|
|
|
|
The State of the World's Children 2008 assesses the state of child survival and primary health care for mothers, newborns and children today. These issues serve as sensitive barometers of a country's development and wellbeing and as evidence of its priorities and values. Investing in the health of children and their mothers is a human rights imperative and one of the surest ways for a country to set its course towards a better future.
With a focus on women and children, The State of the World's Children 2007 report determines that eliminating
gender discrimination and empowering women will have a profound and positive impact on the
survival and well-being of children.
Gender equality produces the "double dividend" of benefiting both women and children and is pivotal to the health
and development of families, communities and nations.
Despite progress in women's status in recent decades, the lives of millions of girls and women are overshadowed by
discrimination, disempowerment and poverty. Girls and women are disproportionately affected by HIV/AIDS and women
in most places earn less than men for equal work. Millions of women throughout the world are subject to physical
and sexual violence, with little recourse to justice. As a result of discrimination, girls are less likely to
attend school; nearly one out of every five girls who enroll in primary school in developing countries does not
complete a primary education. Education levels among women correlate with improved outcomes for child survival and development.
The State of the World's Children 2007 report makes a call for equality and examines equality in the household, in
employment, in politics and government. The final chapter of the report provides a road map for maximizing gender
equality through seven key modes: education, financing, legislation, legislative quotas, women empowering women,
engaging men and boys and improved research and data.
The benefits of gender equality go beyond their direct impact on children. The State of the World's Children 2007 shows
how promoting gender equality and empowering women – Millennium Development Goal number 3 – will propel all of the other
goals, from reducing poverty and hunger to saving children's lives, improving maternal health, ensuring universal education,
combating HIV/AIDS, malaria and other diseases, and ensuring environmental sustainability. |
|
|
Last Updated: 22 July 2010 |
Poverty in Canada
News and Selected Reports |
This fourth section in our pages on Homelessness and Poverty in Canada presents selected news, media releases and special reports.
On December 15, 2009, Dietitians of Canada, BC Region and the Community Nutritionists Council of BC released the report The
Cost of Eating in BC 2009: Low-income British Columbians can't afford healthy food. The report was endorsed by 23 organizations.
Dietitians publish the report to bring attention to the fact that not all British Columbians have enough money to buy healthy food. While shelter and food costs have risen
significantly over the past decade, income assistance rates have remained virtually unchanged and minimum wage, once the highest in the country, has remained at $8.00/hour.
For those receiving income assistance or earning minimum wage there simply is not enough money to pay for housing and food, let alone other necessities. Unemployment is up
and more people are relying on assistance. There are too many living in poverty in BC and too many lined up at food banks. Dietitians are calling for the provincial government
to take some additional action to address poverty in this province. Other provinces are taking action. Quebec and Ontario have anti-poverty legislation, while Newfoundland &
Labrador, Nova Scotia, Manitoba and New Brunswick all have poverty reduction plans. Common to them are significant changes to income assistance and increases to minimum wage.
It is well documented that income is closely tied to health. Low-income Canadians are more likely to report poor health and die earlier than Canadians with higher incomes. They
spend less on food and eat fewer servings of vegetables, fruit and milk and are less likely to get the nutrients they need for good health.
|
New data released today by Statistics Canada confirms the number of children living in poverty has declined more in Manitoba than elsewhere in Canada, Family Services
and Consumer Affairs Minister Gord Mackintosh and Housing and Community Development Minister Kerri Irvin-Ross announced today.
“Although under all measures of low income Manitoba continues to improve and now has the second lowest rates of child and overall poverty in Canada, numbers are no comfort to
those still living in poverty. The progress so far merely reminds us that concerted efforts to attack poverty do make a difference,” said Mackintosh.
The minister said the new data provides information up to the year 2008 and demonstrates that child poverty dropped 10 per cent from 2007 to 2008 and 44 per cent since 2000, lifting
over 19,000 children out of poverty since 2000. Manitoba has the lowest poverty rate for single parents across Canada. Between 2000 and 2008, the low-income rates for single parents
dropped by 67 per cent.
|
[...] In 2008, the 20% of persons with the highest family after-tax income had, on average, 5.4 times the family after-tax income as those in the lowest 20%. This ratio has been
virtually unchanged since 2000.
Just over 3 million Canadians lived in a low-income situation in 2008, virtually unchanged from 2007, using the after-tax low income cut-offs. This represents 9.4% of the population.
About 606,000 children aged 17 and under lived in low-income families in 2008. This was unchanged from 2007, but below the 854,000 in 2003. The proportion of children in low-income families
was 9.0% in 2008, half the peak of 18% in 1996.
Roughly 218,000 of these children in low income lived in female lone-parent families. About 23% of children in female lone-parent families were living in low income in 2008, well below
the latest peak of 56% in 1996.
Note: This release is mainly based on the Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics, which is conducted in all the provinces and which surveyed about 34,000 families. It examines the income
of unattached individuals and families along with information related to low income.
This report examines family and individual income on the basis of medians. The median is the point at which half of all families or individuals had higher income than the rest,
and half had less. [...] | |
The market basket measure (MBM) looks at purchasing power based on the cost of a specific basket of goods and services that includes food, clothing, footwear, shelter, transportation
and other items like personal care, household equipment and supplies, telephone services, educational and recreational items, and reading materials. The cost of that basket is checked
in different communities to accurately take into account differences in the cost of living. [...]
Under ALL Aboard, Manitoba’s Poverty Reduction and Social Inclusion Strategy, Manitoba now invests $950 million a year to combat poverty. This year, more than 30
new initiatives are being introduced building on work done last year including:
- launching the province’s HOMEWorks! low-income housing strategy, which includes
a homeless and mental-health housing component;
- enhancing the Rewarding Work strategy, including Rebound, to help those affected
by the recession and get more Manitobans off welfare;
- providing a higher minimum wage;
- launching the Opening Doors Disability strategy;
- adding help for rent payments;
- expanding child care under the Family Choices five-year strategy; and
- launching Service Link to make existing low-income services more understandable and accessible.
The final measures for Manitoba’s ALL Aboard strategy will be announced in 2011
after feedback from engagement sessions with stakeholders across the province
has been incorporated [...] |
[...] Ontario’s core social assistance programs – Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program - together with the other programs that make up Ontario’s income security system,
continue to fall short in providing an economic safety net for individuals and families as well as promoting opportunity to ensure everyone can contribute to the long-term prosperity of
the province.
The current social assistance system is based on the budget deficit model. By its nature, the budget deficit model is intricate, rule-bound, complicated, hard to understand and difficult
to administer fairly. The consequences are stigma, a high degree of invasiveness into the personal lives of recipients and the enforcement of rules placed above real support. The system
requires applicants to deplete most financial assets, making it harder to recover from an economic setback. Once in the system, recipients live on substandard incomes, and often become trapped
in a cycle of poverty.
Report lacks a sense of urgency...
TORONTO, June 14 /CNW/ - The Social Assistance Review Advisory Council Report released Monday morning at Queen's Park promotes a bold new vision for income security
in the long run but is weak on what it asks the Ontario Government to do to help people on social assistance meet their basic daily living necessities now. The Review panel recommends
a consultation and system overhaul process that will take 12 to 18 months.
"A bold vision for tomorrow does not put food on the table today," says Marvyn Novick, retired Professor Emeritus in Social policy at Ryerson University and contributor to the Social
Planning Network of Ontario. "The Ontario Government has ignored the needs of the most vulnerable in the province. It sets up a panel on social assistance and shortly thereafter cuts
the Special Diet Allowance, reneges on the dental program for adult recipients, and reduces the woefully inadequate real income of recipients by 1% in the latest budget. While the panel
claims to promote long-term reform, the real situation with people on the ground is deteriorating rapidly."
"Minister Meilleur needs to listen to people like me," says Nadia, an Ontario Works recipient in Toronto, "who are making the choice every month between paying for my children's needs
and buying healthy food and not listen to those who would trade real change today for promises in the future."
"The report lacks a sense of urgency because many are in crisis right now and it ignores the short-term recommendation of $100 a month Healthy Food Supplement for those on welfare," says
Tom Pearson, Chair of the Poverty Action for Change Coalition in York Region. "The Healthy Food Supplement would put money in people's pockets instantly and it is widely supported in
communities across the province."
"The Advisory Council acknowledges the urgency facing single adults with inadequate income support," says Peter Clutterbuck, SPNO Coordinator. "But it is weak on the immediate measures
that could be taken to address that issue. The community would support the panel's proposal for a well-designed and adequate housing benefit in an overhauled income security system
in the long run. But, in the meantime, measures like the Healthy Food Supplement could be easily implemented using the existing social assistance benefit system. People who do not know
where their next meal is coming from do not have the luxury of time."
The SPNO has been working with community partners across the province in the last year on a campaign called Put Food in the Budget. The campaign calls for the immediate introduction of a
$100 a month Healthy Food Supplement for people on social assistance as a first step toward setting rates at a level that allows them to live with health and dignity. SPNO and its community
partners urged the SARAC panel to make this recommendation to the Minister of Community and Social Services along with proposals for long-term income security reform. They are disappointed
in the panel's failure to do so. | |
The income security system as a whole fails to provide effective alternatives to social assistance. Lack of Employment Insurance coverage, inadequate workforce development and lack
of income benefits to ease recipients' transition to independence all make social assistance the first program many people turn to in times of financial hardship.
While a need for reform is widely acknowledged, a consensus about how to fix the system does not yet exist.
With these challenges in mind, the Ontario government’s poverty reduction strategy, entitled Breaking the Cycle, undertook to initiate: "[A] review of social assistance with the goal
of removing barriers and increasing opportunity – with a particular focus on people trying to move into employment from social assistance. The review will seek to better align social
assistance and other key programs and initiatives and better communicate program rules to achieve the aims of increasing opportunity for the individual." [...]
The Social Assistance Review Advisory Council recommends the Ontario Income Security Review explore the following six strategic directions for reform. These
strategies should form the basis for consultations with Ontarians. Based on the results of those consultations and research, the review would then develop a
detailed 'road map' for implementing a transformed system.
- Building on the approach of the Ontario Child Benefit, develop an expanded range of income and services to be available to all low-income Ontarians.
- Strengthen initiatives such as minimum wage increases, enhanced employment standards, fair employment initiatives and the federal Working Income Tax Benefit to ensure the labour market offers effective pathways out of poverty
- Replace short term coverage in Ontario Works with more appropriate financial support outside of the social assistance system for those who are temporarily unemployed.
- Re-engineer long-term coverage in Ontario Works as an opportunity planning program to support achieving full labour market potential through skills building, education, training, employment and related support.
- Develop standards for a liveable income and a process to use those standards to assess the adequacy of Ontarians' incomes.
- Improve income and social supports for those whose reasonable prospects of earning liveable incomes from employment are limited by disability or other circumstances, including a possible new vision for the Ontario Disability
Support Program and exploring options for alternative models of financial assistance.
Specific reforms which could follow from each strategy are noted in the body of this report. [...] Download full Report |
It has been a dozen years since the first edition of the Where’s Home? Report was published by the Ontario
Non-Profit Housing Association (ONPHA) and the Ontario Region of the Co-operative Housing Federation of Canada (CHF Canada Ontario Region).
The study this year, as in previous years, looks at critical housing variables across Ontario including production trends, rental housing availability, vacancy
rates, rental demand, and affordability. The report also takes a snapshot of 22 municipal housing markets throughout the province.
The findings for the 2010 edition are not significantly different from when we began this annual review in the late 1990's.
The pages ahead tell the following story:
 |
- Vacancy rates are stabilizing, after tightening up in the last four years; but rents are still rising faster than incomes of renter households.
- Average rents increased three times the rate of inflation across the province in 2009 despite an economic downturn.
- Waiting lists for assisted housing continue to be long and are growing, swelling to nearly 142,000 households throughout Ontario in 2010.
- There is a growing gap between the incomes of tenants and those of homeowners, exacerbated by the recession and by the increasing movement of
middle income tenants out of the rental market.
- Food bank usage increased by 19% between 2008 and 2009 and those using food banks spend on average 65% of their income on housing.
- Demand for new purpose-built rental housing is conservatively estimated at 10,000 homes a year for the next decade. Over the last ten years we
have averaged about a third of this need.
- An astonishing 94% of the housing starts in the last five year period were in the ownership market, with rental accounting for only 6%. Just 15 years
ago, the comparable figure for rental construction would have been over a quarter of the housing market.
|
Toronto, April 6, 2010 – The Stop Community Food Centre today announced the second phase of
“Do the Math,” the anti-poverty organization’s campaign to highlight the failure of Ontario’s current
social assistance rates to support healthy, dignified lives.
[...] The Stop’s Do the Math campaign, initially launched in August 2009 [...] features
an interactive website where visitors are asked to add up the monthly expenses
they think necessary for a single person on social assistance. This budgetary exercise vividly
illustrates that, after housing, clothing and transportation, most people have no money left over for
food and must rely on food banks and drop-in meals to survive. More than 5,000 people have done
the math online and thousands of others have signed Do the Math postcards addressed to the
Premier of Ontario. These supporters joined The Stop in asking the provincial government to
immediately introduce a $100/month Healthy Food Supplement for all adults on social assistance
and to establish a clear and transparent process to set rates based on what it actually costs to live a
frugal, but healthy and dignified, life in Ontario. [...]
|
Located in Toronto’s west end, The Stop works to increase access to food in a manner that maintains dignity, builds health and community and challenges inequality.
From its origins as one of Canada’s first food banks, The Stop has blossomed into a thriving community hub where neighbours participate in a broad range of programs that
provide healthy food, as well as foster social connections, build food skills and promote engagement in civic issues. Among the busy initiatives are community kitchens and
gardens, cooking classes, drop-in meals, peri-natal support, a food bank, outdoor bake ovens, food markets and community advocacy.
In 2009, The Stop opened The Green Barn, a sustainable food production and education centre with a 10,000-square-foot greenhouse, commercial kitchen, classroom, sheltered
garden and composting facility. School visits and an after-school program offer hands-on opportunities for children to learn about the food system. Underlying all of The
Stop’s efforts is the view that food should be a basic human right. |
Does a single person on social assistance receive enough income to live with health and dignity?
Do the Math will help you determine how much you think one needs to live frugally, but in dignity and in reasonable health in Ontario. Expenses are divided into sections
such as housing, transportation, health, etc. For each section we have included figures to help you determine what the actual costs are - just click on the icon to see the
information. Prices for things vary on where you are living. Feel free to browse through your community paper to see how much things cost in your neighborhood when filling out the survey.
Do the Math will take approximately 6 minutes to complete. You will see your results at the end, and will be able to compare it to approximately 5,000 others who have
completed the survey thus far.
DO THE MATH SURVEY
http://dothemath.thestop.org/survey.php | |
It may have been a Depression era coincidence, but broad based minimum wage laws brought in by the Ontario government in 1937 closely followed the first issuances of cash welfare in 1935.
Back then, the minimum wage (which applied mainly to working women in Toronto) was $12.50 a week, or about $54 a month. The going relief rate at that time for a single person in many parts
of Toronto was about $ $19.50 a month. So a single relief packet amounted to 36 per cent of what someone could make working for minimum wage.
Flash forward to today, the minimum wage in Ontario just rose to $10.25 an hour, which works out to $1,625 a month based on a standard 36-and-a-half-hour work week. Meanwhile, the single
maximum welfare rate is $585 a month. That means that, for the first time in 73 years, the welfare rate will again equal 36 per cent of the Ontario minimum wage.
What happened in between?
In 1944, relief rates were tied to a nutritious food basket through the efforts of the predecessors of the Toronto Social Planning Council and various academic departments at the
University of Toronto.
In the 20 years after the Second World War, the minimum wage began to climb toward the elusive $1.00 an hour mark while welfare rates lingered at low levels before the advent of the
Canada Assistance Plan. We almost dropped back to 36 per cent – but not quite.
In 1967, Canada's centennial year, one of the great acts of unintended symmetry was realized in Ontario: 100 years of Canada, a $1.00 an hour minimum wage, and welfare rates
that finally surpassed the $100 a month mark. The ratio of social assistance to minimum wage stood at 63 per cent.
By 1980, minimum wage in Ontario had reached $3.00 an hour, but social assistance did not keep pace and the ratio dropped to 41 per cent just as a major recession hit.
However, by November 1991, propelled by a robust economy, the social assistance single rate was raised to $626 with a $6.00 an hour minimum wage. The ratio reached its high-water
mark of all time at 70 per cent.
Although no one knew it at the time, that 70 per cent standard would relentlessly erode over the next two decades under governments of all political stripes. The Rae government
stopped raising social assistance in 1993 but implemented two more minimum wage increases, bringing it to $6.85 an hour in 1995 where it would stay until 2004. When Premier Mike
Harris cut the social assistance single rate to $520 a month, the ratio dropped to 47 per cent.
Since 2005 the minimum wage has risen at a higher rate than social assistance and the ratio relentlessly fell to the current 36 per cent.
The yearly difference between the single welfare rate and minimum wage is now $19,500 in gross minimum wages versus $7,020 in basic assistance.
So we have the same stark work incentives as we did in the depths of the Great Depression. Who says history doesn't repeat itself? |
OTTAWA, March 24 - The federal and provincial retreat from traditional social transfers in the 1990s has frayed Canada´s social safety net, and cities are now struggling to fill the growing gaps.
That trend, exacerbated by the current recession and growing urbanization, is the principal finding of a new report from the Federation of Canadian Municipalities (FCM), entitled Mending Canada´s
Frayed Social Safety Net: The role of municipal governments. This is the sixth report in a series looking at quality-of-life issues and indicators in Canada´s urban centres.
“We have a new class of working poor in our country; waiting lists for affordable housing that keep getting longer; and people struggling to get to work and find childcare,” said FCM President,
Mayor Basil Stewart of Summerside, P.E.I. “More and more, the only things giving these people a fighting chance are the services provided by municipal governments.” [...]
WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR POVERTY REDUCTION?
|
March 10, 2010 – Ottawa, Ontario – The tuberculosis rate among Inuit has doubled in the past four years – to 185 times the rate of Canadian-born non-aboriginals – at a time
when the national rate is declining, according to 2008 figures recently made public by the Public Health Agency of Canada.
This compares with an Inuit rate 90 times higher than the non-aboriginal, Canadian-born population as recently as 2004. The rate among First Nations is also climbing, from
29 times the non-aboriginal, Canadian-born rate in 2004 to a rate now 31 times higher.
“Behind the high results,” said Gail Turner, chair of Inuit Tapiriit Kanatami’s National Inuit Committee on Health, “are significant disparities in the health of Inuit and
other Canadians and inequity in access to health care. It is unconscionable that these conditions exist in a country that boasts of having one of the lowest TB rates in the world.”
The root causes of these elevated rates lie partly in historically high exposure during TB waves in the 1940s, ’50s and ’60s. Aboriginal peoples lacked a natural resistance and the
burden of disease was high.
Many were removed from their communities and sent to urban centres for treatment. Some never returned, creating a legacy of fear among those left behind that endures to this day.
Add to that co-morbidities, such as HIV and diabetes, which increase the risk that significant occurrences of latent TB will progress to full-blown tuberculosis.
“Overcrowded housing, poor nutrition and lack of access to health care contribute to the higher rates of this disease among First Nations – many of the same conditions that made
First Nations communities especially vulnerable to the spread of H1N1 last year,” said Chief Angus Toulouse, who holds the national portfolio for health at the Assembly of First
Nations. “Addressing these issues will require First Nations-led economic solutions, expanded access to treatment and improved tracking of cases and underlying causes.”
In the Arctic and in many First Nations communities, housing is a major contributor. Often entire families are forced to live in a single bedroom, while mold is rampant in houses
built to construction standards that are ill suited for the climate. Immune systems are compromised by a general lack of healthy, affordable food.
A shortage of health care providers in remote communities further challenges the ability to manage TB and be proactive in elimination strategies. [...] |
FREDERICTON (CNB) - Ombudsman and Child and Youth Advocate Bernard Richard today released a report entitled,
Hand-in-Hand: A Review of First Nations Child Welfare in New Brunswick.
In his report, Richard recommends sweeping changes to the child welfare system on First Nations, reducing the number of agencies to three from the current 11.
Richard also calls for the establishment of a single First Nations Child and Family Services Office that would provide financial and administrative functions to the three agencies.
Furthermore, he provides recommendations related to funding, governance, service delivery standards, training and accountability.
"My objective was to recommend changes that will reduce the duplication of administrative work being done in each community in order to maximize frontline social work services," said
Richard. "In my view, it is necessary to maintain and augment the number of social workers in each community who provide culturally based services and to give them access to the same
resources employed by social workers in the rest of the province."
Richard, in his report, also delves into the deep-seated issues affecting First Nations communities, such as poverty, drug addictions, domestic violence, and the erosion of the Mi'kmaq
and Maliseet cultures and languages.
"It was essential to examine the underlying social, economic and cultural conditions for this report," said Richard. "To simply put in place an improved child welfare system would not
be enough to truly create equal opportunities for First Nations children. For real change to occur, we must address the determinants of child welfare and focus on prevention-based
solutions." Continue reading for Backgrounder |
Children raised in poverty in their first five years are more likely to feel its effects well into adulthood.
- THE GIST:
- Poverty during early childhood is correlated with lower adult income.
- Childhood poverty causes lasting effects on the brain and on the way DNA is expressed.
- Because early childhood is so important, researchers advise policies to address these problems should focus on the youngest children.
It's no surprise that growing up in poverty makes it more likely you'll be poorer as an adult.
But new research shows that the earliest years of life are the most critical in determining future earnings. Even more strikingly, a growing body of research
shows that childhood poverty causes lasting changes in the brain -- from its overall structure down to the level of gene expression.
These findings highlight the importance of programs that specifically address the needs of the youngest children, the researchers say. [...]
"Early experiences are built into our bodies, for better or worse," said Jack Shonkoff of Harvard University in Cambridge, Mass., speaking at a meeting of the American
Association for the Advancement of Science in San Diego on Sunday.
"If you begin with the experience of adversity and stress, those get translated into changes in brain function and structure that get translated into changes in cellular
and neuronal connections, and most recently, down into lasting changes in how the DNA is expressed," said Thomas Boyce of the University of British Columbia in Vancouver,
who has carried out several studies that show these effects.
Poor children perform worse in many ways, said Katherine Magnuson of the University of Wisconsin, Madison, from standardized tests to amount of schooling to behavior and
health. "We've known this for a long time. What is interesting and emergent is our ability to talk about these as being caused by income per se rather than the range
of things that are associated with poverty," Magnuson said. [...]
|
|
|
The Coalition had an opportunity to meet with members of the Social Assistance Review Advisory Council (SARAC)
in late January, and to present them with a list of quick changes that could be made to some of the "stupid rules" in ODSP [Ontario Disability Support Program]. This Council was recently appointed by the government to give advice on two things: some "quick fix" changes to counterproductive
rules, and the mandate and scope of a more conprehensive social assistance review to be carried out later this year.
Our Policy and Research Committee had already been working on a list of rule changes that had been suggested at our last conference and by our committees. So we very quickly wrote up
and discussed a series of recommendations that we asked the SARAC to consider. Given the short time frame, (SARAC had to give their input on this to MCSS by the end of January), we
were not able to deal with all the many problems in ODSP, nor to priorize our recommendations. But we are hopeful that at least some of these issues will be taken up by SARAC in their
discussions with government, and then that we see some actual improvements in the rules that ODSP recipients have to deal with.
We will also be pushing for meaningful consultation in the larger revew of OW [Ontario Works] and ODSP, with representation from all over the province, rural and urban, all consituencies impacted
by social assistance. This particula[rl]y means including people in receipt of OW and ODSP.
Poorly Conceived Social Policy
Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program are both examples of poorly conceived social policy, dysfunctional in ways known only too well by advocates and those in need. The ODSP is
particularly Kafkaesque, a study in lack of transparency and the inconsistent (ostensibly arbitrary) exercise of authority, replete with logically absurd rules and odd interpretations
that confuse and confound rather than assist the population the program purports to support.
There are compassionate and caring staff at ODSP, to be sure, but their capacity to help is limited by overwhelming case loads, the quagmire of regulations with which they must contend, and
hidebound administrators more focused on limiting costs and policing a disadvantaged demographic. The 7 Decem-
ber 2009 Ontario Auditor General's did nothing to elucidate or remedy these problems;
to the contrary, it laid the blame on those most in need of support — see Ontario Auditor General's Report Underlines Need for Social Assistance Reform.
We sincerely hope Ontario's social assistance review initiative is more open to the facts and committed to effecting positive change.
The ODSP Action Coalition Proposal identifies a number of short-term remedial changes — these should be
put in place immediately — but their recommendations are not exhaustive. Ontario Works and ODSP are fundamentally flawed legacies of the
Mike Harris "common sense revolution", which reduced social assistance rates by 22%. Social policies of that
era do not reflect the current climate of social inclusion and equality. — Richard Dagan
|
For example...
TORONTO, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - Feb. 18, 2010) - Ontario's Social Benefits Tribunal has sent a clear message
to the Ontario government and municipal social services administrators that their practices are out of step with the law.
In a January 6th decision, the Tribunal supported the appeal of a grandmother in Oshawa, Ont., whose Temporary Care Allowance had been cancelled. The grandmother had been receiving benefits
since 1999 when her grandson came into her care, and they were cut off in November 2008 by Ontario Works. The benefits included $230 per month and a drug and dental card. These supports
are not available to most grandparents taking care of their grandchildren. The Appellant was represented at the Tribunal by Doug Stewart, a lawyer with
Fraser Milner Casgrain, through a Pro Bono
Law Ontario initiative.
Advocates are hailing the decision, the first to favour an Appellant since the introduction of Ontario Ministry of Community and Social Services (MCSS) policy directives in 2008
that significantly narrowed the scope of eligibility for these benefits and thereby penalized grandparents who stepped up to take care of their children.
"The Temporary Care Allowance was meant to address a pressing need - to allow other family members to look after children when their parents cannot. The flawed interpretation of the guidelines undermined the intent of the program and had the effect of cutting off the very people the program was
meant for and who most needed the allowance," said Susan Eng, Vice President of Advocacy [at] CARP. [...]
[Read More] |
And to make matters worse...
Cancelling Special Diet is a Cut to Welfare Rates
Last year, the Special Diet program invested more than $200 million to give dietary support to people on Ontario Works (OW) and the Ontario Disability Support Program
(ODSP) who have special food needs due to their confirmed medical conditions.
But this year, the government intends to eliminate the program entirely. [...]
Punitive Program Means No Other Source of Support
The incomes of people who get OW and ODSP are dangerously low. Too low to afford the nutritious food it takes to maintain good health – and far too low to properly treat health conditions.
The government knows this. Public health authorities know this. The people who struggle to survive on these programs know it best. But they have nowhere else to turn.
Current OW and ODSP rules make it illegal for people to get enough money from other sources to live a life of health and dignity. If you work at a job, half your income gets
deducted from your benefits. If you get financial support from family or friends, that support is deducted. If you take out a loan, it’s counted as income and it’s deducted.
Rules like this condemn people on OW and ODSP to live in poverty, on incomes that have been demonstrated – in report after report – to lead to increased risk for chronic disease
and serious health conditions. [...] |
|
A Paradigm Shift in Social Policy -- New Brunswick
|
Hundreds of thousands of unemployed Canadians could see their benefits run out with no job prospects in sight, according to an analysis the Canadian Labour Congress released Monday.
The analysis by CLC chief economist Andrew Jackson found that 500,000 Canadians who initiated EI claims in 2009 could exhaust their benefits before finding a new job despite Ottawa's
move to extend Employment Insurance benefits by five weeks. [...] The number of Canadians who were collecting benefits rose from about 500,000 to more than 809,000 between October 2008
and October 2009, but the number who were jobless and not collecting benefits also rose, Jackson said. Many of those were women [...] Only about half of the unemployed
nationally were collecting benefits as of last October [...] In Ontario, one of the hardest-hit provinces, that number was as low as 41 per cent [...]
|
On Thursday, the Community and Protective Services Committee approved Ottawa's Poverty Reduction Strategy, an extensive report prepared by the Poverty Reduction Strategy Steering Committee.
This report recommends 16 initiatives that aim to reduce the poverty of Ottawa's population. Among the recommendations are increased investments in social housing and increased diversity
in the city's workforce. [...] The plan will be presented for city council by February.
[...]
The Poverty Reduction Strategy Steering Committee formulated a vision, principles, 3 strategic priorities and 16 recommendations based on the key messages heard in forums and
initiatives where individuals and families on low‐income, advocates, and representatives from community agencies made their voices heard.
During the implementation phase (Phase II) beginning in 2010, measures will be developed and progress will be tracked on the priorities and recommendations.
The City partnered with the Social Planning Council of Ottawa to plan and deliver two targeted Poverty Reduction Strategy community consultation sessions held on September
18th and September 21st. A total of 118 people participated in the targeted sessions. Approximately 50% of participants were people on low income, and approximately 20% were Francophone.
The investment required to implement the 16 recommendations is $3.5M. For 2010 the funding will come from new or existing one time provincial funding within the Community
and Social Services Department. Each recommendation summarizes the financial impact in 201o, as well as potential impact in future years based on outcomes, recommendations
stemming from the initiatives and direction from Council.
Strategic Priorities and Recommendations
- Strategy One:
A service system working to the benefit of the people in need
- Develop an expanded community Ontario Disability Support Program application process, based on the model described in this report.
- Streamline the needs assessment to Essential Health and Social Supports and Home Support Services for people in need.
- Improve access to City services by establishing a single point of application for multiple City services of importance to people on low income, and by ensuring
311 (for City services) and 211(for City and community services) have the capacity to provide information on a full range of services from the perspective of people on low income.
- Strategy Two:
Building a community of inclusion and belonging
- Increase access to recreation for people on low‐income.
- Develop a community planning table to bring together school boards, the Parks, Recreation and Culture Department, Children's Services, Crime Prevention Ottawa
and community agencies to develop solutions to jointly create, program and coordinate increased community use of schools.
- Advocate that the Province increase social assistance rates utilizing a standardized market basket measure approach that reflects current living standards and
annual cost of living adjustments, and remove systemic barriers across Ministries that have unintended effects of keeping people in poverty.
- Increase employment supports and opportunities for vulnerable persons in Ottawa.
- Integrate immigrants and newcomers into the City of Ottawa's workforce to become a model of employment, and increase diversity in the City's workforce; and
implement an equality framework and an equity lens across City departments.
- Advocate for increased investments in homelessness prevention initiatives, social and affordable housing and housing with supports.
- Increase awareness of the availability of the Retrofit program, to help people in rural areas reduce energy costs.
- Identify a rural community as a priority neighbourhood in the next phase of the Community Development Framework.
- Strategy Three:
Breaking down the myths about poverty and promoting poverty reduction.
- Develop a community strategy to increase public awareness of poverty issues and promote local actions to reduce poverty.
- Collaborate with community funders to identify opportunities to focus on poverty reduction within funding priorities.
- Develop options for a living wage policy at the City and a consultation plan and report to Community and Protective Services Committee in the spring of 2010.
- Develop a policy framework to reinvest savings from the upload of social assistance benefits into social infrastructure and poverty reduction to ensure a balance
of investment in the Triple Bottom Line.
- Extend the Poverty Reduction Strategy to future phases to address other poverty issues.
|
Whether he meant to or not, the auditor general's December 7th analysis of OW/ODSP let a dysfunctional social assistance system off the hook, instead laying blame with the
people who have nowhere else to turn to for basic support.
The ensuing debate risks losing sight of the simple fact that when it comes to social assistance, it's not the people who are the problem. Instead
it's the 800+ rules that trap people in poverty and powerlessness, fail to provide social and community supports and education and training tools to enable
opportunity, and leave people so short of income that living a healthy, dignified life is impossible.
As Premier McGuinty recently stated, social assistance "stomps people into the ground" and something must be done to make the system work the way it
should. That something cannot come soon enough, as evidenced by the confusing picture painted by the auditor general's report:
- The AG's analysis compares apples with oranges: Comparing the yearly cost of OW and ODSP ($5 B annually) with the historical value of all
unrecovered overpayments in the system over decades ($1.2 b over 5+ years) is highly misleading;
- The AG's analysis inflates the reality of overpayments: The comparison between annual and historical amounts invites the public to falsely
conclude overpayments make up 24% of the cost of OW and ODSP. It's more like 1.4%. That's not even including the 20% municipal contribution which would bring
[these] numbers even lower.
- Overpayments are endemic to the OW and ODSP systems and are routinely generated because of the way the system works. In fact, 'Overpayment'
is a misleading term: 'Overpayments' are automatically generated by the system for the smallest of routine changes, such as a recipient getting long-awaited
back pay from a previous job or child support arrears.
- The AG questions the growth of "special diet" benefits simply based on the growth of claims. No medical evidence is offered to
suggest that a single recipient does not qualify for this vital medical benefit.
- The AG report does not address the fact that incomes for people on social assistance are dangerously low and compromise people's health
and dignity, leaving society with higher costs down the road. Welfare literally makes people sick. People who experience chronic food insecurity and a lack
of access to a healthy diet suffer from numerous negative effects on their health, including higher risk of chronic illness, depression, heart disease, diabetes, and high blood pressure.
Backgrounder: Just the Facts [...]
Conclusion
The welfare system as it now stands fails to adequately provide for people's basic needs and offers few real supports or opportunities to help people climb
out of poverty, build better lives and play their part in the economy.
That's why it's critical that Ontario move ahead with its promised review of social assistance – to remove the stigma and shame that accompany these programs
and to align these programs with what should be their real goal – support and opportunity for all Ontarians.
The 25 in 5 Network for Poverty Reduction has offered the following five benchmarks for a successful Social Assistance review.
- The review must be grounded in a bold vision: economic security and opportunity for all Ontarians. Tinkering with Ontario Works and Ontario
Disability Support Program rules is simply not enough. We need social assistance programs that ensure people's well-being, and provide the opportunities people
need to contribute to the province's prosperity – because the province is going to need all the help it can get.
- The review must be proactive. Immediate changes must be made to unfair and counterproductive rules that deny people supports they need to get ahead – rules
like asset limits that virtually guarantee more hardship, not less, and that continue to hamper Ontario's recession recovery efforts.
- A timely process to launch deep reforms must be part of the review package. A fundamental transformation must be made to overcome the silos of current
programs and make further progress in crucial areas like the early childhood years, housing security, dental care and more.
- Providing decent, adequate income supports must be a stated outcome of the review. Immediate and longer term steps must ensure that people who rely on
social assistance, and all low-income people, are assured living standards of health and dignity as well as access to supports and tools, like meaningful
training and education, to enable the pursuit of opportunity. The 25 in 5 Network has proposed two policy actions that government can take to move quickly
on adequacy – a $100 a month nutritious food supplement for adults on social assistance, and the creation of an Ontario Housing Benefit to help low income
renters, including the working poor.
- People who have had to rely on Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program must have a leading role in shaping the review's
recommendations. This means seeking out and heeding the expertise of people who have been there. They have much to teach the committee – and all of us – in the
review.
Right now, Ontario's social assistance system is simply not up to the task. Making social assistance consistent with Ontario's goals for poverty reduction
and economic opportunity is the right move now. [...] |
[...]
Poverty
[...] An important observation, of particular interest to the Committee, was that many income programs sustain people in poverty, rather than lifting them out of poverty. The Committee therefore
offers the following general recommendations with respect to poverty.
The Committee recommends that the federal government:
- adopt as a core poverty eradication, that programmes dealing with poverty and homelessness are designed to lift Canadians out of
poverty rather than make living within poverty more manageable and that the federal government work with the provinces and territories to adopt a
similar goal [Recommendation 1] ;
- modify federal income security programs, e.g., Employment Insurance, to better protect Canadians in low-income households who experience short-term gaps in income [Recommendation 3];
- seek to establish with the provinces a goal that individuals and families, regardless of the reasons for their need, receive incomes totaling at least after-tax LICOs [Recommendation 4];
- publish a Green Paper by 31 December 2010, to include the costs and benefits of current practices with respect to income supports and of options to reduce and eliminate poverty, including
a basic annual income incorporating a negative income tax, and to include a detailed assessment of completed pilot projects on a basic income in New Brunswick and Manitoba [Recommendation 5] and
reinstate a federal minimum wage at $10/hour, indexed to the Consumer Price Index, with suppliers to government paying at least the same amount [Recommendation 6].
 |
The Committee recommends that provincial governments increase current limits on assets for qualifying applicants for the first six to 12 months, to allow those relying on social assistance for
short periods of time to retain the assets they need to re-engage in the labour force and regain their economic footing [Recommendation 2].
Poverty reduction strategies
The Committee has heard strong recommendations from national organizations in particular for a national poverty reduction strategy. The Committee has studied provincial and local poverty reduction
strategies, with a particular focus on what their recommendations are for federal policy and programs.
The Committee has chosen to focus on concrete changes to federal programs, some of which were recommended by provincial and local initiatives, to raise the income of Canadians through
federal income and social insurance programs, and to support the work already underway in more than half of Canada's provinces and many local communities. Detailed recommendations with
respect to these income security programs follow; in the short-term, the Committee offers the following recommendation with respect to supporting provincial initiatives.
The Committee recommends that the federal government target "shovel ready" social infrastructure for investment, with their provincial counterparts, specifically housing, income security,
and social agencies, whose ability to serve can be quickly enhanced through increased and accelerated investment in the Canada Social Transfer, to parallel its investment in "shovel ready"
physical infrastructure, to combat recession [Recommendation 36]. [...] |
While Canada does not have an official "poverty line", Statistics Canada produces several measures of low income. The two sets of Low Income Cut Offs (LICO), the first based
on before-tax income including transfers and the second based on after-tax income, define the income level at which a family may be considered in straitened circumstances
because it has to spend a greater proportion of its income on necessities (food, clothing, shelter) than the average family does. Campaign 2000 uses both indicators to track
child poverty. There is about a 5 percentage point difference in child poverty rates between these two measures. The before-tax measure might be considered an indicator of
the adequacy of income flowing into the family and the after-tax measure an indicator of the adequacy of disposable income. The 2007 LICO After-Tax for 1 parent with 1 child
in a large urban centre = $21,851. It is important to note that the LICO is currently based on 1992 spending patterns and has not been adjusted since then. A recent analysis
maintains that it is very likely that poverty rates would be higher under a re-based LICO that reflected current consumption patterns.
Children Live In Poverty Across Canada
What's Happened since 1989?
Prosperity has not solved persistent poverty,
but strong economic growth has helped to
move poverty rates down slowly in several
provinces.
The depth of poverty – the amount of money
the average low-income family would need to
reach the poverty line – remained high; in
2007, the average depth for two-parent and
female-led lone parent families was in the
range of $9,500.
Seven out of ten provinces have (or will have) a
poverty reduction strategy; British Columbia,
Alberta and Saskatchewan remained
uncommitted. Atlantic and Ontario premiers
called on the Federal Government to develop a
national poverty reduction strategy to work in
concert with provincial efforts to prevent and reduce poverty in 2008.
What's Needed?
All orders of government (federal, provincial, territorial, municipal and First Nations) need to meet to develop a coordinated
poverty reduction strategy. [...]
|
HungerCount 2009 provides essential information on levels of food bank use in Canada,
profiles people in need of food assistance
Ottawa, November 17, 2009 – The results of the HungerCount 2009 survey released
today show food banks across Canada helped 794,738 separate individuals in March
2009, an increase of 17.6%, or almost 120,000 people, compared to March 2008. This
represents the largest year-over-year increase since 1997.
Of the 794,738 people helped in March this year, 72,321 – 9.1% of the total – stepped
through the front door of a food bank for the first time.
"Food banks have unfortunately seen first-hand the effects of three recessions in three
decades," said Katharine Schmidt, Executive Director of Food Banks Canada, which
coordinated the annual national study.
"It is crucially important that, as we rebuild the economy, we begin to better address the
barriers that prevent too many Canadians from sharing in the national prosperity," Ms.
Schmidt said. "It is unacceptable that, for most of the past decade, more than 700,000
people every month have needed help from food banks just to get by."
The need for food banks increased in every region – the Western and Prairie provinces,
the North, Central and Eastern Canada. Alberta (+61%), Nova Scotia (+20%), Ontario
(+19%), and Manitoba (+18%) experienced the largest increases.
The profile of those assisted is as varied as in past years:
- 37% of those assisted by food banks are children and youth under 18 years old.
• Nearly half of assisted households are families with children.
- 19% of households that turn to food banks for help each month are living on
income from current or recent employment.
- 6.3% of assisted households report some type of pension as their primary source
of income.
"It is likely that hunger in Canada is even more widespread than HungerCount findings
suggest," Ms. Schmidt said. "For every person who turns to a food bank for help, several
others in need of assistance do not ask for it. Canadians need to focus on long-term,
policy-based solutions to resolve the problem of hunger."
The HungerCount provides recommendations on how individuals, business, and
provincial and federal governments can improve the situation for Canadians trying to
cope with not being able to provide enough food for themselves and their families. For
the federal government specifically, recommendations include the following:
- Maintain planned levels of federal transfers, including the Canadian Social Transfer,
to provincial, territorial, and First Nations governments.
- Implement a national poverty prevention and reduction strategy, with measurable
targets and timelines.
- Continue to increase uptake of the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) among low
income seniors.
- Ensure that post-recession economic development and rebuilding takes account of
the needs of low income Canadians. Only by accounting for those most vulnerable to
hunger and poverty from the beginning can we arrive at an improved, inclusive social
and economic reality.
|
TORONTO — Canadians living in homeless shelters and rooming houses have a much shorter life expectancy than the general population - and poverty is not the only factor contributing
to their premature deaths, researchers conclude.
In a 10-year study, researchers found the chance of surviving to age 75 among the homeless or inadequately housed is 32 per cent for men and 60 per cent for women, compared to
51 per cent and 72 per cent respectively for the lowest income group in Canada's population.
To put that in perspective, the probability that a 25-year-old man living today in marginal housing would make it to age 75 is equal to the life expectancy of the average young
male in 1921 - long before the advent of antibiotics and other life-saving treatments.
For homeless or poorly housed females, their chance of surviving to 75 is the same as women in the general population of Canada in 1956.
"Even compared to the poorest one-fifth of the Canadian population, people living in shelters, rooming houses and hotels had a much lower probability of survival," said lead
researcher Dr. Stephen Hwang, an internal medicine specialist at St. Michael's Hospital in Toronto's downtown core. [...] [Read More]
ABSTRACT
Objective To examine mortality in a representative
nationwide sample of homeless and marginally housed
people living in shelters, rooming houses, and hotels.
Design Follow-up study.
Setting Canada 1991-2001.
Participants 15 100 homeless and marginally housed
people enumerated in 1991 census.
Main outcome measures Age specific and age
standardised mortality rates, remaining life expectancies
at age 25, and probabilities of survival from age 25 to 75.
Data were compared with data from the poorest and
richest income fifths as well as with data for the entire
cohort.
Results Of the homeless and marginally housed people,
3280 died. Mortality rates among these people were
substantially higher than rates in the poorest income fifth,
with the highest rate ratios seen at younger ages. Among
those who were homeless or marginally housed, the
probability of survival to age 75 was 32% (95%
confidence interval 30% to 34%) in men and 60% (56% to
63%) in women. Remaining life expectancy at age 25 was
42 years (42 to 43) and 52 years (50 to 53), respectively.
Compared with the entire cohort, mortality rate ratios for
men and women, respectively, were 11.5 (8.8 to 15.0) and
9.2 (5.5 to 15.2) for drug related deaths, 6.4 (5.3 to 7.7)
and 8.2 (5.0 to 13.4) for alcohol related deaths, 4.8 (3.9 to
5.9) and 3.8 (2.7 to 5.4) for mental disorders, and 2.3 (1.8
to 3.1) and 5.6 (3.2 to 9.6) for suicide. For both sexes, the
largest differences in mortality rates were for smoking
related diseases, ischaemic heart disease, and
respiratory diseases.
Conclusions Living in shelters, rooming houses, and
hotels is associated with much higher mortality than
expected on the basis of low income alone. Reducing the
excessively high rates of premature mortality in this
population would require interventions to address deaths
related to smoking, alcohol, and drugs, and mental
disorders and suicide, among other causes. |
We didn't know it then, but 2007 was a peak year for working Canadians.
Income data released by Statistics Canada shows Canadians in all income brackets had better incomes in 2007, compared to 2006, and still paid lower taxes.
The highlights of the 2007 income data include:
- Trend lines established in 1998, when jobs finally opened up to the poorest of Canadians, continued in 2007. There were more jobs to be had in 2007 and those jobs led to
income gains for most Canadians.
- The richest 20% of Canadians enjoyed the lion's share of the nation's gains in market income, which includes earnings, investment income and pensions. They enjoyed an average
$5,500 income increase in 2007 income compared to the year before. Compared to a decade before, the average income of the richest 20% was a walloping $23,300 higher, in inflation-adjusted terms.
- Compare this to the poorest 20% who, on average, saw an increase of $300 over the previous year's market income and gained $2,800 over the previous decade.
- Middle-income Canadians' market incomes rose by an average of $900 in 2007 compared to the previous year, at the peak of an economic boom.
- In after-tax terms, the same trends held: Canadians in every income bracket enjoyed income increases, but the largest gains went to the richest Canadians. In 2007, the
average after-tax income for the richest 20% was 9.12 times greater than the poorest 20%. This is virtually the same as the previous year and slightly larger than in 1998,
when the richest 20% took home 9.05 times more after-tax income than the poorest 20%, on average.
- Despite a decade of blockbuster growth and job creation, the shares of earned and after-tax income remained unchanged from 1998.
The good news is that incomes went up. The bad news is that's as good as it gets. Unfortunately, looking at the 2007 income data is like watching an accident in slow motion. [...] [Read More] |
British Columbia has the highest level of poverty in Canada, but there are solutions, according to Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives researcher Seth Klein.
In 2006, the most recent year there are statistics for, 13 per cent of British Columbians lived in poverty – more than one in eight. In addition, 16 per cent – nearly one in six – of
children in B.C. are growing up in poverty.
B.C.'s poverty rate has been above the national average since 1996. In 2006, the national poverty rate was approximately 10.5 per cent.
"If we commit to a bold plan, a dramatic reduction in poverty and homelessness is feasible," Klein said. "We had, until recently, many years of strong (economic) growth ... but
there were still increases in poverty. Many of the benefits of growth are concentrated higher up the income scale."
Poverty is not only wide-spread in B.C. but very deep, Klein said. The average low-income family in B.C. is living $7,700 below the poverty line.
According to Statistics Canada, 331,730 British Columbians – more than 10.5 per cent – were living on less than $5,000 per year in 2006. Nearly 20 per cent of British Columbians
earned less than $15,000 per year.
Nationally, 18.5 per cent of Canadians lived on less than $15,000 per year in 2006, according to Statistics Canada.
The problem is compounded by B.C. having the least-affordable housing in Canada, Klein said. Nearly one in three households, and 44 per cent of renters, pay
30 per cent or more of their income on housing.
In May, 2008 B.C. Housing had a waiting list of 13,400 applicants for assisted housing.
Of the 13 per cent of people in poverty in B.C., 3.5 per cent are on welfare or disability assistance. The remaining 9.5 per cent are working, Klein said.
"It's a low-wage story, overall. The bottom 60 per cent of families are worse off than they were 30 years ago," he said. [...]
[Read More]
|
|
[...] For years, anti-poverty activists have been pleading with government to take poverty seriously. Teachers have talked about how poorly children do in school when they
are hungry and distracted. Health practitioners have listed the ways poverty makes people sick and costs the health-care system millions of dollars. Low-income people have
insisted that they should not be blamed for their poverty, but rather that the root causes of poverty such as low wages, lack of child care, discrimination and low levels
of training and education should be addressed.
Finally, government has started to listen. In December, the McGuinty government released "Breaking the Cycle," its poverty reduction plan. A critical component of the
strategy is a promise to launch a review of social assistance, comprised of the Ontario Disability Support Program and Ontario Works.
Advocates were relieved to hear Ontario Works and the ODSP are going to get some attention. Indeed, it would be strange if they did not because the current social
assistance system is at fundamental odds with the goals of poverty reduction. At the heart of the poverty reduction strategy is an acknowledgement that in order to
reduce poverty we must: come up with a plan; address the root causes of poverty rather than "blame-the-victim;" and offer people meaningful support and training opportunities.
In stark contrast, the current social assistance system does nothing to reduce poverty. In fact, it contributes to poverty. It was designed to ensure that the fewest
possible number of people would have access to Ontario Works and ODSP and that they take the shortest possible route to employment, even when the first available job
would virtually guarantee long-term poverty. People involved in Ontario Works often are forced into employment that is so insecure and poorly paid that they perpetually
cycle on and off social assistance rather than being propelled out of poverty.
What's more, the current system is fraught with a range of widely acknowledged "stupid rules" that overwhelm and impoverish people with punishment and disincentives. For
example, if a family is having trouble eating properly with their inadequate benefits and decides to accept an invitation to regularly visit a neighbour for Friday night
dinner, that dinner may be counted as "income" and deducted from their social assistance cheque. If a single mother finds she can better make ends meet by sharing
accommodation with a roommate, the "shelter" portion of her social assistance benefit is reduced.
A social assistance review is essential to the success of Ontario's poverty reduction strategy. However, we must not simply tinker with the system and its "stupid rules." The
problem is not a few rules that create barriers to escaping poverty. The rules are reflective of how the program was designed to operate and indicative of how inconsistent the
philosophy of the current social assistance system is with the goal of poverty reduction. The review must have a broad scope so that we can rebuild a social assistance system
that contributes to poverty reduction. A broad social assistance review offers us the opportunity to reimagine and redesign the system. [...] [Read More] [WORD]
A look at the expectations and outcomes of key issues highlighted in Ontario's new anti-poverty plan.
WELFARE
Advocates were pushing for an increase in the Ontario child benefit, without clawbacks, and a social assistance rate
increase of 3 per cent or more annually.
What they got: Minor rule changes, including letting people on welfare who attend college and university keep part-time
earnings; broadening eligibility for a child care benefit that helps low-income parents pay first- and last-month fees;
extending the deadline for internal welfare reviews.
The government will review social assistance to remove barriers and increase opportunity for people trying to move off
social assistance and into employment. It will increase the Ontario Child Benefit (OCB) to up to $1,310 per child annually
by 2012. The benefit is now $600 per child per year and will rise to $1,100 by 2011.
Reaction: Cindy Wilkey of the Income Security Advocacy Centre was pleased with the review: "We had wanted to see social
assistance programs transformed into programs that have at their heart the objective of lifting people out of poverty.
Current systems can't do that. [...] [Read More]
|
Cross-Canada action needed as economy worsens, National Council of Welfare says
Toronto, December 10 – While incomes for most Canadians on welfare were stuck far below the poverty line, some cracked that line in 2007, the newest report by the National Council of Welfare says. But tough economic times mean it will be tough to really break through, unless comprehensive, nationwide action is taken, says the advisory body to the federal government.
Welfare Incomes, 2006 and 2007 looked at the circumstances of Canadians on welfare in all provinces and territories. The study by the National Council of Welfare found that in the case of the lone parent with a pre-school age child living in Quebec, welfare income for 2007 reached 100 per cent of the Market Basket Measure (MBM), a poverty line measurement that takes into account the cost of meeting basic needs in different parts of Canada.
In the case of the lone parent with a pre-schooler in Newfoundland and Labrador, welfare income slightly surpassed the MBM, at 103 per cent.
"This information is considered significant because welfare incomes in Canada have historically been only a fraction of the real costs of survival and
far below the poverty line", said John Rook, Chair of the Council. "This means that lone-parent incomes, which include social assistance and federal child
benefits, have reached a level that begins to give these families a reasonable chance in life. Even more encouraging, Quebec and Newfoundland and Labrador
have poverty reduction strategies in place where social assistance is part of a larger, integrated framework with links to child care, health, education,
and labour market policies. This can truly help people to get ahead."
At the same time, however, the report found that single employable people receive welfare incomes at less than half of the MBM in most provinces, far below any measure of poverty or decency.
These incomes range from a low of 27 per cent of the MBM to a mere 67 per cent even in the best of cases. The Council is also concerned about the maze of rules and regulations that can
trap welfare recipients and often discourages or even prohibits them from helping themselves out of poverty.
For example, people on welfare can keep little or none of their earnings if they can find some employment, which can discourage them from looking for work. Administrative
rules vary throughout the country, but the new report details consistently how qualifying for welfare is a complicated, cumbersome and stigmatizing process.
As the economy deteriorates, the National Council of Welfare is concerned that the number of Canadians facing hardship will likely grow. In addition to welfare recipients,
there are people who manage to leave the welfare system on their own, and others who can't qualify, have been cut off or won't sacrifice their assets or dignity to apply,
Rook noted. While some may get ahead, others may be trading one form of poverty for another, and that is not good news for Canada anytime, especially not now.
"A comprehensive, pan-Canadian strategy to solve poverty is needed", Rook added. "It should have targets and timelines, a plan of action, accountability and measurable
indicators." Many partners must be involved. Canada is not unique. "For any nation to solve poverty or foster prosperity there must be government action, political will and
a real recognition of the human face of poverty." |
There are 77 595 children living in poverty in the province, according to a new study, and the looming economic
downturn could make the situation much worse without the development of a comprehensive provincial poverty reduction
strategy to tackle the problem.
"We Can Do Better: Toward an Alberta Poverty Reduction Strategy for Children and Families," released November 21 by the
Edmonton Social Planning Council, found that despite a decline in rates of child poverty in recent years, one in 10 children
in Alberta still live in families whose 2006 after-tax income fell short of Statistics Canada's Low Income Cut-off (LICO)
measure of poverty.
Child poverty rates in the province are highest in Edmonton, where one in six children within the city and one in eight
children in metro Edmonton live in low-income households. Calgary has the second highest rates, with one in eight children
in the city living below the LICO threshold.
But it's a problem that cuts across the province, according to John Kolkman, the research and policy analysis coordinator
with the ESPC and the study's principal author.
Lethbridge and Medicine Hat had the highest rates of child poverty of Alberta's regional centres, with rates matching the
provincial average.
"And while poverty rates are somewhat lower in Red Deer, Grande Prairie and Wood Buffalo/Fort McMurray, these communities
have higher living costs than most medium-sized cities in other provinces," Kolkman cautions. "Since poverty rates are based
on national averages, the full extent of poverty in these booming cities is not captured by these numbers."
While poverty cuts across demographic boundaries, the study found that children living in certain family types are more
likely to live in poverty.
"Children living in lone-parent families and Aboriginal families are more than twice as likely to live in poverty
as other Alberta children," Kolkman says, explaining that 45 per cent of children living in poverty live in families
headed by a lone parent.
"Recent immigrant and visible minority families face many barriers placing them at greater risk of poverty," Kolkman adds.
One of the study's more troubling findings is that the vast majority of impoverished children lived in families in which at
least one parent worked.
"For many low-income families, a job is no longer a ticket out of poverty. Four out of five children live in families
where their parent or parents are working. One in three of these children live in families where one or both parents
works full-time, year round," says Kolkman. "Despite more low-income families working harder, most are not begin rewarded
for this increased work effort. Their incomes have remained largely stagnant despite Alberta's economic growth." [...] |
The Saskatchewan Party government has already made a series of changes to give lower-income people a leg up -- there
just hasn't been enough time to let the policies make a difference, the minister of social services said Friday.
Donna Harpauer was responding to a Saskatoon Health Region report that makes 46 recommendations the authors say would
lift people out of poverty and lead to noticeable improvements in their health.
"The initiatives that we put in place, particularly in the last few months, I am looking forward to seeing how they
track out," Harpauer said.
The minister said the province has already made several changes -- including increased housing allowances, transportation
allowances and rental and employment supplements -- that are recommended in the region's report to close the health gap
between the rich and poor in Saskatoon.
Part of the report takes some of the most successful poverty-tackling programs enacted elsewhere and suggests how they
should be applied in Saskatchewan.
Ireland, for example, set a simple goal in 1997 -- to reduce the rate of people living in poverty from 15 per cent to
10 per cent within a decade.
After articulating that plan, the Emerald Isle increased social assistance payments and introduced bold training initiatives,
such as dedicating college spaces for low-income adults to get a free education.
The results were incredible, says Mark Lemstra, senior research epidemiologist with the Saskatoon Health Region.
Although any one of the 46 recommendations in a new report he co-authored, Health disparity in Saskatoon: Analysis
to intervention, could help on its own, Lemstra said the ideas work more effectively in a package.
Four years into its decade-long program, Ireland had surpassed its goal, reducing the poverty rate from 15 per cent to five per cent.
Lemstra wants to know what's so different between Ireland and Saskatchewan.
"If they can do it, we can do it," he said. [...]
How could taxpayers afford this generosity? With the new Child Poverty Protection Plan (CPPP), the report's authors say.
The CPPP would be based on the Canada Pension Plan, which reduced the number of Canadian seniors living in poverty from 58
per cent to six per cent. The report recommends each Saskatchewan worker pay $6 a week, and each employer shell out $5 a
week to fund the plan.
"The researchers have laid the evidence out very clearly that we can tackle health disparity effectively by ensuring that
there is a strong social safety net in society and effective supports in place to help people living in low income," writes Coun.
Charlie Clark in his letter of support for the report.
He calls the social assistance reforms and CPPP proposals "unquestionably bold," but adds, "we must be reminded that they
are based on an analysis of what actually works." [...] [Read More] |
A RECENT public opinion survey conducted for the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives found that 88 per cent
of those surveyed wanted Canada to be a leader in poverty reduction.
It is not surprising that Canadians would like to significantly reduce poverty. Poverty is a blight on the country,
a barometer of the kind of society we want. It's also important economically since the larger the share of the population
in productive activities, the richer the society overall.
But what's remarkable is that there is no official definition of poverty in Canada. So when a huge majority of
Canadians say they want to significantly reduce poverty, they may have many different ideas in mind.
Some may be concerned primarily with rescuing Canadians in abject poverty where they may lack essentials for living.
Others may have in mind a much more ambitious program that not only allows all Canadians a decent minimum lifestyle
but also provides for good access to education, job training, early childhood development, sports and recreation
and basic tools of modern life, such as a phone and a monthly transit pass.
Without a clear definition of poverty we don't really know how many people need help, or what level of help would
be necessary. Right now, Canada has three different measures that may give some indication of poverty, but none
in its present form is an adequate measure. [...] |
In 1989, the House of Commons unanimously resolved to "seek to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian children by the
year 2000." Nearly two decades later, 760,000 children - almost 1 child out of every 9 in Canada – still lives in poverty when
measured after income taxes. The rate of child and family
poverty in Canada was essentially the same in 2006 as it was in
1989 despite an unprecedented period of strong economic
growth since 1996. There have been cyclical variations,
reflecting recessions and recoveries, but the high rate of child
and family poverty has remained tenacious. This figure does
not include the shameful situation of First Nations' communities
where 1 in every 4 children is growing up in poverty.
Child and Family Poverty Varies Across Canada
While child poverty remains high, at double digits in most provinces, the number of children
in poverty in Canada decreased by 28,000 from the previous year (2006 after-tax LICO). The Federal
Energy Cost Benefit, providing lower income families with children or seniors with a nontaxable,
one-time transfer in 2006 may have had a short-term impact on the rate of child and family poverty.
British Columbia continues to report the highest provincial child poverty rate despite strong economic
growth. As the largest province, Ontario has 324,000 low income children or 43% of all children in
Canada in poverty. Alberta poverty rates for 2006 are lower because a payment of $400 (from windfall oil and gas revenues)
was made to every resident including children, thereby raising the incomes of low income Alberta families on
a one-time basis. Implementation of poverty reduction strategies in Newfoundland & Labrador and Québec
continue to prevent and reduce child and family poverty. The governments of Nova Scotia and New
Brunswick are actively exploring plans for poverty reduction, and Ontario is scheduled to release its plan
by December 2008. These provincial initiatives are encouraging steps in the right direction, and it's hoped
that other provinces will follow suit. However, an active contribution from the federal government is
essential if Canada is to reduce child and family poverty to a single digit as UNICEF challenged
Canada to do in 2005. [...] [Read More] |
 |
Growing Unequal? brings together a range of analyses on the distribution of economic resources in OECD countries.
The evidence on income distribution and poverty covers, for the first time, all 30 OECD countries in the mid-2000s, while
information on trends extending back to the mid-1980s is provided for around two-thirds of the countries. The report also
describes inequalities in a range of domains (such as household wealth, consumption patterns, in-kind public services) that
are typically excluded from conventional discussion about the distribution of economic resources among individuals and households.
The report provides evidence of a fairly generalised increase in income inequality over the past two decades across the OECD,
but the timing, intensity and causes of the increase differ from what is typically suggested in the media. Precisely how much
inequality there is in a society is not determined randomly, nor is it beyond the power of governments to change, so long as
they take note of the sort of up-to-date evidence included in this report. [...] |
Country notes |
|
|
|
|
|
COUNTRY NOTE: CANADA
[...] Canada spends less on cash benefits such as unemployment benefits and family benefits than most OECD countries.
Partly as a result, taxes and transfers do not reduce inequality by as much as in many other countries. Furthermore,
their effect on inequality has been declining over time.
Over the past 10 years poverty (meaning people who live on less than half median incomes) has increased for all age
groups, by around 2 to 3 percentage points to an overall rate of 12%. [...] | |
|
[...]
WHY A FOCUS ON POVERTY/ POVERTY THROUGH AN URBAN LENS
Regardless of where it occurs, poverty in a prosperous, advanced country such as Canada
is a serious issue. The absence of adequate income, housing, food, clothing, choices, and
opportunities to participate fully in the life of the broader community – all of the
deprivations that poverty brings with it – fall as heavily on low-income Canadians in one
part of the country as in another. Yet there are compelling reasons why urban poverty
should be of particular concern and therefore merit the attention of Canadians
everywhere.
Since the aftermath of World War II, the trend toward urbanization has been picking up
speed in Canada and with it, the concentration of poverty in Canada's largest cites. In
1967, the year of Canada's Centennial celebrations, Statistics Canada observed that "[a]n
increasing pace towards urbanization means that low income will become more and more
an urban problem."3 In March 2007, Statistics Canada began to release the preliminary
results of the 2006 Census. These early results confirmed the trends that were predicted
forty years earlier. In 2006, four out of every five individuals, more than 80 per cent,
lived in an urban centre of 10,000 people or more. Just over two-thirds (68 per cent) of
Canada's population in 2006 lived in the nation's 33 census metropolitan areas (CMAs).4 [...]
Data gathered during the 2006 Census showed that an estimated 3.4 million Canadians
(or 10.5 per cent) lived in low income (after-taxes) in 20065. In nine of the 14 CMAs that
are the focus of the Committee's review, the percentage of the population living below
the post-tax Low Income Cut Off (LICO) exceeds the national average.
In a report on urban poverty released in 2007, the United Way of Greater Toronto
(UWGT) noted that in 2000, the effects of the recession of the early 1990's lingered on
for many. As evidence, UWGT pointed to the increased use of food banks and emergency
shelters, and warnings issued by social services agencies that their clients were falling
further and further behind. The UWGT asserted that:
Nowhere are these changes felt more keenly than in Canadian cities. As
Canada's population has become increasingly urbanized, the number of
poor households living in urban areas has grown as well. Today, chronic
levels of poverty, polarized job opportunities, low wages, and
unaffordable and inadequate housing in large cities create a fundamental
challenge to the future of Canada and the quality of life of Canadians.
Although stark disparities remain between rural or remote communities
and urban centres, the experience of deprivation in cities – especially
Canada's largest cities – is now significant.6
The Conference Board of Canada has argued that the concentration of poverty in
Canada's major cities is a matter that should be of concern to all Canadians regardless of
where they live or the standard of living they enjoy. At the conclusion of a lengthy study
of Canada's economic prosperity in the context of globalization, "Canada's prosperity,"
the Conference Board stated "unequivocally depends on the success of our major cities."7
In January 2008, the Canada West Foundation released its own study of big cities in
Canada with an emphasis on the rapid urbanization occurring in western provinces.
Conclusions reached by this study mirrored those of the Conference Board, stressing the
"tremendous importance of Canada's big cities to our future economic prospects,
standard of living, and quality of life."8
Poverty poses significant challenges to Canada's major cities, challenges that may
compromise their ability to act as engines for this country's prosperity. Christopher Leo,
Professor of Political Science at the University of Manitoba, argues that poverty in an
urban setting is not simply a matter of interest to academics, policy makers, politicians
and advocacy organizations: it is of concern to Canadians generally and the residents of
our large cities in particular:
Cities are our primary generators of ideas, our centres of economic control,
and of much important production, even in an economy driven by
commodities. The prosperity of us all, even those of us who work in rural
areas, depends on the prosperity of our cities. As surely as all Canadians rely
on commodity production, we rely on the health of our cities, and of the
networks of infrastructure and services that keep them viable.9
Faced with mounting debts and economic recession in the early 1990s, Canada's federal
and provincial governments reduced their provision of, and funding for, social programs.
As a consequence of this withdrawal, Canadian cities faced a growing obligation to
support their low-income citizens, without the resources to adequately fulfill the
obligation. Shrinking programs and services to sustain those in low income constrained
the ability of low-income city dwellers to "play the roles, meet the obligations and
participate in the relationships and customs of their society"10 (in this case, the cities in
which they live) – resulting in further disadvantage to major cities whose human capital
deteriorated as a result. [...]
- Dominion Bureau of Statistics, Statistics on Low Income in Canada, 1967, Cat. No. 13-536, p. 11, as cited
in Poverty in Canada, Report of the Special Senate Committee on Poverty [Croll Committee], Ottawa,
1971, p. 18.
- Statistics Canada, The Daily, 13 March 2007.
(http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/070313/d070313a.htm) Statistics Canada defines a Census
Metropolitan Area, or CMA, as an "[a]rea consisting of one or more neighbouring municipalities situated
around a major urban core. A census metropolitan area must have a total population of at least 100,000 of
which 50,000 or more live in the urban core."
- Statistics Canada, The Daily, 5 May 2008, http://www.statcan.ca/Daily/English/080505/d080505a.htm
- Canadian Council on Social Development, Poverty by Geography: Urban Poverty in Canada, 2000,
Ottawa, 2007, p. 2. http://www.ccsd.ca/pubs/2007/upp/Poverty%20by%20Geography.pdf
- The Conference Board of Canada, The Canada Project, Mission Possible: Sustainable Prosperity for
Canada: Volume III, Mission Possible: Successful Canadian Cities, Ottawa, 2007, p. viii.
- Casey G. Vander Ploeg, Big Cities and the Census: The Growing Importance of Big Cities on the
Demographic Landscape, Canada West Foundation, Calgary, January 2008, p. i.
http://www.cwf.ca/V2/cnt/publication_200801280932.php
- Christopher Leo, http://canadasworld.wordpress.com/2008/05/22/are-cities-really-that-important/
|
Poverty may be measured by relative scales, where those with substantially fewer resources
than the average are counted as poor, or by absolute measures, which are
based on what an individual or family requires to meet their basic needs.
The measurement of basic needs poverty is important, even in developed
nations like Canada. Despite their unequivocal rejection of basic needs poverty measurements,
and their protestations that the measurement of absolute poverty is
"mean-spirited," many of those in the social welfare community routinely use absolute
images to describe the living conditions of Canada's poor. [...]
This paper provides the latest information about the incidence of basic needs
poverty in Canada [...and] raises additional concerns about data quality related to the issue of
underreporting and hidden income. |
(Vancouver) A ground-breaking study that for two years followed British Columbians living on welfare paints a disturbing
picture of how people are forced to make ends meet under new welfare rules and low rates.
The study was released today by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives and the Raise the Rates Coalition, as part
of the Economic Security Project, a joint CCPA-Simon Fraser University initiative.
[Read the complete press release] |
In April 2007, the Select Standing Committee on Children and Youth asked the Representative to investigate the deaths of four
Northern B.C. children who died between 1999 and 2005. The detailed analysis that follows in this report focuses on identifying
those enduring lessons that can be used to inform improvements to the child serving system and child protection. |
Losing Ground, a research report released by United Way of Greater Toronto in November 2007, documents how
Toronto families with children 17 years of age and under are faring financially compared to families in the Toronto
Census Metropolitan Area (CMA), in the province, and across Canada. By examining median incomes, rates of low income,
depth of poverty and warning signs of poverty, the report's key findings have led to
eight recommendations.
This report builds on and updates the findings of several groundbreaking reports:
The persistent rise in poverty in the City of Toronto in the first half of
this decade, after the huge increase in the 1990s is disturbing. These trends
must be turned around if Toronto is to remain a strong and healthy place for
families to live, work and raise their children. For this reason, United Way
welcomes the Government of Ontario's commitment to build a poverty reduction
strategy for Ontario. In releasing Losing Ground, United Way is making a number
of recommendations that it believes are critically important for ensuring that
the poverty reduction strategy is as effective as possible. |
OTTAWA–An ambitious national housing program and a strategy to combat poverty is urgently needed to tackle the disaster-like
conditions of homelessness and inadequate housing found across the country, a United Nations envoy says.
Miloon Kothari, the UN's special rapporteur on adequate housing, warned yesterday that Canadians are becoming complacent to the
crisis unfolding on the streets and that public attitudes could soon mirror the indifference found in the United States.
"What is beginning here has already happened in the U.S., where you speak to people (and) they say, 'the homeless are there
by choice,' or 'it's those drug addicts,'" Kothari said in an interview yesterday. "That is a very serious mental shift."
Kothari ended his two-week visit to Canada yesterday with harsh words for provincial and federal politicians, painting a
dramatic picture of a crisis caused by governments' deep funding cuts in the mid-1990s to housing programs and social assistance
that once helped impoverished Canadians afford a home.
The result is crowded homeless shelters, tenants living in substandard housing and aboriginal communities without
safe drinking water. [...] [Read more] |
According to the latest statistics from the World Bank, the widening gap between rich and poor in Canada is now
roughly on par with that of Indonesia. Indeed, in the matter of income equality, Canada trails not only the
Scandinavian countries, but Egypt and Pakistan, as well.
You might think that fact alone would place poverty high on the national agenda. But in this week's throne speech, Prime
Minister Stephen Harper devoted no more than 98 of 4,000 words – less than 3 per cent – to the subject.
More than a decade of tax cuts at the federal level and in certain provinces has not put a dent in the rising number
of people in poverty, despite being among the advertised benefits of tax reduction.
With an estimated 1 million children living in poverty, we risk raising a new generation of Canadians unable to contribute
to our economic progress. And the continued decay of impoverished urban and rural communities threatens their demise, as
gangs, drug-dealing and prostitution take over once livable neighbourhoods.
So vague and relatively fleeting was the throne speech's attention to poverty that the Harper government's commitment
to addressing the crisis is open to contrary interpretations.
For instance, Liberal leader Stéphane Dion denounced it as a "complete and shocking indifference about poverty in this country."
That's how the landmark annual address, which outlines the government's priorities for the coming year, struck poverty expert
Hugh Mackenzie, as well.
"A visitor from Mars would think the government doesn't have a clue about a social infrastructure that's in near-collapse,"
said Mackenzie, research associate for the Inequality Project at the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA).
Harper's throne speech includes issues of poverty, homelessness and the growing gap between rich and poor in neither what it
describes as "our shared values" as Canadians, nor in its "five clear priorities" for the future. It does say, "Our government
will continue to invest in our families and our future, and will help those seeking to break free from the cycles of homelessness
and poverty."
Yet, in a speech that denounces mere "rhetoric and posturing," there is no mention of the meagre $1 billion in current annual
federal spending on housing, which is set to expire at the end of the 2008 fiscal year. There is, however, lengthy
self-congratulations on the planned cut of another 1 per cent sliver from the GST, which will cost Ottawa about $5 billion
in forsaken revenues that could instead be used to quintuple Ottawa's commitment to decent shelter.
For those Canadians concerned about the social health of their country, here's a partial list of facts the Speech skipped over:
Statistics Canada reports that 2.8 million families, or one in five, live below the low-income cut-off, or LICO, the new
politically correct term for poverty line.
The Federal Homelessness Secretariat estimates that 150,000 Canadians are homeless. Most groups that work with homeless
people think the figure is at least double that amount. [...]
[Read more] |
OTTAWA – The pension fund of the employees of Canada's largest federal public service workers' union has invested $2
million to help finance affordable housing initiatives in the National Capital Region, marking the first such investment
by a pension fund in the country.
The employees and full-time elected officers of the Public Service Alliance of Canada and many of its components have agreed
to invest the sum to establish the Alterna Community Alliance Housing Fund which was launched at Ottawa City Hall today.
"I am very happy to say that through the diligent and persistent efforts of pension committee members working with community
housing advocates and finally in partnership with Alterna Bank, we have found the mechanism, a housing fund in which we have
invested $2 million," said PSAC National President John Gordon.
The $2 million has been invested at market interest rates with Alterna Savings and designated specifically to fund
affordable housing projects that meet certain criteria. The Ottawa Community Loan Fund, a non-profit organization
that provides community-focused financing, will be responsible for screening the projects to make sure they meet
the following core criteria:
- Housing will be affordable to those most in need of housing.
- Housing will be affordable in the long term.
- Housing will be constructed by unionized workers.
- Other preferred criteria include energy efficient housing and wheelchair accessibility.
Ottawa has been suffering from a shortage in affordable housing due to low vacancy rates, rising rental costs
and lower incomes that haven't kept up with inflation. The waiting list for social housing in Ottawa stands
at well above 11,000.
"We are committed to work with our community allies to support social justice initiatives and we are delighted
to be supporting the creation of affordable housing in this community," Gordon said.
For information:
Joselito Calugay, PSAC communications officer, (613) 560-4235, or
Alain Cossette, PSAC communications officer, (613) 560-4317 or (613) 293-9210. |
Findings from HungerCount 2007 make it clear that more must be done to address the needs of
Canada's poorest citizens. The past year has seen advances in this area, with increases to
minimum wages in many provinces, the initiation of the federal Working Income Tax Benefit, and
legislation ensuring predictable increases to the Canada Social Transfer. Federal and provincial
governments can build on this progress through the following steps:
- Reform Employment Insurance to address the significant decline in coverage and
benefit levels;
- Broaden eligibility for the Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB), and plan a series of
annual increases up to $2,400 per year for single adults;
- Increase the value of the National Child Benefit to $5,000 per year by 2010;
- Institute a national strategy for affordable housing;
- Provide increased and ongoing support to a system of early learning and child care
that is affordable, inclusive and of high quality;
- Raise provincial minimum wage rates to $10 per hour, indexed to inflation;
- Immediately raise social assistance rates, and initiate or continue plans to reform
provincial welfare systems.
Canadian food bank use has not dropped below 700,000 individuals per month since 1997. This
fact suggests that the need for emergency food assistance has been only marginally affected by a
decade of social policy reform at the federal and provincial levels. Governments must do more to
help Canadians lift themselves out of poverty, and they must act immediately. [...] [Read more] |
Analysis
March 22, 2007
2007 Federal Budget Analysis
There is little or nothing in the 2007 Federal Budget that will help to make poverty history.
Several measures that appear to address poverty, on closer examination turn out to be inferior versions
of previous Liberal initiatives or actually deliver more benefit to rich families and less or nothing
to poor children who need assistance the most.
A case in point is the Child Tax Credit announced in this Conservative budget, which should not be confused with the
Canada Child Tax Benefit that Make Poverty History has been campaigning to have increased to $5100 per child. The
Conservative Child Tax Credit will do absolutely nothing for the poorest children whose families have no taxable income. [...] [Read more]
|
... Raising the Income Floor: Children and Social Assistance
Provincial social assistance is the minimum income program of last resort for people with little or no other income. Parents
who rely on social assistance are often in transition and need a standard of living that allows them to live and raise
their children in dignity and decency. Many are stuck in a poverty trap where they cycle between social assistance and
low wage work. They turn to social assistance for a variety of reasons: unemployment or under-employment;
separation from a spouse; and poor health or disability.
In 2006 there were 279,304 Ontario children in families who relied on social assistance. Most of these children (78%) relied
on the Ontario Works (OW) program. The vast majority (80%) were led by lone parents. And 90% of these lone-parent families were
led by women.
At the same time, one child in five (19%) on social assistance are in families in receipt of the Ontario Disability Support
Program (ODSP). More than half (56%) of these families are led by single parents. Children make up 14% of all the
beneficiaries of ODSP.
A sizeable portion of Ontario's low income children rely on social assistance, yet they have been neglected and forgotten.
As Figure 3 shows, levels of basic provincial income support have declined dramatically. Since 1994 for a lone
parent with one child on social assistance, federal child and tax credit benefits increased by 68% in real dollars while
provincial benefits declined by 43%, or a staggering $8,038 drop in income. As a result, unemployed and vulnerable
families are now farther away from the low income cut-off. It is shameful that this occurred over a period of real growth
in the economy.
The Ontario government should close the poverty gap for families and children who rely on social assistance. Ontario
should immediately redress the reasons provincial social assistance benefits have deteriorated: the lack of inflation
protection; the claw back of the National Child Benefit Supplement (NCBS); and deep rate cuts of 21.6% in 1995.
Inflation Protection
Since 2004 the Government of Ontario has made two cost of living adjustments to social assistance. While that has
slowed down the rate at which benefits are being worn away, it is not enough.
Between 1993 and 2004 inflation eroded the purchasing power of social assistance benefits by 22.3%. The current
government promised in the 2003 election to implement annual cost of living increases to OW and ODSP. Benefits
should be indexed to inflation on an annual basis permanently, just as is done with federal income benefits.
Ending the Clawback
Another 2003 election promise was to end the clawback of the NCBS from social assistance. The government of
Ontario has passed along federal increases. But it still deducts up to $122/child/month of the NCBS. This promise
should be honoured immediately and would result in a $1,464/year increase in income for a recipient single parent
with a child.
Raising the Income Floor
Ontario must rebuild its social safety net by increasing rates to meet the basic needs of recipients. For example, the
shelter allowance portion of social assistance should be increased to reflect average local rents as defined by
CMHC. Federal and provincial tax credits, child benefits and social assistance rates together should provide a basic
assurance of an income floor that leaves no child being raised in poverty. [...] [Read more] |
Introduction
In the fall of 2006 the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives released a
poll conducted by Environics Research that showed 76% of Canadians believe the
gap between the rich and the poor is growing.
The poll also showed 67% of Canadians believe the majority are not benefiting
from the nation's hot streak of economic growth.
This study confirms Canadians' perception is reality: Canada is performing better
economically than it has in decades, but the income gap between the rich and
the rest of Canadian families is growing at a faster rate than ever. The rewards of
Canada's booming economy have been going disproportionately to a select few.
What's more, this study finds the growing gap is not just a problem for "the
poor", who are taking advantage of Canada's strong economy and working more
hours than the generation that preceded it - only to find themselves stuck in poverty.
This study finds the majority of Canadian families are falling behind compared
to a generation ago.
They are falling behind in the best of economic times, under conditions that
would typically yield a reduced income gap: low unemployment rates, more Canadians
working, and more Canadians putting in longer hours in the workplace... [Read more] |
|
Ottawa – Almost one-quarter of Canadian households - more than 2,700,000 households - are paying too much of their income
to keep a roof over their heads. And calculations done by the Canadian Council on Social Development (CCSD) show that it is families
who rent that are the most likely to have to pay a disproportionate amount of their household income for shelter - almost 40%
of all tenant households.
"This creates a financial tightrope that is especially tough on families, particularly in the post-holiday season," says CCSD
President Peter Bleyer. "Everyone from bankers to financial planners to housing experts agree that 30% of your income is
the most you should have to pay for a safe and healthy place to live. Yet it is a near-impossible goal for many Canadians -
even those who work full-time."
The report was released at a CCSD-sponsored meeting of community planners. It indicates that provincially, nearly 45% of
renters in British Columbia, Nova Scotia, and Newfoundland paid more than one-third of their income on shelter costs.
Regionally, the largest proportion of households paying more than one-third of their income on rent lived in Cape Breton,
Kingston, and Thunder Bay. Nearly half the renters in both Victoria and Peterborough faced similar circumstances.
And although Quebec had the highest proportion of renters, tenant households in the province were the least likely to have
to pay more than 30% of their income on rent.
Data from the Urban Poverty Project also show that in 2000, more than 13% of Canadian families lived at or below the poverty
line. According to the Census, 16% of families in Newfoundland were poor - the highest percentage in the country. The
lowest proportion of poor families lived in Prince Edward Island and Alberta.
"There's no question that urban poverty is a core reality in Canada," says Bleyer. "Not only are 38% of all unattached Canadians
poor, they are living in urban areas where their chances of finding a decent and affordable place to live have been
compromised. Canada has failed to develop a national vision that supports community solutions."
As part of the CCSD's Urban Poverty Project, Community Profiles presents national and provincial data about population,
households, and employment. The document then 'drills down' to provide equivalent information at the community level.
This report is the first of a series of products examining trends in poverty across Canada using data and analyses from
the 2001 Census. |
|
|
Products in the Urban Poverty Project include community profiles, a time-series analysis of urban poverty trends
over the 1990s, and a detailed snapshot of urban poverty using the 2001 Census data. All UPP materials will be released
in the first half of 2007, and will be available on-line and free of charge, as part of the CCSD's commitment to provide
accessible, reliable data to the widest possible audience... [Read more] |
 |
|
|
War on Poverty: The working poor
Part of an ongoing series about the plight of our neediest and possible reforms.
...there's no strategy to lessen the suffering of the 5 million Canadians living in poverty, more than 1 million of them
children. To reduce poverty to a mere memory for the 750,000 Canadians who rely on food banks, and for the 1 million working
poor in Ontario alone who must find a way to raise their families on wages of less than $10 an hour, as calculated by the
Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP).
In New Brunswick, the minimum wage is $6.70, lowest in the nation. But in the piecework factories in the Spadina Ave. garment
district, hourly wages are even lower than that, due to lax enforcement of labour laws.
The remedies available to a wealthy nation determined to greatly reduce, if not eradicate, poverty are as plain as day. A
higher minimum wage. Affordable housing. Skills upgrading. Pharmacare. Universal child care.
Increased social assistance payments, which by OCAP's estimate have dropped 40 per cent after inflation from their peak
in the 1980s. Nothing you haven't heard about. All that's missing is political will... [Read more]
|
Hungry for Change
Food banks present long-term strategy to reduce hunger in Ontario
Toronto, Ontario (6 December 2006) – The OAFB is at Queen's Park today to release Hungry for Change: A New Vision for Reducing Hunger and Poverty in Ontario. As a follow-up to last week's Ontario Hunger Report, the 182
page collection of three discussion papers offers an in-depth examination of those hardest hit by hunger – including Ontario's children, Ontarians with disabilities, and working Ontarians – and presents long-term solutions to reduce hunger and poverty for these Ontarians.
"We know that hunger hits Ontario's children, Ontarians with disabilities, and working Ontarians the hardest," Adam Spence,
Executive Director of the OAFB. "We need to bring a new perspective on poverty to the table that recognizes the spiraling
costs of this growing social deficit. We need to change the hearts and minds of Ontarians so that they can see the impact
that hunger and poverty have on the daily lives of thousands, and the long-term effect it has on our collective socioeconomic
well-being."
The new perspective must be accompanied with a new vision and long-term commitment by the provincial and federal governments
to reduce hunger. "The long-term costs of poverty – including its impact on our health care system, lost taxation revenue, and
decreased productivity – can be reduced with investment today," says Sandy Singers, Chair of the OAFB and Executive Director
of the Partners in Mission Food Bank in Kingston. "We need a new vision with clear targets and solutions. It's simply an
investment in Ontario's future." [Read more] |
Key Findings
- British Columbia's welfare application system is not working — it discourages, delays and
denies people who need help. The process of seeking income assistance has become so
restrictive, and so complicated to navigate, that it is systematically excluding from assistance
many of the very people most in need of help. This has harmful consequences for some of
the province's most vulnerable residents.
- The government's narrative about more people leaving welfare for work is not supported
by the evidence. Data obtained through Freedom of Information requests shows that the
recent drop in the caseload is not the result of more people leaving welfare (i.e. an increase
in what the government calls "exits"). Rather, fewer people are entering the system and
accessing assistance. Simply put, the caseload reduction is mainly a front-door story.
- According to FOI data, in the first year after the new welfare legislation was introduced
in April 2002, the number of applicants who began to receive welfare
benefits dropped by 40 per cent, from an average of 8,234 entries (or "starts") per
month to just 4,914 starts per month. The number of welfare "exits" also fell, but
only slightly, from 8,388 to 7,631 per month. [...]
- The acceptance rate for those who apply for welfare has dropped dramatically.
According to FOI data, in June 2001, 90 per cent of people who began an application
for welfare were successful in gaining income assistance. By September 2004,
only 51 per cent of those who sought welfare were granted assistance.
- The application system is now so complicated that many people need help from an advocate
to successfully navigate the process. The study found a number of incidents where people
were initially denied welfare, but were able to get assistance once they had the help of an
advocate-even though there was no change in their circumstances and they were actually
eligible the whole time. Yet funding for advocates has been cut. In addition, those most
vulnerable and in need-such as people with mental health issues, addictions or language
barriers-are often least likely to be able to navigate the system on their own, and less likely
to connect with an advocate. [...]
- Many people are being "diverted" to homelessness, charities and increased hardship. The
Ministry claims that people are being "diverted to employment"; however, the evidence
shows that many are not. While some of the people who have been denied or discouraged
from assistance have landed on their feet and found alternate sources of income, others are
instead being left to fend for themselves, and are being directed by the Ministry to food
banks, shelters and other charities. Some remain in abusive relationships or turn to the sex
trade. Some are living on virtually no income.
- In some cases, denying people assistance reduces their ability to be self-sufficient. Lack of
assistance forces some people to focus their time and resources on meeting basic shelter and
food needs rather than looking for work... Without a permanent residence,
a phone line, access to transportation or appropriate clothing, searching for work is difficult
if not impossible. The three-week wait leads to greater debt and increased vulnerability
to eviction. The documentation needed for an Emergency Needs Assessment sometimes
requires people to actually request formal eviction notices, thereby increasing the risk of
homelessness. [...] [Read more]
|
Discouraged, Delayed and Denied
At every stage of the application process, people experience the "3Ds" of discouragement, delay
and denial.
These barriers are encountered in complex and subtle ways. Denials and delays can be due simply
to the new rules introduced in 2002, but they can also result from an uneven and unreasonable
application of these rules. Discouragements may result from a worker verbally telling an applicant
that they will not meet the eligibility requirements (which may or may not be correct), from the
word-on-the-street being "don't bother," or from an administrative process that is too complex
and onerous. One finding from the interviews in this study was reports from individuals that they
were denied welfare through their initial contact with the Ministry-most often through a 1-800
call (in this case, to a 1-866 line). Several individuals told us how they believe they were deemed
ineligible through this initial inquiry, well before a formal application had been submitted.
Three key changes to the eligibility rules and application process have driven the reduction in
welfare caseloads:
- The three-week wait: Welfare is understood to be an income of last resort (people
must have exhausted their assets and all alternate sources of income). Yet, beginning
in 2002, when people first seek assistance, they are required to conduct a three-week
job search before an "in-take interview" is conducted. And in practice, this wait can be
four to six weeks.
- The two-year "independence" test: To be eligible for assistance, applicants must
demonstrate that they have earned a minimum level of income for two consecutive
years-they must prove they had at least $7,000 of employment income or 840 hours
of employment per year for two years running. The rule does not recognize other
forms of independence, such as surviving on the streets. This new eligibility rule can
deny benefits to an individual regardless of their financial need.
- The implementation of electronic "alternate service delivery" systems, including
directing initial enquiries to a 1-800 line and the compulsory use of an on-line computer
orientation.
The application process can be sped up if an Emergency Needs Assessment (ENA) is requested and
provided, but applicants must know about this option and initiate it themselves. Even people who
describe their emergency needs (without specifically requesting an ENA) are frequently not offered
an ENA. We interviewed individuals living without shelter or in emergency shelters who were not
offered ENAs, but rather were expected to wait a month for an appointment.
| |
A Betrayal of Ontario's Poorest Citizens
And most tellingly, an increase of only 2% in benefits for Ontarians who depend on disability
benefits and Ontario Works for a less-than-subsistence standard of living. The failure of the
government to address the financial crisis faced by the poorest of Ontario's citizens is a disgrace.
The McGuinty Government's latest 2% increase - to take effect in September 2006 - will
still leave the poorest Ontarians worse off at the end of the government's mandate, when inflation
is taken into account, than they were when the government was elected in September 2003.
[This chart] tells the story.
The crisis of poverty in Ontario has been ignored. Despite the financial good news, there is
nothing new for child care. Despite the financial good news, there is nothing new for affordable
housing. And despite the financial good news, the government is still determined not to deliver on
its campaign promise to eliminate the claw-back of federal child benefits from the lowest income
Ontario families with children.
The failure of the government to act in the Child Benefit claw-back speaks volumes. The
budget devotes half a page - out of a total of 20 - to congratulating itself for passing through
the Child Benefit increases since it took office, conveniently ignoring the fact that the claw-back
instituted by the Harris and Eves governments which it campaigned against is still in place.
Here's how the fiscal sleight of hand works.
In 2005–6, Ontario received $2.3 billion more in revenue than was forecast at budget time. Debt service
costs turned out to be $700 million less than was forecast at budget time. That produces a turn-around
in fiscal room available of $3 billion. $2.1 billion of that increase in fiscal room was allocated to
the year-end spending that forms the primary substance of the 2006–7 budget. The rest - along with some unused reserve
funds - was used to reduce the deficit from a planned $2.8 billion to $1.4 billion.
The result is that the government gets to continue its gradual deficit reduction plan. And
it gets to build a substantial spending program into this year's budget that doesn't use up any
of this year's fiscal room. That extra room will be available next year, to pay for a repeat of this
year's budget strategy, just in time to provide both election goodies and a budget balanced ahead of
time. [...] [Read more] |
Who is Hungry in Canada?
While anyone is at risk of food insecurity at some point in their lives, certain groups are particularly vulnerable:
Welfare Recipients
People receiving welfare assistance as their primary source of income continue to make up the largest group of food bank
users. This year, 51.6% of food bank clients in Canada were receiving welfare. This suggests that welfare rates in Canada
do not do enough to ensure food security for low-income Canadians. According to the National Council of Welfare,
welfare rates across Canada continue to fall below the poverty lines.
Working Poor
People with jobs constitute the second largest group of food bank clients, at 13.1%. Anecdotal evidence in the HungerCount 2005
report shows that the majority of food bank clients with jobs are employed at low wages. The expansion of the low-wage economy
has generated more working poor who, even with full-time jobs, are unable to meet basic needs for themselves and
their families.
Persons With Disabilities
Those receiving disability support have made up the third largest group of food bank clients in the last four years,
according to successive HungerCount surveys. It is just one more example of the broader crisis of inadequate social
assistance in Canada. Disability support is clearly not enough to help clients feed themselves. If current disability
programs and rates do not improve we expect to see a rise in food insecurity among this demographic, since Canada has
a rapidly aging society and life expectancy is increasing.
Seniors
Seniors accessing food banks across Canada is a sad reality. HungerCount 2005 reports that seniors accounted for 7.1% of food bank
users in a typical month of 2005. This is an increase from the previous year when 6.4% of food bank clients were seniors.
Children
Children continue to be over-represented among food bank recipients in Canada. This year, 40.7% of food bank clients were
under 18. Child poverty has not improved since 1989, the year when Canada made an all-party resolution to
end child poverty. Child poverty is directly tied to the level of household income. Among food bank clients, families
with children make up more than 50% of recipients. [...] [Read more] |
For anyone worried about violent crime in Toronto, it's worth looking at a United Way report called Poverty by
Postal Code. One of the scariest statistics in the 2004 study reveals the gap between the people in Toronto
with money and the people without.
It's the widest gap in Canada.
Put simply, for every $1 the poorest families in Toronto have to spend, the richest families have $27.
Income differences that big are troubling in themselves, but when linked to violence, especially homicide, there
is even greater cause for alarm. [...] [Read more] |
VANCOUVER -- One in four British Columbia children are living in poverty - the highest of any province - according
to a report by an advocacy group that calls for governments across Canada to change the conditions of the country's poorest
children.
The report, by anti-poverty group Campaign 2000, paints B.C. as the worst offender in a country where the gap between rich
and poor families is growing and where children of aboriginals and recent immigrants are hardest hit. [...] [Read more] |
|
...The fact is that, even when the real value of welfare allowances is substantially reduced, the structure of
most welfare programs gives recipients little financial incentive to get off social assistance. That's because
people lose cash and non-cash benefits when they exit welfare, and incur a host of new work-related expenses,
that their employment earnings often aren't sufficient to cover. This can leave them no better off, or even
worse off, as a result of taking a job. These kinds of 'barriers to work', as they are sometimes called, can
contribute to a low-income trap, in which individuals are unable to complete the transition off welfare, despite
struggling to make ends meet on what is generally a subsistence income.
It's important to recognize that this is not a problem that can be completely resolved. To keep the income
security system affordable, needs-tested benefits like welfare have to be scaled back as recipients' incomes
rise. But, the phase-out inevitably raises marginal effective tax rates – i.e., the share of each additional
dollar of earned income that is lost to higher taxes and forgone transfer payments and services – limiting the
gains that people realize from earning extra income. Still, while the trade-off can't be eliminated, better
program design can mitigate some of its worst aspects.
In August 2005, the McGuinty government set out to do just that, by introducing a new set of rules for Ontario
Works. In the body of this paper, we look at the impact of those changes on a couple of hypothetical welfare
recipients in the province, to see how well the new rules live up to their stated purpose of helping OW clients
make a 'permanent and successful transition into the workforce'. On balance, we can't give the total package
a high grade. But, it's fair to say that the new rules do largely accomplish what they set out to do – reduce
barriers to work – and that most, though not all, of the problems that still afflict the program are directly
related to deeper failings in the rest of Canada's income security system. [...] [Read more] [Read full report] |
[...] Between June 2002 and January 2005, a period of 32 months, 6,065 people on welfare died. (To put that in perspective, in 2003, the latest for which statistics are available,
443 people reportedly died in traffic accidents in the province.) For comparison, during that period, 37,404 people left welfare by Campbell's preferred route, because they
obtained employment. Put another way, for roughly every six people on welfare who got a job, one died. [...] [Read more] |
|
|
OTTAWA - One in six Canadian children lives in poverty despite a booming economy and record federal budget surpluses,
says a national watchdog committee that monitors government activity on the issue. According to 2002 figures cited by
Campaign 2000 as it issued its national report card Wednesday, 15.6 per cent of Canadian children live in low-income
families. That's 1,065,000 children in all. The group says this is the first time the child poverty rate has gone up
since 1996. [...] [Read more] |
OTTAWA -- The level of child poverty is up slightly for the first time in six years despite a humming economy and
federal coffers bursting with extra cash, says an anti-poverty group. A yearly report card to be released tomorrow
by Campaign 2000 calls on Ottawa to pay down what it calls Canada's "social deficit."
About a million children, more than 15 per cent of all Canadian kids, are growing up poor in a country that consistently
posts budget surpluses, says the group, a coalition of 90 anti-poverty organizations across Canada. [...]
[Read more] |
Canada's child poverty rate has increased for the first time since 1996, with nearly 16 per cent of children across the country now living below the poverty line, a new report says. [...]
[...] Across Canada, 10 per cent of couples with children and more than 50 per cent of single mothers live an average of $9,000
below the poverty line, the report says.
The situation is even worse in several provinces, led by British Columbia, where the average low-income couple lives $10,000
below the poverty line, and the average low-income single mother lives $10,400 below the poverty line. Manitoba and Ontario
are also in worse shape than the national average.
Poor jobs are largely to blame, the report says, noting that almost half the country's low-income children have parents who
worked for the whole year in 2002, while a quarter had at least one parent working full time all year round.
A strong economy has also done nothing to close the gap between rich and poor: The top 10 per cent richest Canadian
families have average incomes more than 11 times higher than the poorest 10 per cent. [...] [Read more] | |
|
|
read at left)
