In the early nineties, the federal government withdrew from funding affordable housing, making Canada the only industrialized country without a national housing program.

The withdrawal took place in two steps &#0151 the first taken by the Mulroney Tories and the second taken by the Chretien Liberals, as part of the largest slashing of social programs in Canadian history.

Since that time, the need for affordable housing has only gotten greater, as the income gap between homeowners and tenants has widened and rents have been permitted to skyrocket.

Even as governments handed more and more incentives to the private sector to fill the void, the reality that there is minimal or no profit in building affordable housing meant that whatever rental housing was built was primarily at the high end of the market (and contrary to the predictions made by conservatives, it doesn&#0146t really &#0147trickle down&#0148 to serve the needs of the poor and middle class).

There have been some positive signs over the past two years. A joint federal-provincial program to fund new affordable housing initiatives showed early promise, but most provinces (especially Ontario) have managed to weasel out of providing their share of the funding. Consequently, the number of actual units built under the program has been woefully small.

In addition, when it comes down to the local level, getting the shovel into the ground isn&#0146t as easy for affordable housing developments as it is for luxury monster homes.

The City of Waterloo, for example, says it welcomes new affordable housing (you&#0146ll find that bland reassurance in nearly every planning document), but not one unit of affordable housing has been built in the city since the mid-1990s. The laudable recommendations of the Affordable Housing Task Force appointed after the 2000 municipal election have been forgotten and the barriers to building keep getting higher. As well, our old friend NIMBY (not in my backyard) is still around, just in case someone manages to get the zoning and other considerations that they need to build.

Clearly some leadership on this issue is needed and it has to start at the federal level. Luckily, there are people in Ottawa who understand what needs to be done. Among those are people like NDP leader Jack Layton, who wrote the definitive book on the homelessness crisis, and party housing critic Libby Davies.

More surprisingly, one of those people is Paul Martin (yes the same Paul Martin that made all of those budget cuts and is now slated to take over Jean Chretien&#0146s job as Prime Minister). Way back in 1990, Martin showed that he knew what needed to be done when he co-authored Finding Room, the report of the Liberal Task Force on Housing.

Here are a few things that he had to say at the time:

&#0147Why a Liberal Task Force on Housing? The answer is simple: affordable housing has become an increasingly unobtainable goal for too many segments of our population.&#0148

&#0147The Task Force believes that housing is a fundamental human right: all Canadians have the right to decent housing.&#0148

&#0147Though homelessness affects a relatively small percentage of Canadians, it is a reality which is symptomatic of a broader crisis in the supply of affordable housing.&#0148

&#0147Whether the housing unit is on the private market or is a non-profit or co-operative unit, financing is a critical determinant of affordability.&#0148

&#0147It is vital that the federal role in housing be strengthened both at the political and administrative levels…. The non-profit sector has a proven ability to provide cost-effective affordable housing.&#0148

&#0147There is no immediate alternative resolution to the current on-reserve housing crisis other than that more money be invested in the program. Production must be accelerated.&#0148

Not that it&#0146s unusual for Liberals to say one thing in opposition and do the exact opposite while in government (indeed, the more cynical critics might even suggest they are doing it on purpose), but that&#0146s quite the stunning contrast between Martin version 1990 and Martin version 1994.

Now that he is finally set to realize his father&#0146s lifelong ambition, the question remains: which Paul Martin will we be getting when he moves into 24 Sussex? Will it be the harsh, budget-cutting Paul Martin of 1994? Or, will it be the progressive, thoughtful Paul Martin that we heard from in the report of the Liberal Task Force on Housing? Somehow, I have my doubts that it will be the latter.

picture-2299.jpg

Scott Piatkowski

Scott Piatkowski is a former columnist for rabble.ca. He wrote a weekly column for 13 years that appeared in the Waterloo Chronicle, the Woolwich Observer and ECHO Weekly. He has also written for Straight...