Child Poverty

[maplesyrup]

Fifteen years ago today, the House of Commons unanimously passed a motion, tabled by then federal NDP leader Ed Broadbent committing the government of Canada to eliminate child poverty in Canada by the year 2000. Fifteen years later a new study released today reveals child poverty is on the rise.

Stats on child poverty in Canada:

Today, more than 1 million children in Canada live in poverty (Source: Campaign 2000’s Report Card for 2004)

Between 1989 and 2004 the number of children living in poverty increased by 129,000 (Source: National Council of Welfare)

40% of all food bank recipients are children (Source: Canadian Association of Food Banks Hunger Facts 2004)

Canada ranks 17 out of 23 developed nations ranked for children’s well being (Source: Innocenti Report Card UNICEF June 2000)

It looks like the New Democrats are going to have to kick ass to get this national child care program off the ground.

The best way at this point is for them to shame the Liberals into action.

[Big Blue Machine]

It's the families fault, not the governments fault. The families should look after the children, not the government.

[maplesyrup]

The number one recommendation of the anti-poverty groups to deal with this crisis is to raise the minimum wage to $10. across Canada.

Dryden has been had by the Martinites.

[maplesyrup]

Child poverty: setting new goals

Both Ottawa and the provinces stopped building social housing in the '90s. That created a severe shortage of affordable accommodation in the nation's cities

The welfare system was systematically dismantled in the '90s. That pushed thousands of children below the poverty line.

Minimum wage rates scarcely budged in the '90s. That meant parents in many service-sector jobs couldn't keep their children out of poverty.

Employment insurance benefits became harder to get in the '90s. This deprived parents working in precarious, temporary and part-time jobs of their first line of defence.

Child care, except in Quebec, remained unaffordable for most low-income families through the '90s. That made it impractical for mothers to pull their kids out of poverty by working.

How sad that our government has allowed all these people driving around in their big cars, living in their big homes, watching their big TVS, eating their big meals, to avoid their collective responsibility to Canada's children.

[ndpnic]

It's the families fault, not the governments fault. The families should look after the children, not the government.

??????? Are u for real?

These aren't only welfare kids, these are kids of the working poor!

It is the governments fault because the government allows employers to pay less than the cost of living, utilities to rise 100's of %s, people who work honest jobs can't afford the basics of survival in Canada, like food, shelter and heat!!!!

And people wonder why I promote civil rebellion!

[August1991]

The following quote comes from the Carol Goar article (link above).

The child poverty rate currently stands at 15 per cent. It was 15.2 per cent when Broadbent issued his clarion call 15 years ago.

That's not a lot of progress (although, in fairness, it has come down from its peak of 21.6 per cent in 1996.)

Nowhere in the article does it define what the "child poverty rate" means. The article says that it "stands at 15 per cent".

15 per cent of what?

It is this kind of silly use of statistics that usually mean I stop reading an article. If the writer cannot cite data in a meaningful way, then I take that as evidence of poor thinking.

----

As to the issue of child poverty, Indian and Northern Affairs has an annual budget (2001-2) of about $5 billion and there are roughly 700,000 registered Indians. That amounts to about $7000/person.

I think it is fair to say that the greatest child poverty in Canada is among our aboriginal population.

I will let these statistics speak for themselves.

[Slavik44]

It's the families fault, not the governments fault. The families should look after the children, not the government.

??????? Are u for real?

These aren't only welfare kids, these are kids of the working poor!

It is the governments fault because the government allows employers to pay less than the cost of living, utilities to rise 100's of %s, people who work honest jobs can't afford the basics of survival in Canada, like food, shelter and heat!!!!

And people wonder why I promote civil rebellion!

no, most people can understand why you would promote civil rebellion.

[maplesyrup]

The following quote comes from the Carol Goar article (link above).

The child poverty rate currently stands at 15 per cent. It was 15.2 per cent when Broadbent issued his clarion call 15 years ago.

That's not a lot of progress (although, in fairness, it has come down from its peak of 21.6 per cent in 1996.)

Nowhere in the article does it define what the "child poverty rate" means. The article says that it "stands at 15 per cent".

15 per cent of what?

It is this kind of silly use of statistics that usually mean I stop reading an article. If the writer cannot cite data in a meaningful way, then I take that as evidence of poor thinking.

----

As to the issue of child poverty, Indian and Northern Affairs has an annual budget (2001-2) of about $5 billion and there are roughly 700,000 registered Indians. That amounts to about $7000/person.

I think it is fair to say that the greatest child poverty in Canada is among our aboriginal population.

I will let these statistics speak for themselves.

Turn that money over to the First Peoples and let them run their own affairs. Those figures are nonsense as the First Peoples never ever see that kind of money.

We probably need a guaranteed annual income of $10,000. - $15,000. for a single person living alone.

We don't need rich people represented by the Fraser Institute defining what is poor or not poor.

[playfullfellow]

Turn that money over to the First Peoples and let them run their own affairs. Those figures are nonsense as the First Peoples never ever see that kind of money.

Though I tend to agree that the First Peoples should get this money themselves, it has been shown there is too much corruption in the way they handle their own political affairs. There have been a few instances here in Alberta where the tribal council members have become rich while the rest of the tribe suffers. The current system sucks for sure but it should also be up to the First Nations people to want change. This does not mean just throw more money at the problem, that won't solve anything.

The number one recommendation of the anti-poverty groups to deal with this crisis is to raise the minimum wage to $10. across Canada.

I can agree with this statement but as with so many things, there are so many loop holes that there will be ways to get around it. The problem is that these rates can effectively wipe out smaller employers. If they have to pay those rates, they have to increase their rates or prices which in turn may make their products or services too expensive to the average consumer. If no one pays for their services, then they go broke and end up on the unemployment line. So now you have lost a job and a business plus now this product or service has increased in cost and price. We end up right back in the same boat.

If you want to effectively help lower income people, then they need to be able to not pay taxes or a much lower percentage than anyone else.

There also needs to be help for people who chose to have a stay at home parent. There is absolutely nothing to help people who want to go this route. To be fair, any family that wants to have a stay at home parent should get a tax break equal to the amount that the govenment proposes to spend for a child in daycare.

How sad that our government has allowed all these people driving around in their big cars, living in their big homes, watching their big TVS, eating their big meals, to avoid their collective responsibility to Canada's children.

You want to collect more taxes from these people, then impliment higher luxory taxes. But in one sense, they may pay more to have bigger toys but they also pay the taxes on these items.

[ndpnic]

I have a 5 year old, and I'm wondering how I'm supposed to raise him in a country where on a daily basis he witnesses thae fact that people like him and his parents don't matter?

I suffer from complex migraines, PTSD, and OCD. I have been told that I need to be on a disability pension because of these issues.

I don't qualify for CPP, because I am 30, and have never been able to maintain employment to reach min. contribution levels.

I don't qualify fo OSD because my husband's net income last year went over the $25,000.00 poverty line by $2,000.00

What they don't consider is that my husband lost his colin to collitis, so we have 'ostomy supplies to buy. He does receive money for this every year, but the supply cost has 3x, and the payments have never been adjusted, so the payment falls hundreds of $ short.

He also has crohn's disease, and misses work when it's active, which inpacts your income.

2 years ago he got sick, took 4 months fighting with the insurance company to pay for his remicade, lost 40lbs because all he could eat for 4 months was chicken noodle soup! And we are about 6 weeeks from losing everything because we were never able catch back up.

We have contacted our local MPP, and MP, only to be told that it's too bad, but people like us fall through the cracks of Canadian society, and there is nothing they can do to help!

We have meds that add up to more than $1,000.00 a month sometimes, but go with out because we can't afford to buy them. And that's not including the $6,400.00 it costs when my hubby needs Remicade!! This is the only drug to work for him, as he's already had all the bowel removed possible, and the only other opption for him is to gone on a TPN feeding system - how would you like to never eat or drink for the rest of your life, and know that it was preventable?

We sure seem to count on payday when they take their chunks of $ out!!!!

So, until Canada cares about the parents being able to earn viable wages, chil poverty will not improve, only worsen!!

[Cartman]

After meeting with Canadians across the country, Romanow said that we need to have better medical coverage. Many people claimed that medical supplies and drugs were taking a major toll on people.

I don't think that there are many people who simply refuse to work and demand "hand outs", but there are people who need some help to get by.

We also need to ask why we have a massive surplus and a massive surplus in the EI fund (and the AG has just criticized the gov't for this surplus) but eligibility requirements for benefits are so stringent (i.e. do not cover people who make a bit over the cut off). We can do better.

[RB]

It's the families fault, not the governments fault. The families should look after the children, not the government.

the effect of becoming a parent is more profound on the women than the men.

look women exclusive capacity to procreate, in context, really mean they also exclusively must care for the kids.

what it also means is that women cannot synchronise paid work with parenthood like the father, so guess what they did not choose to become poor.

but what it also means for public policy making is a downplay, because it questions women contribution and commitment to employment and then downplays the same with women' lack of commitment and and hence figures the importance of quality public childcare. it is not a priority

this is why i am sincere in my advocacy for liberation of women for economic powers. women out of economic necessity must build a career first and then until there are more of those slowly changes that we wish such as: daycare, struggle to synchronise being a mother with a decent living

well i am glad to report that more women are choosing to have children in their 30's, after they have gone to college and secure some career

compare to the 70's if the government have seen the shift of less teenage pregnancies, and less women in their 20's having kids, and can figure day-care might help revitalise those number of new born - all glory to them

a dilemma for me is anything structural or policy base to assist women with paid work and family only confers to the presupposition that children are women work - yes we would like the daycare, but ..

ok maybe now that i think about this, i would like to see a public policy and a structural change that allow men to share work equally

[maplesyrup]

Child poverty on the rise, group warns

One in six children lives in poverty in Canada, and it is rising. What kind of a society are Ken Dryden and the Liberals creating for us?

[August1991]

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.

Finally, we get a definition. 15.6% of children live in "low-income families". What's a "low-income family"? Dunno.

But we do have a definition of "low wage":

The group defines "low wage" as less than two-thirds the national median hourly wage – about $10 per hour.

WTF? By that definition, one third of all employees on an hourly wage would be "low wage". And what's the connection between "hourly wage" and disposable income. Dunno.

How many children in Canada live in homes without running water, without a TV, without a telephone? Not many years ago, those items were considered luxuries in Canada. In many countries in the world, they still are.

Both the CBC and the Toronto Star throw around statistics that make no sense. I have always suspected that the Left was bad at math.

[ndpnic]

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.

Finally, we get a definition. 15.6% of children live in "low-income families". What's a "low-income family"? Dunno.

But we do have a definition of "low wage":

The group defines "low wage" as less than two-thirds the national median hourly wage – about $10 per hour.

WTF? By that definition, one third of all employees on an hourly wage would be "low wage". And what's the connection between "hourly wage" and disposable income. Dunno.

How many children in Canada live in homes without running water, without a TV, without a telephone? Not many years ago, those items were considered luxuries in Canada. In many countries in the world, they still are.

Both the CBC and the Toronto Star throw around statistics that make no sense. I have always suspected that the Left was bad at math.

Just because running water is a luxury in some countries DOES NOT mean it's ok in Canada!!!!!

I didn't think it was ok for ANY Canadian to live in 3rd world conditions!!!

How nice and safe your world must be. Lucky you!

Right wingers make me wish we could herd them up and ship them off like England did not the not so long ago past!

[Cartman]

Finally, we get a definition. 15.6% of children live in "low-income families". What's a "low-income family"? Dunno.

Check this out August. It is a pretty good look at poverty and ways they measure it. No consensus really.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/economy/...verty-line.html

[maplesyrup]

Why would there be any confusion in the government's eye about the definition of poverty unless the purpose is to confuse and obstruct dealing with the issue as August constantly attempts to do. That way you end up talking about the definition of poverty instead of the cause and remedies of poverty.

Another way to measure poverty is in absolute terms: how many people make less than what is needed to survive or lead a decent life?

Until such time as the government is prepared to give us their benchmark we can use LICO.

[August1991]

Cartman, thank you for the link. I notice this quote in it:

"LICOs are used by anti-poverty groups because they are readily available and capture their view that poverty is relative," wrote Richard Shillington of Campaign 2000 in 1997.

I will put emphasis on the word relative because in effect, that means there will always be poor people. Even when the average income in Canada is $150,000 per person, there will be "poor" people below the LICO of $70,000.

Some other points:

First, for a variety of reasons, groups such as Campaign 2000 insist on seeing a huge problem when it's not huge at all.

Second, the real poverty in Canada is among aboriginal communities.

Third, there is no poverty in Canada anything like the poverty that exists in Africa and Haiti.

Fourth, throwing government money at poverty in Africa, Haiti or on Indian reserves does not work.

Fifth, I think children must be protected from idiotic parents but I don't know if the government is best placed to do that.

[Guest eureka]

I think that perhaps your maths is not so good, August. A moment's thought should tell you that it does not mean 1/3rd,of families are low income.

It seems we are back to LICO and the denial propagated by, chiefly, the Fraser Institute on behalf of its well heeled political and corporate clients.

LOCO is not an official standard of Stascan but Statscan uses the measure for convenience, It even altered its method by adopting after-tax income instead of pre-tax several years ago. It did that for no other purpose than to make the figues look better. The percentage was higher then.

LICO was the standard accepted by Parliament when it approved the motion to eliminate poverty 15 years ago - the one that produced a greater percentage.. It was considered an accurate measure then so why not now - under the revised method. It is a good enough measure to be essentially the same as is used in all developed nations and the UN bodies whose concern poverty is. Perhaps what we should be campaigning for is that Statscan be forced to adopt the standard as official so that the public can be properly informed as to the real state of many Canadians.

LICO does not apply that cut off arbitrarily. It is the measure of a basket of goods considered necessary to sustain a family. Relative and absolute are terms brought in only by the brutes in the Canadian Taxpayers Federation;the Canadian Citizens Coalition and the now "Conservative" party with its "compassionate" conservatism.

You may also want to consider what I posted earlier. That is, that not only is there more than 15% livng below the cut-off, but that most of them are further below the cut-off than they were that 15 years ago. Many are now in that absolute poverty range that even the radical Right Wingers will accept as poverty. (Actually, I posted that on the other similar topic but it applies just as much here).

I would think it is about time to stop playing games with people's lives. This level of poverty is the measure not only of money but of much of the social malaise that bedevils this country. Crime and disease; alcoholism and drug abuse; homelessness; poor performance at school are just some of the known fruits of even relative poverty.

It is, to use the term often applied, and for want of a better, a national disgrace.

[maplesyrup]

Unfortunately I believe it is the dog-eat-dog philosophy of the US and their pervasive influence over Canada (our Canadian elites want to emulate the US elites), that is the root cause of these problems in Canada. These are not Canadian values.

[August1991]

The group defines "low wage" as less than two-thirds the national median hourly wage – about $10 per hour.

WTF? By that definition, one third of all employees on an hourly wage would be "low wage". And what's the connection between "hourly wage" and disposable income. Dunno.

I think that perhaps your maths is not so good, August. A moment's thought should tell you that it does not mean 1/3rd,of families are low income.

Two-thirds of the median would be one-third of all, by my reckoning.

It even altered its method by adopting after-tax income instead of pre-tax several years ago.

I used disposable income to mean after post-tax, after transfers income (since Canada has a variety of child tax credits and transfer payments). Hourly wage is useful for considering adult poverty. It is next to meaningless if we are considering child poverty.

LICO does not apply that cut off arbitrarily. It is the measure of a basket of goods considered necessary to sustain a family.

You are wrong eureka. I will quote from the CBC link above:

The agency sends off letters stating that its low-income cut-off (LICO) figures are not a measure of poverty, but of income inequality... ... The LICO counts the number of Canadians who spend 20 per cent more of their gross income on food, shelter and clothing than the average Canadian.

Statistics Canada is right. LICO is relative to the average.

I would not be surprised that 15% of families will still fall below LICO at the end of this century, assuming of course that Statistics Canada is foolish enough to continue calculating it.

Why would there be any confusion in the government's eye about the definition of poverty unless the purpose is to confuse and obstruct dealing with the issue as August constantly attempts to do.

On the contrary, I have a genuine appreciation of what poverty means. I have no desire to confuse or obstruct attempts to deal with the issue.

I refuse to use arguments that are 100 years old when the world has changed so much and people are so much richer. We have also learned alot in that time about the limits of the social welfare state.

(BTW, Anatole France died in 1924.)

[Guest eureka]

That is 2/3rdsof median income not of the numbers.

LICO is based on a basket of goods. The figure of 20% les was established long ago as a minimum.

Even if you or those who really want to continue poverty were correct in the claims that the poor who live in relative poverty live well, the social consequences would still hold. That is evident in every society where the levels of relative poverty are high.

Americans are twice as likely to spend time in prison as Canadians. Canadians are ( or were a before Thatcher) three times as likely to spend time in prison as Britons. Britons are far more likely to spend time in prison than most Western Europeans.

Poverty can be eliminated and it is time to do so.

[August1991]

Even if you or those who really want to continue poverty were correct in the claims that the poor who live in relative poverty live well, the social consequences would still hold.

This is what I meant, eureka. Poverty is now meant to be relative, not absolute. IOW, if the other kids at school have an iPod, but I don't - then I'm poor.

Americans are twice as likely to spend time in prison as Canadians. Canadians are ( or were a before Thatcher) three times as likely to spend time in prison as Britons. Britons are far more likely to spend time in prison than most Western Europeans.

I agree with one point. Sending people to prison is not always sensible.

But are you suggesting that relative economic inequality leads to larger prison populations? That implies that the relatively poor are simply jealous of the rich. I would strongly disagree with that idea.

Poverty can be eliminated and it is time to do so.

Absolute poverty can be (and largely has been) eliminated in Canada. Relative poverty can never be eliminated.

[Cartman]

Absolute poverty can be (and largely has been) eliminated in Canada. Relative poverty can never be eliminated.

I think that Sarlo places absolute poverty between 3-8% but many believe he is a little optimistic in stretching money. Relative poverty can be eliminated but it is going to be much more difficult to eradicate.

The interesting question is why the Federal government does not have en explicit definition of poverty. They do not advocate the basic needs, market basket measure or the LICO as official measures of poverty.

[caesar]

Poverty can be eliminated and it is time to do so.

Not really, as anyone who doesn't have all the goodies that others may have would still consider themselves poor. Compared to other countries; our poor in Canada are NOT opoor.

Raising the minimum wage dow not work either as the price of everything rises to pay for this increase in cost to the employer. nothing changes.