Poverty in Parliament?

[August1991]

If we are to effectively battle true poverty, we need to properly identify and reasonably measure it. Poverty is insidious - it often breeds the next generation of poverty and creates a cycle that is difficult to break. We need to break out of the pious rhetoric that has been spouted by Liberals (end poverty by 2000) and the NDP. We need to pragmatically address it - first by measuring and quanitifying and then developing policies that address the needs of those who are indeed, most in need.

Nobody in Canada lives in poverty.

In south India one time, walking with an Australian, I saw a thin man lying on a sidewalk. We thought he was dead. The Australian and I looked carefully. Then the Australian noticed that the man's chest was moving and announced, "He's not dead."

No one in Canada lives as this man on the India sidewalk. Indeed, no one in Canada is as poor as people abroad (Darfur for example). There are six billion people in the world. The poorest in Canada's 30 million are among the richest of the six billion.

To live better, a poor person needs more choice. If we give poor people choices, we make them richer.

Going back to the OP, how do we battle poverty? Keepitsimple, if you want to alleviate poverty, find a way to give people more choices. (That's hard to do.)

For young Canadians, it's easier to go to Africa, pretend to change the world, enjoy the cultural tourism, be a missionary and enjoy the white superiority and diplomatic perks and report on the adventure when you return to Canada - to change people's minds. But none of this has to do with giving people a greater choice. (If you went to Kenya and hired workers, you might give them more choices than they have now.)

Canadians think that poor people have no money. In fact, poor people have no choices. The challenge is to give all people more choices.

Edited October 28, 2007 by August1991

[Keepitsimple]

Nobody in Canada lives in poverty.

In south India one time, walking with an Australian, I saw a thin man lying on a sidewalk. We thought he was dead. The Australian and I looked carefully. Then the Australian noticed that the man's chest was moving and announced, "He's not dead."

No one in Canada lives as this man on the India sidewalk. Indeed, no one in Canada is as poor as people abroad (Darfur for example). There are six billion people in the world. The poorest in Canada's 30 million are among the richest of the six billion.

To live better, a poor person needs more choice. If we give poor people choices, we make them richer.

An intelligent and thoughtful reply. Here's what Lorrie Goldstein had to say in today's Sun (my bold):

Classical liberals with their beliefs in individual rights, free enterprise, equality before the law and suspicion of the welfare state, would be aghast at what today's "liberals" are doing in the name of liberalism, including the promotion of group rights over individual liberty, social engineering, wealth redistribution and government programs which, instead of encouraging equality of opportunity, seek to impose equality of outcome.

The purpose of my original post was to get people thinking that perhaps the amount of real poverty in Canada is much, much smaller than the Poverty industry would have us believe - in fact, the term "poverty" in Canada only applies in relative terms.

Many homeless people are actually mentally ill - a product of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms that allows sick people to live on the streets. And can we truly say that drug-addicted people who live on the streets are living in poverty when they have made bad choices? Both these "categories" require specific but different actions to address their needs - but it has nothing to do with the "Prosperity Gap" that thye NDP and lately, the Liberals are yammerinmg about.

So lets get back to basics - define poverty (as opposed to "income challenged", or mentally ill, or addictions, or being an unemployed youth, or recent refugees, or immigrant seniors, etcf., etc.), measure it, and deal with it.

Quite frankly, I think we are doing more than enough to provide a hand (EI benefits, welfare, refugee support, Income Supplement, OAS) up to people who are willing to help themselves.

Link to Lorrie's article: http://www.torontosun.com/News/Columnists/...pf-4611702.html

Edited October 28, 2007 by Keepitsimple

[ScottSA]

No one in Canada lives as this man on the India sidewalk. Indeed, no one in Canada is as poor as people abroad (Darfur for example). There are six billion people in the world. The poorest in Canada's 30 million are among the richest of the six billion.

That is absolutely correct. In fact it's if anything an understatement.

[Guest American Woman]

Nobody in Canada lives in poverty.

In south India one time, walking with an Australian, I saw a thin man lying on a sidewalk. We thought he was dead. The Australian and I looked carefully. Then the Australian noticed that the man's chest was moving and announced, "He's not dead."

No one in Canada lives as this man on the India sidewalk. Indeed, no one in Canada is as poor as people abroad (Darfur for example). There are six billion people in the world. The poorest in Canada's 30 million are among the richest of the six billion.

In Toronto last year, I was walking down the street at night and I saw a man lying on the sidewalk. That's where he was going to be sleeping that night. I couldn't tell how thin he was because it was a bazillion degrees below zero so he had newspapers over him trying to stay as warm as possible under those terrible conditions, but I doubt he was any richer than the man lying on the sidewalk in India. I'm sure, like the man in India, he had nothing. It's pretty difficult to have nothing and be richer than someone else who has nothing.

I think it's safe to say he was living in poverty.

Edited October 28, 2007 by American Woman

[ScottSA]

In Toronto last year, I was walking down the street at night and I saw a man lying on the sidewalk. That's where he was going to be sleeping that night. I couldn't tell how thin he was because it was a bazillion degrees below zero so he had newspapers over him trying to stay as warm as possible under those terrible conditions, but I doubt he was any richer than the man lying on the sidewalk in India. I'm sure, like the man in India, he had nothing. It's pretty difficult to have nothing and be richer than someone else who has nothing.

I think it's safe to say he was living in poverty.

I think it's safe to say he could have got up and walked to a shelter, probably within a couple of blocks. I think it's safe to say that they'd feed him and shower him and send him out dressed warmly. If the police venture by, they will likely force him to take shelter if the temperatures are cold. In India no such conditions apply. I think it's safe to say the man in India was a death sentence poorer than the man in Toronto.

[Guest American Woman]

I think it's safe to say he could have got up and walked to a shelter, probably within a couple of blocks. I think it's safe to say that they'd feed him and shower him and send him out dressed warmly. If the police venture by, they will likely force him to take shelter if the temperatures are cold. In India no such conditions apply. I think it's safe to say the man in India was a death sentence poorer than the man in Toronto.

And I think it's safe to say you're wrong. There aren't enough shelters in Toronto to bed all the homeless. The police might force him to move on, but I think it's safe to say that would be the extent of it. I think it's safe to say both men were equally poor; that both were living in poverty.

Edited October 28, 2007 by American Woman

[old_bold&cold]

And I think it's safe to say you're wrong. There aren't enough shelters in Toronto to bed all the homeless. The police might force him to move on, but I think it's safe to say that would be the extent of it. I think it's safe to say both men were equally poor; that both were living in poverty.

In Toronto if there is ever a situation where all shelter beds are full, and it is very cold outside, they open things like stadiums and such to take the over flow. We are not animals here in Canada, and when there is a need and circumstances make it so that need can not be forfilled by our regular social net., we make sure that there are emergency plans kick in. There are not many shortages of beds for those who wish them in Toronto. Yes there are some who will never seek shelters or any of the programs we have. Some may well be due to mental disorders, but there is a very large portion who will just not go to shelters and would rather sleep on heating vents etc., and risk death, rather then be in a shelter. These must be the ones who you are referring to in Toronto, because there are a lot of shelters in Toronto that are not at capacity each night.

[Guest American Woman]

In Toronto if there is ever a situation where all shelter beds are full, and it is very cold outside, they open things like stadiums and such to take the over flow. We are not animals here in Canada, and when there is a need and circumstances make it so that need can not be forfilled by our regular social net., we make sure that there are emergency plans kick in. There are not many shortages of beds for those who wish them in Toronto. Yes there are some who will never seek shelters or any of the programs we have. Some may well be due to mental disorders, but there is a very large portion who will just not go to shelters and would rather sleep on heating vents etc., and risk death, rather then be in a shelter. These must be the ones who you are referring to in Toronto, because there are a lot of shelters in Toronto that are not at capacity each night.

Not according to what I hear and/or see when I'm in Toronto, and not according to what I read:

With winter fast setting in, homeless advocates across Canada are scrambling to secure shelter—however rudimentary—for the thousands of Canadians who have no home. But despite their best efforts, many will be left out in the cold.

"I could list about 10 communities where none of them have enough emergency shelters for single people, and none of them have enough shelters for families with children."

Calgary's largest homeless shelter has become so crowded that employees are forced to turn away dozens of homeless people every night, leaving them to fend for themselves in sub-zero temperatures.

Toronto has the largest homeless population in the country at 5,052. Of those, 3,649 live in shelters while some 818 sleep outside.

Toronto has an average of two homeless deaths per week. These, according to Crowe, result from a multitude of causes: accidents, trauma, beatings, disease, hate crimes, and hypothermia. A vigil is held once a month for those who die on the streets.

Vancouver is not faring much better.

.....the Toronto Disaster Relief Committee, which brought homelessness to the political forefront in Canada in 1998, ... issued a declaration that homelessness was a national disaster. In the years since, the United Nations has regularly cited Canada in its status reports as not doing enough for its homeless citizens, in particular singling out the situation for Aboriginals, families, and children.

[old_bold&cold]

In Toronto during cold snaps the Churches open the doors to people to sleep there and as I said any large stadium or conference buildings not being in use are also opened. There is no lack of space for those who wish to seek it. But as I said there is a large segment that will not go in doors even if you try to force them. Canada does not have very many deaths due to freezing considering it a country that can have temperatures go to 60 degrees below zero.

[Guest American Woman]

In Toronto during cold snaps the Churches open the doors to people to sleep there and as I said any large stadium or conference buildings not being in use are also opened. There is no lack of space for those who wish to seek it. But as I said there is a large segment that will not go in doors even if you try to force them. Canada does not have very many deaths due to freezing considering it a country that can have temperatures go to 60 degrees below zero.

Sounds as if you're in denial. The facts point to there not being enough shelter available for all the homeless. If they don't know about it, and/or can't get to it, it does them no good even if it is in fact available in churches, etc., as you claim. I've talked to many people in Canada who say there aren't enough shelters available, the article I cited says the same thing, and the U.N. cites Canada for not doing enough for the homeless, so I'm inclined to believe that it's true.

[myata]

Toronto has the largest homeless population in the country at 5,052. Of those, 3,649 live in shelters while some 818 sleep outside.

Toronto has an average of two homeless deaths per week. These, according to Crowe, result from a multitude of causes: accidents, trauma, beatings, disease, hate crimes, and hypothermia. A vigil is held once a month for those who die on the streets.

Now we have to understand how does that compare with the general population. I mean to understand, the numbers. The averatge urban mortality rate in this country is around 0.7% (Insurance Canada). Data from your own post for the homeless suggest something like 2%. If only half of that relates to the effects of unhealthy lifestyle and substance abuse (over which, being a matter of personal choice, government has little, if any, control or influence) the result would be quite close to the Canadian average (note e.g. that mortality rate for rural males is very close to 1%; great majority of homeless are men; so removing the effects of poor personal choices, the mortality rate among group of homeless will be the same as that of rural males). From which we can presume that perhaps it's a bit early to cry severe system crisis. Now this is not to say that society shouldn't try to help where it is possible. But we have to be honest and admit that there always will be a limit to what it can do and that limit is the personal choice of the individial. The ideal can only be achieved (and has been successfully achieved, on multiple occasions) in a police state. By removing the culprit - individual choice.

BTW, if we go the other way and keep society responsible for the effects of individual choices, should we also extend it to the other categories of population? Like smoking; unhealthy eating; drinking; and so on. It would only be fair, ne c'est pas?

[August1991]

Sounds as if you're in denial. The facts point to there not being enough shelter available for all the homeless.

That's not the problem, and a lack of money is not the problem either:

No one really knows how many young people live on Torontoʼs streets. Some estimate there are at least 2,000 or 3,000 kids between 15 and 24, but not even the experts, the street workers who go out each night with clean socks, kind words and hot chocolate looking for the hidden homeless, know for sure. Even by 9 or 10 p.m., some kids donʼt know where theyʼll end up at night.

“Iʼll sleep wherever,” says a 20-year-old, looking the worse for wear on Queen St. W. “It always works out.”

ʻWhereverʼ can be a doorway, in a park, under a bridge, usually huddled with two or three others for warmth and safety.

With the constant traffic, itʼs difficult to get a really good nightʼs sleep, says Gagnon.

“Itʼs bad in winter. I get cold.” She wears five or six layers of clothes during the day, fewer at night, but sheʼd rather sleep under the bridge than in a shelter.

“I donʼt like people breathing down my neck, going through my stuff. Iʼve had a sleeping bag stolen in a shelter, but here, Iʼve never had stuff stolen, because weʼre all looking out for each other.”

...

Huff says all the money in the world canʼt really fix homelessness, because home is supposed to be a place where children and young people feel love.

“At some level, this rich country, beautiful country has decided that homelessness is acceptable. But until people stop hurting one another, we wonʼt stop homelessness.”

Toronto Star

I think many of these people are simply fed up of the rules and bureaucracy of modern life. They don't want to be part of the system and so it's not the system that is going to help them. Government is not an institution designed to care for people.

Edited October 29, 2007 by August1991

[Guest trex]

I think many of these people are simply fed up of the rules and bureaucracy of modern life. They don't want to be part of the system and so it's not the system that is going to help them. Government is not an institution designed to care for people.

I think many of these people are suffering from mental illness. As to government not being an institution designed to care for people, I beg to differ. I do not serve my government. I give them my tax money so they will work to make a better society. The government should work for society, but nowadays seems it has gone the other way around, the government dictates its terms to us and we live under it.

[geoffrey]

I think many of these people are suffering from mental illness.

The few that are should be treated.

But only maybe. If their treatment will provide a net benefit to society, which in most cases, it probably won't. Call it inhumane, but the government doesn't need to be doing charity on our behalfs. If we chose to help, so be it. If not. Oh well.

I don't see homeless as a problem. They are just people living out their life differently than the rest of us.

[capricorn]

I think many of these people are simply fed up of the rules and bureaucracy of modern life.

Just like those teenagers from good families who rebel against their parents and their rules, and decide to live under a bridge for a summer.

[Guest American Woman]

That's not the problem, and a lack of money is not the problem either:Toronto Star

I think many of these people are simply fed up of the rules and bureaucracy of modern life. They don't want to be part of the system and so it's not the system that is going to help them. Government is not an institution designed to care for people.

Yes, lack of money is a problem. You can cite one article quoting some young people on the street but that doesn't discount the fact that lack of money, lack of shelters, lack of services for the mentally ill is a problem throughout Canada. I cited articles that give facts, not interviews. Until you recognize that homelessness is a problem, you will remain in denial too.

The few that are should be treated.

But only maybe. If their treatment will provide a net benefit to society, which in most cases, it probably won't. Call it inhumane, but the government doesn't need to be doing charity on our behalfs. If we chose to help, so be it. If not. Oh well.

I don't see homeless as a problem. They are just people living out their life differently than the rest of us.

You may not see homelessness as anything other than a different lifestyle choice. but you are wrong. Furthermore, you are wrong, speaking from your house/apt., that homelessness is not a problem.

Edited October 29, 2007 by American Woman

[Keepitsimple]

Yes, lack of money is a problem. You can cite one article quoting some young people on the street but that doesn't discount the fact that lack of money, lack of shelters, lack of services for the mentally ill is a problem throughout Canada. I cited articles that give facts, not interviews. Until you recognize that homelessness is a problem, you will remain in denial too.

You may not see homelessness as anything other than a different lifestyle choice. but you are wrong. Furthermore, you are wrong, speaking from your house/apt., that homelessness is not a problem.

Bingo....now you're starting to home in on at least a large portion of the problem that separates viewpoints like yours from others. Help for the mentally ill and mentally challenged is a very big problem and it's compounded by the fact that our Charter gives these people carte blanche to live outside and of cfourse, to turn away from help. But where we differ is that many people do not consider these people to be part of the "prosperity gap" and poverty that the NDP and Liberals are shamelessly trying to misrepresent for partisan political gains. As you said, many homeless are mentally ill - they either need specialized care - or we have to just accept that because of our Charter of Rights, we can do nothing to help these people except force them off the street in cold weather to protect themselves. You are right to care about all these people and your viewpoint is not wrong - just different. I just think that if we try to bundle all these people - the mentally ill, new refugees, low income among people 15-21, etc. - into something that we call a "prosperity gap" and start confusing it with true poverty, then we do everyone a dis-service.

[myata]

This is one area where to say that lack of funding is a problem is a safe bet - probably forever. Because nobody can tell what is enough. Is it adequate number of spaces in the shelters? What if somebody does not like the rules in a place where there's still room? Should they be given a choice? How much choice? Should the government run free addiction help programs? What if somebody opts out? Should they be given a chance to do a better, individual, one on one, addiction help program? You see, there's no limit where it can be said, "OK we did everything that can be possibly done".

Then, again, why stop at this particular problem, homelessness? The same set of unfortunate circumstances may send one individual into homelessness, another - into eating disorder and someone else - into heavy drinking. Shouldn't all be helped?

And if yes, by who? The "government", with its miriad of programs and responsibilities it already has to juggle? Or maybe, someone else could make a better more effective impact? Maybe the community - colleagues, neighbours, interest groups, charities?

How far can we go without loading the government with responsibility for our every choice and step (and possible failure that may result from it)? And of course, if we do that, should we mind, if it (the government) would one day develop it's own ideas as to what we should and shouldn't do?

[kengs333]

I have done that. I'm in my early twenties and own a home and a European car with a sizeable disposable income. I have materially attained what my parents didn't until their 40's. All through responsible choices.

...

I'm no brainchild either, wasn't never above average by any means in school. I just always saw business and work as a priority and pushed hard to get there. Most importantly, I always took responsibility for my choices rather than pointing at society and saying "no fair."

Agreed. I have what I want and I do what I want. It's fantastic. God bless Canada and how it rewards choices.

Sorry, I've heard this all before and I don't buy it. There's always more too it. But that's no matter, if you do (or did) work 60 hours a week, that's your problem, not mine. Someone who puts themself in that position is, as you say, "no brainchild"--slaving for someone for that amount of time regardless of the compensation is a sad way to live.

Edited October 29, 2007 by kengs333

[geoffrey]

You may not see homelessness as anything other than a different lifestyle choice. but you are wrong. Furthermore, you are wrong, speaking from your house/apt., that homelessness is not a problem.

There are lots of jobs. It's either a lifestyle choice or a mental health issue. One or the other. If your not mentally sick (or physically disabled) you are chosing to be homeless.

It's not a problem because it doesn't affect anyone that actually works (ie. pays the homeless people's bills). Other than being an eyesore, I really don't see the issue.

Sorry, I've heard this all before and I don't buy it. There's always more too it. But that's no matter, if you do (or did) work 60 hours a week, that's your problem, not mine. Someone who puts themself in that position is, as you say, "no brainchild"--slaving for someone for that amount of time regardless of the compensation is a sad way to live.

It was brutal for the years I did that, yes, very sad. Two years of my life were purely fueled on coffee. It wasn't required though. I could have probably coasted by on student loans (I didn't want debt though) and I could be renting now for much less (but I'd rather pay my own mortgage). It's all choices. Now I choose I don't want to work 60 hour weeks because I have that luxury.

It was earned though. Why people expect to work very little, the bare minimum, yet get the maximum is absurd.

I don't think I should be paying for people that refused and continue to refuse to make the sacrifices in life that I made. It simply doesn't make sense. I earned what I have now, so should everyone else.

[kengs333]

I don't think I should be paying for people that refused and continue to refuse to make the sacrifices in life that I made. It simply doesn't make sense. I earned what I have now, so should everyone else.

It's also too bad that in all that time you've spent in school and working so hard you haven't been able to develop the ability to see things from anything but your own narrow perspective. You also admit that you contribute to the problem that you complain about; the only way that the situation can change is if people with the money or ability get off their duffs and create worthwhile employment opportunities for their fellow Canadians. But you would rather rest on your laurels and go skiing on weekends.

Keep in mind that much of the tax that you pay is directed towards things other than social services; and that people who are on EI, welfare, old age, etc. invariably spend that money locally on items like food, rent and clothing and in the end help support the economy better than people who are wealthy.

[geoffrey]

It's also too bad that in all that time you've spent in school and working so hard you haven't been able to develop the ability to see things from anything but your own narrow perspective. You also admit that you contribute to the problem that you complain about; the only way that the situation can change is if people with the money or ability get off their duffs and create worthwhile employment opportunities for their fellow Canadians. But you would rather rest on your laurels and go skiing on weekends.

Why do I have an obligation to create jobs? I can do whatever I please and have no obligation to anyone with the money I earn through my efforts. There are plenty of jobs, no need to make more. Alberta can't find enough workers, at very high rates of pay.

Keep in mind that much of the tax that you pay is directed towards things other than social services; and that people who are on EI, welfare, old age, etc. invariably spend that money locally on items like food, rent and clothing and in the end help support the economy better than people who are wealthy.

That's BS. Investment in the stock market is far more beneficial to society than bums buying booze or smokes.

[August1991]

Keep in mind that much of the tax that you pay is directed towards things other than social services; and that people who are on EI, welfare, old age, etc. invariably spend that money locally on items like food, rent and clothing and in the end help support the economy better than people who are wealthy.

It never fails to amaze me how people can make the argument that to do good, money has to take a circuitous route from my pocket, to the taxman, to the wallet of Person X and then "into the economy". (In all honesty, my amazement is usually mitigated. Often, the person making the argument is none other than Person X.)

If the purpose of the exercise is to give money to Person X then at least have the honesty to say so. To justify the argument by saying that Person X will "inject the money into the economy and create jobs" is beyond absurd. I can do that myself.

[kengs333]

Why do I have an obligation to create jobs? I can do whatever I please and have no obligation to anyone with the money I earn through my efforts. There are plenty of jobs, no need to make more. Alberta can't find enough workers, at very high rates of pay.

Right, and no one has an obligation to do what you want them to do. If you're too stupid to do anything more than common employment, then that's your problem. And if you're too stupid to not make Canada a better place for your fellow citizen, then you have no right to complain.

That's BS. Investment in the stock market is far more beneficial to society than bums buying booze or smokes.

No it isn't. There would be less of a stock market if it wasn't for the fact that people on the lowest levels were allowed to have a marginally decent standard of living. Remove these people from the economy and the economy and society starts to decline. Do you really want a large group of destitute people in this country, for Canada to become like Mexico or some other place where there are large tracts of shanty towns?

Of course it's a stereotype, but for those who do buy "booze and smokes" just how much of that would be tax that goes back to the government and is wasted on "corporate welfare"? But in reality, welfare is a pitance--nobody can really survive on it, so not many people really want to be on it. But if there are no jobs, or employers don't want to employ certain people, then there are few other option.

It's too bad that there are so many people in Canada like you; Canada would be such a better place if there weren't.

[kengs333]

It never fails to amaze me how people can make the argument that to do good, money has to take a circuitous route from my pocket, to the taxman, to the wallet of Person X and then "into the economy". (In all honesty, my amazement is usually mitigated. Often, the person making the argument is none other than Person X.)

If the purpose of the exercise is to give money to Person X then at least have the honesty to say so. To justify the argument by saying that Person X will "inject the money into the economy and create jobs" is beyond absurd. I can do that myself.

Again, how much tax really goes "Person X" as opposed to say spending on the military, corporate welfare?

If you're trying to imply that I'm a "Person X" you are sadly mistaken.