million people, most of whom, we are told, enjoy the good life — whatever that might mean. However, it would seem some are not, according to that arch-epistle of conservatism, the Star. The hungry in Toronto, it informs us, are single mothers with children, unemployed youths, unemployed men with families, pensioners, the homeless, the disabled, ex-psychiatric patients, refugees and working families whose pay cheques can't stretch to cover rent and food.
"Hunger in Toronto is not the same as hunger in Ethiopia. It's not a child with big eyes and a swollen stomach", Karen Shaver, manager of Second Harvest, a volunteer agency that picks up surplus food throughout Toronto and drops it off to agencies and shelters that need it, told the Star. "Hunger in Toronto is a baby getting sugar-water during hunger week just before the cheque arrives. Hunger is a child eating catsup sandwiches and mother not eating at all. Hunger is eating popcorn to fill you up, it's malnutrition and obesity caused by a carbohydrate diet. It's not knowing where your next meal is coming from and having to make that your daily struggle". As Shaver points out, the specific situation maybe different to Ethiopia, but it doesn't mean a thing particularly when every winter many homeless die from hunger and cold in Toronto.
How many go hungry?
It is difficult to determine exactly how many people are hungry in Toronto. Both city and provincial governments admit they don't know the extent of it because they have not yet begun to collect data from the dozens of agencies and churches that provide emergency food aid.
Some agencies, however, do keep records and publish them. It was found that in February, 1986, 43 received requests (if begging can be called a request) for help from 15,198 people with families at home; that provided food for 37,327 people. These figures leave little doubt that hunger exists, and also indicate that the crisis once thought limited to the inner city, has spread to the suburbs.
- The Salvation Army, Toronto's largest distributor of food aid, receives an average of 5,000 requests a month for emergency groceries and food vouchers. Every month it takes on more than 400 new cases. Last year it assisted 37,000 families who needed help feeding 40,107 children.
- The St Vincent de Paul Society, which provides emergency food vouchers through chapters operating in 110 parishes, gave out $226,000 in aid to 20,000 people last year. Their headquarters receive 20 to 50 calls a day from families seeking food aid.
- When Second Harvest began in April, 1985, it distributed 2,500 pounds of food. Now it moves more than 7,500 pounds of surplus food every month, contributing to about 50,000 meals.
- Two hostels run by the City of Toronto provided 69,000 free meals. The Salvation Army provided 20,000 meals in its two hostels.
- In February, Stop 103, a food depot, supported mainly by Anglican churches, provided groceries to 2,100 families.
Besides the 70 or so charity groups which help feed the poor, the provincial government itself, in its benevolence, sometimes lends a hand. The Ontario government's Emergency Shelter and Assistance program was started in 1984 as a one time grant to selected agencies throughout the winter months. It is now in its third year of operation with funding increased from $1.1 million to $1.8 million. This year $456,300 was provided to help feed Toronto's hungry. Ontario Community and Social Affairs Minister, John Sweeney, is now reviewing the program to determine if it should be extended.
The majority of the thousands who line up at the food banks — the present-day equivalent of the depression era soup kitchens — are people on social assistance programs that were designed to provide people with the basic necessities of life, but are hopelessly failing to do so for the simple fact that production of these necessities are with view to profit not to satisfy human needs.
In February, 70,073 Toronto people were living on family benefits, a long-term form of direct provincial assistance available to single parents, the disabled or others unable to work while raising a family. A single mother with one child receives $558 a month, with up to $155 in shelter subsidy, while a mother of two can receive up to $832. Another 34,119 people were supported by general welfare, a short-term program for those considered able-bodied, but who are unemployed. The maximum paid to a single employable person is $394 and a man with a wife and two children can receive up to $882 a month.
Despite the government's hand-outs, the plain fact is that more and more recipients are unable to make their cheques last throughout the month. In the words of Salvation Army's Captain Bobbitt, "A lot of people are relying on agencies as part of their budgeting every month, they're saying if we can get through to the 23rd, then maybe we can go to the food bank for a couple of days." Bobbitt points out it's not only welfare recipients who are relying on charity for food: "We're now seeing a significant number of working people, working for low incomes and paying high rents and just not managing especially during the winter months when they have to pay for heat" (Toronto Star, March 31, 1985).
As usual the more brain-washed members of the working class believe the poor are poor because they are too lazy to work, ignoring completely the high unemployment rate. Particularly outspoken in his criticism of this attitude is Rev. Dennis Drainville, an Anglican minister, who runs Stop 103, and author of a report called Poverty in Canada. Drainville believes the majoritv of people who rely on charity to stave off hunger are undeserving victims, but he said, affluent people would rather believe the poor deserve their lot. "This is an affluent consumer-oriented society and people tend not to look beyond the things they know — their friends, families and careers", he said, "if people really took seriously how many hungry people there are in Toronto, they might have to do something" (Toronto Star, April 2, 1986).
One wonders what Rev. Drainville would consider as "something", though, like most, he would probably opt for doing something about it within capitalism, like a wishy-washy reform. Most people involved in agencies like Drainville's lay the blame on Toronto's shortage of affordable housing. Too high a percentage of income is going into rent, leaving less for food, they argue adding that this is greatly aggravated by high unemployment and social assistance which is a pittance. So let us take a look at the housing situation.
The worsening housing crisis
Tens of thousands of people are estimated to be poorly housed, in substandard apartments, public housing projects, rooming houses, hostels and drop-in centres. According to tenants, landlords, politicians, housing experts and government officials, plus numerous housing studies, these thousands are the victims of an unprecedented housing squeeze.
Forced to either pay rents that have out-stripped their budgets, or to compete for run-down accommodation in cockroach and vermin infested buildings, they are plunged ever more deeply into a cycle of poverty, spawning all kinds of other charming social ills. The situation is worse still in Toronto for the thousands who are completely homeless, with an underground parking lot as their place for the night. "We have reached a real crisis", said Bob Couchman, executive director of The Family Service Association, an agency that provides counselling and assistance to about ten thousand families in crisis. "I've never seen the problem as severe as it is now," said Couchman (Toronto Globe and Mail, April 5, 1986).
Severe, means a family of five sleeping in one bedroom and a ten-year old afraid to turn on the light because she'll see cockroaches scatter. Severe means a single mother lining up at a food bank because the rent took all her grocery money, or a father who can't sleep because he worries about feeding and clothing his new-born twins. Severe is an elderly couple forced out of their apartment after thirty years because the owner began renovations which would have raised the rent beyond their reach. Severe is an unemployed fisherman too proud to take welfare, who spent winter nights sleeping on a church floor with more than seventy other homeless men.
Their struggle for adequate shelter continues in the shadow of demolitions, conversions and renovations that eat away at a shrinking rental market. Thousands of low cost apartments, flats and rooming houses are being turned into single family homes for the more affluent From 1981 to 1985 to almost 9,000 rental units were lost in the city of Toronto alone.
The Housing Hostels Coalition, a lobby group of churches, hostel workers and community clinics seeking improved housing for the homeless, estimates that fifty percent of the central care rooming houses have been lost in the last ten years. The shortage of rental housing is so severe that the Metro Council may soon be hanging "No Vacancy" signs at its borders. At present, only two out of every 1,000 apartments are empty.
Tracking the number of poorly housed is a difficult task, but housing experts and community agencies have identified various trends and produced numerous reports showing how wide-spread the problem is. Their statistics show that about 95,000 rental households struggle to pay their rent
An estimated 19,500 people are waiting for subsidized housing. Almost 175,000 income-earning rental households in Toronto are paying 25 percent or more of their income on rent and utilities according to Statistics Canada's most recent data. Of the 447,955 income earning households in the census area, 125,427 were paying 30 percent of their income on rent and utilities. About 41,000 of those households are paying up to 40 and 50 percent of their income on rent, according to the Metro Social Planning Council, which also stated that in January, 1986, 22,721 of the 32,287 people on welfare were renting on the private market and paying an average of 64.1 percent of their total income on rent.
A survey for the Provincial Housing Ministry found 25 percent of all low-rise rental housing in Toronto, Hamilton and Ottawa in need of "rehabilitation". Those hardest hit are society's most vulnerable groups: the elderly, single parent families, the unemployed, low-wage workers, students and the disabled. Working families earning $15,000 a year must struggle to pay Toronto's high rents. And some single people in social assistance may have as little as $47.00 a month left over after paying average rents. Social service agencies blame the housing crises for other social problems, including family breakdown, domestic violence, psychiatric disorders and prostitution.
However, not so disturbed is Don Richmond, general housing manager of the Metro Toronto Housing Company, who said, "Show me a growing city that doesn't have a housing crisis and you've got a city that's decaying and dying" (Toronto Globe and Mail, April 1, 1986). Without intending to, our friend Mr. Richmond, provides a pretty potent indictment of capitalism.
No one knows the exact number of homeless people. The last study released three years ago, found there were 3,440 and there are probably more now. Community, church and hospital workers say it could be anywhere between 5,000 and 10,000. The metro government say it's as low as 1,300, but their figure excludes people who spend nights in donut shops, bus stations, cheap hotels and jails, instead of a home.
No profit in rental accommodation
One thing is for sure, and that is the crisis has gradually worsened over the last twelve years. The specific reasons are the disappearing stock of rental housing, made particularly worse as so many rental apartments have been turned into condos, with heavy mortgage payments, high utility costs and of course, a high down payment, with the tenant told "buy it or get out!"
Skyrocketing costs for land financing and energy have also been a factor. Changes in the world economy have made construction of new rental housing uneconomical. Builders and developers moved into ownership housing; since 1979, 1,000 condos a year have been built, mostly selling for $100,000 or more, while the non-subsidized construction of low-cost rental units tapered off.
Beginning in the 1970's rooming houses and houses divided into flats became single family homes. In many cases houses in slum neighbourhoods were gussied-up (or as city hall calls it, "gentrified"), and sold to two people, whilst up to ten previous occupants were kicked out
The imposition of rent review scared many landlords out of rental construction; they feared they would not get a fair return on their investment. In Toronto an average two-bedroom apartment costs approximately $60,000 to build; landlords say limits on rent hikes make it difficult to earn more on such an investment than they could by putting the money in the bank.
Though there is a rent review board, the government's only major attempt at reform, it isn't beneficial to many because of the high annual rental hikes, which are usually higher than any salary raise. Many landlords circumvent the regulations of the board by making renovations and claiming they need the increase in rent to pay for it
The number of boarders and lodgers in private homes in Ontario was 200,000 in 1961, falling to 122,000 fifteen years later; the figures for 1986 were unobtainable, but it will certainly be less. Also, the average family size in Toronto fell from 4.2 to 2.4 from 1951 to 1981 (isn't it amazing how capitalism has us expressing people as a decimal point?). Both these trends increase the demand for rental housing. According to Keith Ward of the city of Toronto Housing Department "with the same population, smaller size households give more households; that creates a greater demand for housing generally. The forces that have given rise to smaller household sizes, the creation of single parent families, have stacked the deck in favour of rental demand."
Another factor contributing to the problem is the end of large public housing projects. By the mid-1970's, politicians were unwilling to risk the social problems they fear from such projects that integrated people of different income levels.
As you can see, the whole housing situation is a typical capitalist cock-up which, given the false nature of capitalism, couldn't be anything else.
Reforms of no lasting value
One only has to listen to workers explain their point of view to know that all too many look at these matters from the good guys/bad guys premise, which has nothing to do with it. Typical is the view expressed by Leslie Robinson, a spokesman for the Federation of Metro Toronto Tenants Associations: "in the past governments have had political and ideological blinkers on. We are looking for strong new initiatives from the current government" (Toronto Star, April 11, 1986).
What is needed is an understanding of the way capitalism operates. Production is with view to profit; if it is not thought that returns on investment will be sufficiently profitable (and businesses won't last long without profits, and sometimes without increasing profits), there v/ill be no investment hence no production, which in this case means fewer rental accommodations. If it can be shown, as it has, that there are more profits in turning rental buildings into condos, for sale to a more higher income section of the working class, then it will be done. This occurred, among many places, to buildings where the majority were pensioners who had lived there for twenty to thirty years; most had to leave because they couldn't afford to buy.
It is also pointless complaining about governments. One need not expect anything from a party in power which stands for the interests of big business, but by the same token, a party of well-meaning people, who wish to reform away the harsher edges of the system, are in many cases powerless to do so once elected. For various reasons; the one concerning us now is their own lack of understanding of how capitalism works. Some years ago, the New Democratic Party said if elected it would to a certain extent solve the housing problem by lowering the mortgage rates to 6 percent The financial people who put up the money for mortgages said, that if that was so, they would invest their money in areas of the economy that would give a better return; therefore, few members of the lower income section of the working class, if any, would get houses.
Any party elected to power without a mandate for socialism can do only one thing, whether they stand for the interests of finance, commerce, heavy industry, light industry, shopkeepers, the working Joe, or Uncle Tom Cobley and all, and that is administrate the affairs of capitalism in general, to the limited extent that it is possible to administrate the affairs of such a crazy system. The means giving in to certain pressures once in office. Though these pressures may be different specifically, in the broad, general sense it all amounts to the same thing — profits.
All major government decisions, long-term and short-term (directly and indirectly), are with view to the interests of returning a profit This is something the working class have no stake in; it's their failure to realize this that makes some of them hungry and homeless.
Reforms are of no lasting value to the working class. They can only be of benefit to the capitalist class, directly through profits or indirectly because reforms are conducive to perpetuating capitalism. Reforms, and those who advocate them, deceive the working class into thinking that their problems can be solved within capitalism. Some reforms may indeed seem to reduce some particular pressure on some part of the working class for a while, but with the passing of time become obsolete and new ones are called for. All kinds of reforms have been introduced and none have solved humankind's problems and none will. Capitalism, because of its basic nature, can never be made to work in everyone's interest.
There is only one answer—socialism; and one way to get it by political organization. In a socialist society the fundamental basis of society will be totally changed: from a society based on production for profit it will be a society based on production for use. All will have free access to all they need for a full and happy life. Problems concerning food, shelter and clothing, will no longer exist and this being the case, people will be able to satisfy their other needs, recreational and intellectual.
All will be free to develop their personalities and abilities to the fullest possible extent and all will contribute according to their various skills and abilities. Because the premise of production will be based on serving humankind, people will get satisfaction that is unknown under capitalism.
Ray Rawlings (Canada)
