Category Archives: Poverty

Rich – poor gap becomes a chasm

Toronto Star, January 10, 2007 Carol Goar
Churning out cogent new studies on poverty wouldn’t work, the research team decided. Canadians already knew how bad the problem was.


Making the case for fair wages, affordable housing, decent welfare rates and universal child care wouldn’t turn the tide, they agreed. Dozens of advocacy groups were doing that with negligible success.

What was needed was a catalyst to turn awareness into action.

It was the summer of 2006. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives had just received a generous donation to wake people up to the alarming rise of inequality in Canada.
The three lead researchers – Armine Yalnizyan, Hugh Mackenzie and Trish Hennessy – were brainstorming about how to get the message out, how to make it relevant to Canadians and how to get governments to move.

“We had to take it beyond poverty,” Yalnizyan recalled. “We had to give everybody a stake in the issue.

“We had to show what’s happening to us as a society. We had to get people talking about how disconnected the winners have become from the rest of us. This is the central economic and social issue of our day.”

On Nov. 20, the centre launched its “Growing Gap” project. Its aim is to convert people’s unease about the concentration of wealth into an active conviction that something is wrong when the economy is doing better than most of the population; when families are working longer and harder to stay in the same place; and when governments sanction this arrangement.

To kick off the initiative, the think-tank sent out pollsters to find out how Canadians are doing after a decade of strong economic growth. After interviewing 2,021 randomly selected adults, the pollsters came back with sobering – but not surprising – news:

– Fifty-one per cent said their standard of living had either dropped or stayed the same.
– Forty-nine per cent said they were one or two missed paycheques away from being poor.
– Sixty-five per cent said the benefits of economic growth had gone to the richest Canadians.
– Seventy-six per cent said the gap between rich and poor had widened.

“What’s clear in this poll is that Canadians are worried about their personal future and equally worried about the direction their country might be going,” the think-tank said.
Next, it backed up these perceptions with facts. It released a series of statistical sketches of inequality.

The research team was hampered by a scarcity of up-to-date figures (the census, the best source of information on wealth and income, is now 6 years old), but sifted through earnings reports, employment numbers, housing data, consumer debt, economic trends and the 2001 census.

What emerged was a picture of widening disparity. The top 20 per cent of families held 75 per cent of the nation’s wealth and were rapidly accumulating more. The bottom 20 per cent had no net wealth (their debts exceeded their assets) and were sinking deeper into poverty. The middle 60 per cent were struggling to hold their ground.

“Economic insecurity is now a fact of life for most workers, regardless of where they fit into the income spectrum,” the think-tank pointed out.

Shortly before Christmas, the research team issued a year-end review suggesting – hopefully rather than confidently – that the growing gap would be the “sleeper issue” of 2007.

“This is a problem looking for political leadership. Will 2007 be the year our political leaders take it on?”

To usher in the New Year, Mackenzie did a bit of number crunching and came up with an attention-grabbing comparison.

He showed that by 9:46 a.m. on Jan. 2, the country’s 100 highest paid chief corporate executives would make $38,010 – the same amount the average Canadian worker could expect to earn in the entire year.

In the coming months, the think-tank will explore what happens to a society when its privileged minority gets so far ahead of the rest of the population that there is no shared experience to draw on, no common set of goals and no basis for democratic dialogue.

The debate has already begun in Toronto, partly because of an alarming spike in gun violence in the summer of 2005 and partly because of the leadership of Frances Lankin, president of the United Way. She has been warning for three years that Toronto is developing enclaves of extreme poverty, social tension and urban decay.

The timing of the Growing Gap project could be auspicious. Neo-conservatism seems to be on the wane. Canadians are rethinking the trade-off between big tax cuts and threadbare social safety nets.

On the other hand, fate could play a cruel trick. Just as the initiative takes hold, it could be swamped by the environmental wave coming down the pike.
Yalnizyan and her colleagues are ready for either scenario.

They’ll fight as long and hard as it takes to convince Canadians that a strong society is one in which everybody moves ahead together.

(More information is available at www.growinggap.ca).

How to tackle the economic paradox

We have persistent poverty within a booming economy; here’s what B.C. can ­ and should ­ do — Seth Klein — Vancouver Sun (p A11), December 12, 2006

It’s the time of year when we find ourselves particularly conscious of poverty and homelessness, but especially this year.

British Columbians seem acutely aware of a paradox that marks our economy: We are simultaneously experiencing solid economic growth and decades-low unemployment on the one hand, and record homelessness, persistent poverty, and a stubborn sense of economic insecurity on the other.

We all tend to be more generous during the holiday season, but these problems cannot be fixed through charity alone ­ they require public policy action.

So what can ­ and should ­ the provincial government do to improve the lot of low-income people, both those who rely on social assistance and those who struggle in the low-wage workforce? A lot.

1) Increase welfare rates. Premier Gordon Campbell’s October announcement that he will increase the shelter allowance for people receiving social assistance was welcome news. But this long overdue change shouldn’t wait until February’s budget. And overall rates must be increased, not just the shelter allowance.A single person without a recognized disability currently gets $510 a month for everything ­ housing, food, clothing, transportation, heat and electricity, toiletries, etc. A single parent with one child receives $968, and a person with a disability gets $856. People without a disability receive less today, in real (inflation adjusted) dollars, than they did 12 years ago. After inflation, rates are 20–26 per cent lower (and 12 per cent lower for people with disabilities.

2) Depoliticize the process of setting welfare rates. Rates should be grounded in a transparent and objective rationale, and tied to a realistic estimate of the basic cost of living. The Dieticians of B.C. report that people cannot eat a nutritious diet on welfare. Calculations by both the Social Planning and Research Council of B.C. and Human Resources and Social Development Canada show that welfare rates need to double if they are to meet minimum living costs.A good starting point would be to immediately increase welfare rates by 50 per cent, a measure that would cost about $500 million.

3) Let all welfare recipients keep some earned income. Currently, only those recipients with a recognized disability or barrier to employment are allowed to earn and keep some extra money. B.C. is the only province in Canada that penalizes other welfare recipients by one dollar for every dollar that they earn. Everyone should be able to earn and keep at least $500 per month tax-free.

4) Raise the minimum wage. As with welfare rates, the minimum wage should be depoliticized, and grounded in a clear rationale. An individual working full-time, yearround should not have an income below the poverty line. For this to be so, the minimum wage would need to be $10 per hour.

5) Index both welfare rates and the minimum wage to inflation, and adjust them annually. The Conservative government of Newfoundland recently indexed welfare to inflation, the first government in Canada to do so. B.C. should follow its lead.

6) Make welfare more accessible to those in need. The process of seeking social assistance has become so complicated to navigate, and the eligibility rules so restrictive, that many of those in need are systematically discouraged and denied, and some of these people end up on the streets. The entire application process should be the subject of an independent review, and redesigned so it is appropriate for the majority of people who seek assistance.

7) Increase the stock of affordable housing. The province’s recent move to expand rental subsidies is of some value, particularly for those living in communities with high vacancy rates. But truly addressing the housing crisis and escalating rents requires a significant boost in the quantity of lowincome housing. The province should aim to create 2,000 new units of social housing per year.

8) Enhance access to post-secondary education and training. Meaningful training and education is key to accessing stable, well-paying jobs. The province should rescind the rule that prevents people on welfare from being post-secondary students, and re-introduce tuition-free adult basic education and other upgrading programs at the post-secondary level.

9) Bring in a universal, publicly funded child care program. High quality child care brings important benefits to children in terms of brain development and school readiness, and is essential to women’s equal access to the paid labour market. Quebec has shown that, if the will exists, a province can act alone.

10) Enforce and enhance employment standards. People working in the low-wage workforce rely on provincial employment standards for their basic workplace rights: Minimum wages, statutory holidays, minimum and maximum shift times, overtime pay, etc.

But these standards aren’t being pro-actively enforced, and have been significantly weakened. Vulnerable workers need to know that their workplace rights will be honoured. And if the laws made unionization less challenging, such workers would likely see significant improvements in their income and security.

Combined, these measures would cost the provincial treasury just over $2 billion next year. That may sound like a lot, but consider that last year’s budget surplus was $3 billion, the current year’s surplus is on track to be a similar size, and next year’s surplus will be larger still.The money is there to make a dramatic difference, and the public wants to see action. The cost of inaction is high.

Seth Klein is the B.C. director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives.

Response to a Letter

First, I believe the only way to make any true headway on issues such as poverty or homelessness requires the entire community to be involved. We are speaking of very complex issues that need many new, innovative ideas so we can tease apart the separate threads making up the Gordian knot we currently have. In order to generate these ideas we must have discussion, debate and conversation. The second is that as part of the examination of these problems, issues and ideas it is a fair question to ask about my personal frame of reference. Having an understanding of my background and life experience should help readers understand what I am saying and not have misunderstandings occur, such as happened in the first paragraph of your letter.

Blame is a fool’s game. It accomplishes nothing and gets in the way of change. It would have been most beneficial to course of my life to have dealt with my mental health issues at a much earlier point in my life. I did not or could not get it together then and there is nothing I can do to change that past. I could blame myself for not having been able to act before and constantly beat myself up over that, but that behaviour accomplishes nothing. I have to let it go and accept it as one of the realities of my life I cannot change. While I cannot change what went before, I am responsible for my future mental health. I could be incredibly stupid and go back to the old behaviours that left me vulnerable to having my life trashed by mental illness. Alternatively I could choose to act in a rational and intelligent manner, accepting the reality that I suffer from mental illness. I can, by acting responsibly, choose to walk a path more to my liking. I have medication to put a bottom I can deal with on what was a bottomless pit of mental hell, tools to get me through the bad days, knowledge about my own mental health, awareness of and access to mental health resources to deal with unusual stress or problems, friends and groups for understanding and support, I have regained joy and found passion to pursue interests, issues and causes. Most importantly I have regained my ability to make choices. Hanging onto blame would only serve to anchor me in the unhealthy mental state of my past. I choose to let go and live well.

In a similar manner it is a pointless waste of time to attempt to assign blame for poverty, homelessness, addiction, mental health issues, injustices and the uncivil, selfish behaviour rampant in our society these days. There is plenty of blame to go around and absolutely no point in getting into a pointless argument about who, what, where, why or how we got into this mess. We are in it and I do not really care about blame. What I am concerned about is the future and that we as a community behave rationally and intelligently in the choices we make and the actions we take.

It is clear to me that the actions currently being untaken in regards to dealing with these issues have accomplished pretty well nothing positive while serving to add to the rolls of the poor, homeless, addicted, untreated mentally ill, victims of crime and a host of others ill-fated enough to need support. To continue current policies and behaviours expecting different results is to me behaving in a manner as insane as the insanity of an addict. What I in fact advocate, is that if we want to attain positive results (for example: cause the number of the working poor who depend on the food bank for enough food to live to go down or to reduce the number of homeless living on the streets), we must change policies and behaviours to reflect what is real as opposed to the current practice of seeing what one wants to see or believing what one wants to believe. Reality does not care what you want to see or believe it just IS. Ignoring or denying reality because you do not like, want to believe or want to acknowledge that particular reality is as pointless a waste as blaming. Refusing to face reality perpetuates current behaviours, wasting large amounts of money, resources and time to no purpose. When what you are doing only serves to increase the problems and challenges faced – it is time to change your behaviour.

Before we proceed to your points 1 thru 5 there is a question I need an answer to be able to more accurately understand the points you raise. Since I do not know you I have no real way to determine if you are narrow-minded, wilfully blind or merely uninformed. Your statements equate being homeless with being an addict which is erroneous. Before continuing to read I would suggest you familiarize with the reality of homelessness. Yes those with addictions make up a significant percentage of the homeless but they are far from all the homeless. The last figure I read, sent by another fellow citizen less than pleased with my words, was from a Toronto Star article on a study that cited addiction as the primary cause for 30% of those who found themselves living on the streets; a far cry from all the homeless. Labelling all the homeless as addicts, because some are, is no more fair than me labelling you as an unthinking, war mongering, ass-kissing megalomaniac who believes the size of his cojones is dependent on sending others abroad to kill and be killed just because conservative party leader Harper is.

It is totally irresponsible and un-Canadian for any Prime Minister to shove his nose so far up the American president’s derriere. It is beyond irresponsible to abandon our role as peacekeepers and place our soldiers in a situation where they will kill innocent bystanders and they cannot tell who the enemy is. It is insanity to spend our soldiers lives so that a bumper crop of poppies (heroin) can be raised, processed and exported to our streets to kill and addict the very Canadians our troops are pledged to protect. It is incomprehensible that any leader would think that aggressive actions, bullying and going around wrecking death and destruction make you a “player or leader” on the world stage. I cannot in any way comprehend how it is that Harper thinks the size of our military and his willingness to waste their lives and our countries treasures in military adventurism in any way enhances the size of his cojones.

On point 1 – Yes I believe in punishing crime. I do however suspect, based on your statements about “rights and freedoms” that we do have a very different view about our legal system. I believe everyone is entitled to the same “rights and freedoms”. Based on your words, you and your fellow conservatives advocate that some have or should have more “rights and freedoms” than others. Just what are the criteria you use for deciding which rights and freedoms someone should have? Where you were born, skin colour, religious beliefs? Does the amount of money you have and the size of donations to the conservative party entitle one to more “rights and freedoms” than those with less money and who vote Green? My personal beliefs is that our legal system should be as level a playing field as possible and that everyone should have the same “rights and freedoms”.

Your point that jailing pushers would solve addiction is a fallacy. Let us be perfectly clear on one point about the drug trade and that is, in one of those huge ironic twists that the Universe seems to abound in, the drug trade is the ultimate expression of Capitalism. Supply and demand is the foundation upon which the drug trade (legal and illegal) is built. No matter how many pushers you lock up, the lure of big bucks and all the things money buys ensure a ready supply of people willing to sell drugs to make the $$$. Similar to the way in which tobacco companies had and have no trouble finding people to make, distribute and sell a product causing death and suffering. If your approach to this group of issues is throwing pushers in jail, then you are doomed to failure as our society’s worship of the $$$ guaranties an endless supply of those willing to sell harmful products – of any shape or form. The only way to drive pushers out of business is to eliminate demand. This whole area of discussion demonstrates that what sounds good and appeals to ones personal world view often, when viewed rationally and through the lens of reality, will not accomplish your goal – unless your goal is to fill up prisons. We know from the experience of the USA that using incarceration to address drug use only fills up the prisons and makes rich those involved in the building and running of prisons. Yet another of those Universal ironies, another legal way to get rich from the illegal drug trade.

I have nothing against locking up pushers. I just firmly believe that for ethical, moral and spiritual values we should be concentrating our resources and time on helping the addicts as opposed to the conservatives desire to pour unlimited dollars into jailing pushers and then claiming we have no money to build detox beds. Build the detox beds, help the addicts get sober, you eliminate the demand, which eliminates the $$$ and thus the pushers. You and the conservatives may not find this approach nearly as soul satisfying as throwing lots of people in jail, but it has at least the possibility of working and it will help addicts.

Point 2: Another illustration of differing viewpoints. You see “down-and-outers” were I see my fellow human beings in pain and in need of help. As to your compassion and willingness to “give time, money and your home” – this is an important piece of what is needed to help those suffering with or from such challenges as addictions, mental health, homelessness or pure bad luck to get back on their feet. If some of the badly needed changes can be brought into being, I will be calling upon you to help execute those changes. Although there will be need of monies, properly spent, it is personal time and caring that will be the deciding factors in how successful we as a community will be in reclaiming lost lives.

This belief, that the soul of a community is determined by the involvement of citizens in volunteering, is why I also volunteer my time with organizations and activities that have nothing to do with poverty and homeless issues.

I think I will just pass on the issue of who gives more; it would be entering a pointless snake pit of definitions. Any decent accountant can build support for either side of your statement. There is far to much that needs doing and far to many who need help to waste time in semantically debates. I do not care where the giving comes from. What I do care about is that all the resources are used to take actions that efficiently and effectively produce positive results.

Point 3. I apologize for the following verbal jab but while I am much healthier mentally I do fail sometimes and this jab is just to good to pass up. Apologies. I bow to your working prowess. While I have, in a factory setting, occasionally worked 2 eight hour shifts I found that by the end of the second week I had to cut back the hours and get some more sleep and rest. As for your having “worked two eight hour jobs and sometimes three” there is nothing I can say as I always had to get some sleep and as I said by the end of the second week of 16 hour days I had to cut-back to get more rest. I could not, I would not even be willing to try, work three eight hour jobs as I have always had to get some sleep each day. No, going 24 (3 X 8) hours a day without rest is beyond me.

I must also apologize as I must have misunderstood your politics as I had thought you supported the conservative party. I must be mistaken about your supporting the conservatives since you want your taxes to go to a responsible government. On top of this you want a government to “re-steer the homeless addict through rehab into a self fulfilling job in society”. I think I will also apologize for stealing your words because, although I will drop the re- in re-steer, the goal of “steering the homeless addict through rehab into a self fulfilling job in society” is an expression of a goal I can get behind and support. So with you demanding both responsible government and sound social policy it is obvious you cannot be a conservative supporter. To be truthful, I do not see how you can support any of our current political parties using your stated criteria.

Point 4. This point forces me to take my tongue “out of my cheek”. I am not sure whether the current conservative government fooled you (and many others) completely or if you were so desperate for a responsible government that you became self-delusional. It does not matter. Let us be clear on one important fiscal point – this current conservative government does not behave in a fiscally responsible manner. Actually, they do not behave in a responsible manner in most of their actions. That aside, I base my judgement of their fiscal idiocy and irresponsibility upon my education and background – Bachelor of Commerce, Chartered Accountancy and wide experience in accounting and business. A fiscally responsible government does not cut taxes, it does not even promise to cut taxes during an election campaign. A fiscally responsible government takes every cent it can muster and applies it to reducing the government debt levels you cited. A fiscally responsible government does not tout a surplus when that surplus is an illusion. The so-called surplus exists only as long as interest rates remain low. Currently they are rising and are going to continue to rise, eventually reaching and surpassing the point where increased interest costs turn the “surplus” into debt. To increase the recklessness of this, the conservative government has committed to pour out of our coffers hundreds of billions of dollars, in following their ideology, on programs or assets that will add nothing of economic benefit to our country or its citizens.

Worse, in the pursuit of their ideology the conservative government fails to think. For example, in the area of their ideological based childcare program they failed miserably to consider what effect the additional $200 would have on the working poor. I recently heard, and agreed with, the indignation someone was feeling over hardships this unthinking, ideological policy making had. She was trying to come up with someway to overcome the disaster looming for a family in jeopardy of going hungry because the $200 placed the family over the income limits for accessing the food bank. Apparently the conservatives only worry about helping the working person who is able to donate to their party. The working poor who, needing every dollar just to survive, cannot afford to waste a dollar supporting any political party appear, in the conservative world view, to be unworthy of sparing a thought about. The conservatives are so busy pursuing their ideology they have no time to behave responsibly.

I have to admit to having no understanding of your comment citing our debt having gone to pay for a rich sheik in Asia. Should you choose to clarify what you are speaking of I would be glad to address this point. Currently that statement seems incongruous to being linked to paying for roads, hospitals or helping the homeless.

Point 5. I agree people need to be engaged in their community, province and country an a daily basis. The true problem with voting is that so many fail to vote and so many of those who do vote fail to expend the effort to actually think. They would rather just hear something they like, something they want to believe is true or promises of easy, fast fixes for difficult problems thus it is you have our current political situation. If people actually took the trouble to think and apply common sense to the issues and challenges that face us, they would ignore the existing parties and forming a new political collaboration based on acting in a responsible manner based on reality – not ideologies or world view.

As to your analogy of the bridge and ambulances: I think you are viewing the situation completely wrong. I would say that in pointing out what actually results from current policies and practices, then calling for the changes necessary to act in the manner required to help steer people into fulfilling places in society, I am standing on your imaginary bridge attempting to change the direction of travel from the disastrous path over the edge. In seeking to perpetuate the current policies and actions, to remain on the same old path onto the bridge and over the edge into the abyss, thus adding to the carnage of the pileup at the bottom of the gorge (or society), you are standing at the bottom of the gorge beside the river. Perhaps you would care to join me in switching from the old path over the edge onto a new path leading upwards and outwards.

Need to Increase Welfare Rates

HI everyone out in povnet land. Here’s some info on the “Shoe-In” that we held at Carnegie Centre to try to get some coverage for the need to increase welfare rates and end the barriers that keep people in need from getting welfare. We did get some media (Georgia Straight, Metro, 24 hrs, Global TV, Fairchild, CKNW) but nothing in the Sun, Province, CBC, Globe and Mail, etc. so I’m trying to make this our own media coverage. The actual event was a lot of fun and involved a lot of Downtown Eastside residents. – Jean Swanson

Carole Taylor “Shoe-In” a big success

When Finance Minister Carol Taylor introduced the provincial budget last month, she wore new $600 Gucci shoes. Six hundred dollars is $90 more than a single person gets in a month on welfare. There was no increase to welfare rates in the budget even though there’s a $2 billion surplus. Like many other people, Jaya Babu and Diane Wood were appalled by Carole Taylor’s arrogance and blindness—flaunting $600 shoes while thousand of British Columbians live in deep poverty. They began to talk about shoes, and how they might be used as an expression of resistance to injustice. Then others at Carnegie joined in the conversation and began to create an event. They had the confidence to do this. They had the faith—faith as creating what we do not see. And the Carole Taylor “Shoe-In” was born. There would be a large, golden shoe representing Carole Taylor’s $600 shoes (thank you, Miriam), and there would be $600 worth of food to give to hungry people (thank you, BCGEU, BCTF, BC Fed, CUPE 391, Michael and Diane Goldberg, CCPA staff and Andrea Ottem).

The event took place on March 28th at 11 am in the Carnegie theatre, and the Carnegie was buzzing. Lots of media showed up, and the “Shoe-In” was ready for them. The event was designed as a teach-in to teach Carole Taylor some facts about poverty in BC. She didn’t show up, but Libby Davies, our Member of Parliament, and Jenny Kwan, our Member of the Legislative Assembly, were there. Professor Bob Sarti presided over the teach-in, and he did an excellent job. Mary Ann Cantillon (thanks, Mary Ann and Sharon for the costume) was Mary Ann Antoinette and she repeated that famous phrase, “Let them eat cake.” Then delicious cake (thanks Katrina) was served to people in the theatre.

Jean Swanson gave a talk on why welfare rates should go up. Then Prof. Bob asked us to answer the question, “How do people on welfare get by in a 5-week month?” Downtown Eastside residents in the audience responded with many answers and Diane Wood wrote them down. The answers will be sent to Carole Taylor. Some of the answers to the questions were: use food banks; use free food outlets; beg in the streets, go binning; sleep a lot; prostitution; end up in hospital, and many more.

Seth Klein of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) spun the Wheel of Misfortune. This wheel had the many barriers to welfare on it, and it showed how difficult it was to get welfare in BC. Then Seth talked about a new CCPA report that showed that the drop in the number of people getting welfare in BC is due to the new welfare rules, and is not because more people on welfare found work. Seth said welfare rates should be raised by 50 percent, and the money to do this was there because the government had a two billion dollar surplus.

Then Prof. Bob asked the audience what it would do with the government’s $2 B surplus. There were many answers to this question, and Diane wrote them down. They will be sent to Carole Taylor. Some of the answers were: increase welfare rates; build social housing; a dental program for people on welfare; more treatment centres and harm reduction programs for drug users; opening up Riverview so mentally ill people aren’t on the streets, and many more.

Adrienne Montani from First Call gave a strong talk on the needs of poor children and poor families in BC. She said there is more child poverty in BC than in any other province. She said that the gap between rich and poor is increasing, and that those poverty facts are known to government. Yet the government turns away from the crisis of poverty. “Why does it do that?” Adrienne asked. Why do the rich turn their backs on the poor? Then there was a parade of shoes—not Gucci shoes—and a class photo on the front steps of Carnegie. After that, the $600 worth of food was distributed to people who were hungry after a five week welfare month.

The “Shoe-In” was a great success. There was a lot of energy in the Carnegie Theatre. Congratulations to the many people who worked hard to make this event inspiring, informative and lots of fun. Hopefully, some of that energy will spill over to the Raise the Rates Campaign. In her speech Jean Swanson quoted Nelson Mandela, “Like slavery and apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made and can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings.” –Sandy Cameron

Here’s a copy of the talk I gave at the Shoe-In, in case there’s anything in it that might be useful to anyone fighting for higher rates: Shoe-in talk March 28, 2006 I remember what this neighbourhood was like 25 years ago. It was poor. It had drug users and people with illness and disabilities. But hardly anyone was homeless. Most people had enough to eat. No one slept in the pews at First United. The stores weren’t boarded up.

Why was it different then? In those days welfare and minimum wages had more purchasing power. People could afford to rent a room, buy a sandwich at a cheap restaurant, have a cup of coffee with a friend, and get a bus pass or a phone. Now the welfare rate for a single person is $510 a month. How many voters who aren’t poor actually realize that welfare rates are so abysmally low? How many know that the $510 is divided into 2 parts. $325 is for shelter. How many people who aren’t poor know that the $325 has been frozen for 14 years or that the average rent for a crummy hotel room is $380? How many people who aren’t poor know that the support portion of welfare is $185? How many know that it was $205 a month in 1981, 25 years ago?

How many middle class or rich people or members of the legislature would have the budgeting skills to even survive on $510 a month, let alone stay healthy and look for work? Think of what you could buy if you got $852 a month for welfare. That’s what welfare you’d get today if welfare had the same purchasing power that it had 25 years ago.

Why are people in this neighbourhood so sick, so hungry, so depressed? Because provincial government policies have created a deep, deep poverty in the midst of incredible wealth.

That’s why Carole Taylor’s shoes made us angry—shoes that cost $90 more than a single person on welfare has to live on for a month. She had a $2 billion budget surplus. She could have ended the deep, deep poverty and the hardship it creates. She could have helped open the stores in our community and in low income neighbourhoods across the province. But she didn’t. The government didn’t. Instead she bought the Guccis—the shoes that say, “if you’re poor you don’t count”–the shoes that say being rich in the midst of deep, deep poverty is normal. But, as Nelson Mandela said, “Like slavery and apartheid, poverty is not natural. It is man-made, and can be overcome and eradicated by the actions of human beings.” That’s what we expect the governments we elect to do. We’re getting allies and we’re not going to stop til those welfare rates get raised.

And here’s a poem written by M. Kelly at Carnegie: $600 could have bought…

*A wheelchair for my dear wife so I could push her when she’s in too much pain to walk (a retiree)
*milk for my kids for a year (mother of four)
*Almost 300 bus tickets for my job search rides (young immigrants)
*Tune-up for old beater that gets us to work each day (Mr+Mrs working poor)
*Laser surgery for cataracts in both eyes (senior)
*Steel-toed boots and a hard hat so I could get a construction job (young man)
*150 jars of jam to go with my peanut butter sandwiches (school girl)
*I could get my prescriptions filled (senior citizen)
*600 presents from the Dollar Store so I’d always have gifts for my family (a “training” wage earner)
*Bannock to feed all the hungry tummies, and blankets for the winter (an elder)
*Decent clothes for my children to wear to school so no one laughs at them (single mom)
*Dinner for 200 people at Union Gospel Mission at Easter (homeless person)
*Brushes and paint (a starving artist)
*600 boxes of Kraft Dinner (a young mom)
*Comfortable shoes for the next 10 years for our poor, tired feet (taxpaying public)

Instead our $600 became some ugly shoes abandoned in a rich woman’s closet.
–M. Kelly Jean Swanson

The Ottawa Manifesto Regarding Poverty And Homelessness

We, the members of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada’s Roundtable on Poverty and Homelessness, and other signatories, are representative of the many Canadian people of Christian faith who believe that the care of poor and vulnerable people of all ages is a central tenet of our own faith, of good government, and of responsible, compassionate citizenship. We have already committed significant personal and organizational resources to this purpose. We have witnessed the rise of homelessness as a crisis of disturbing proportions, and of societal, systemic and individual complexity. The time has come to add to material action a clear, creative and challenging public voice. We believe that Jesus Christ was and is the unique Son of God, and that he lived, died and was resurrected for our salvation. We believe that the Bible is, in its entirety, God-breathed, and that His voice may be heard clearly throughout. And we are convinced that the teaching and example of Jesus, together with the repeated testimony of the Bible, reveal that God specifically values those who are poor and rejected as having been made in His image, and, therefore, as inherently precious to Him. We are convinced of the fundamental dignity and worth of each and every human being, without qualification.

We All Need Homes, Not Just Housing

A home is more than just four walls and a roof. It’s a whole life situation that means being welcomed into a safe, secure and dignified place to live; healthy, nurturing relationships; the opportunity for education, meaningful work for reasonable pay; and to worship, dream and play in vibrant community. Housing initiatives need to take these values into account, and aim at creating far more than “affordable” space.

We Are More Alike Than Different

Drastically different life circumstances can create the illusion that we are inherently different beings, especially when those external differences are ones that may frighten or repulse us – such as homelessness. These perceived differences allow us to distance ourselves still farther, until we can easily justify our nonengagement with people who are homeless. Yet the closer we get to people, even those whose experiences, circumstances and proclivities seem completely foreign to us, the more essentially similar we find ourselves to be. People who are homeless have the same needs and longings we all share.

Compassion Demands Action

Compassion is more than a feeling. Genuinely caring about people motivates us to take action. We must, therefore, apply ourselves to learn why people become homeless or are trapped in poverty, engage in social and political advocacy, make a point of getting to know people who may live outside our own “comfort zones”, and seek to share our time, abilities and material resources. All of these energies are directed at effecting material change – such as dignified housing, meaningful work, or access to health care or education – in the lives of the people for whom we have compassion.

Grace And Mercy Are For All Of Us

Choosing to help only those who “deserve” help and leaving behind those whose behaviours we may disapprove of is prejudicial and not Biblical. The grace and mercy of God, upon which we all rely, are, by definition, only for people who are undeserving and/or guilty. Christians, knowing themselves to be by nature undeserving, ought to be able to identify with those who appear to be homeless or poor because of their own behaviours. “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” Romans 5:8

Ignoring Poverty Impoverishes All Of Us

Abandoning people to poverty increases health problems and welfare rolls, and sometimes drives people to crime – all major burdens for governments, and therefore, tax payers. The generational entrenchment of poverty diminishes hope (the capacity to dream) and the sense of personal value in the individual. Children, the unrealized potential of our nation, when they are born into poverty, start life so far behind others that they may never be able to catch up. The whole of society is enriched when the creative gifts of the poor are supported by governmental and social systems that affirm the value of what they have to offer. When people are shut out because of their poverty, poverty itself “snowballs”, at once increasing our societal burden and diminishing our societal capacity. Homelessness in Canada is a clear and concrete manifestation of this truth.

Justice And Mercy Define Good Government

Believing that our progress is measured by our standard of care for the least privileged among us, we expect good government to formulate policy that not only works toward a level playing field, but offers “second chances” to people who have failed or done wrong. We believe that justice ought to be primarily restorative rather than punitive. We recognize that both social policies and budgets are declarations of a government’s moral intent. We will offer whatever support we can to government initiatives that are just and merciful, and will continue to use every means at our disposal to press governments at every level until such policies are made a priority. We believe that homelessness will be a priority for policy makers concerned with justice and mercy.

Poverty Belongs At The Centre

The Bible teaches clearly and consistently throughout, that care of people who are poor, oppressed or marginalized is intrinsic to both the announcing of the gospel of personal salvation, and the purpose of government. Throughout western history, when governments and the church have put care of such people at the centre of their agendas, both have flourished. For perhaps 150 years, the general political and religious trends in the western world have been aimed at reducing poverty – with a significant level of success. In recent years, however, these positive trends have diminished and further marginalized people who are poor, sometimes to the point of criminalizing certain aspects of poverty. We believe that, if this trend continues, it will ultimately be disastrous for our country and our churches. The church in Canada has a responsibility to provide moral leadership by making a priority of caring for people who are poor, and particularly people who are homeless, in its own budgets and activities.
Government Responsibility Does Not Excuse Church Apathy
While various levels of government clearly have a responsibility to address these matters, the church must not succumb to a theological dichotomy whereby we construe the church’s responsibilities to concern only the spiritual, and the government’s only the physical. As communities of faith, we have different capacities than governments or social service organizations. We must be ready to provide creative leadership in some circumstances, and partnership or humble servanthood in others, in order to create realistic, dignified and sustainable options for people who are homeless.

Christian Groups Make Good Partners For Government Initiatives

Christian groups have for many years been the largest nongovernment service provider to the poor and homeless in North America. In fact, many social services now funded and directed by government were begun by such groups. Since Christian teaching and practice encourages the development of functioning communities, a high level of volunteer participation, and the donation of money and other resources, we can often achieve more with less, adding value and offering a wealth of experience and healthy community context to government resources. Already existing Christian communities offer a holistic context for the development or implementation of services and programs that government is not equipped to create on its own. We encourage Christian groups to support and partner, wherever possible, with government initiatives aimed at the substantial reduction of homelessness, poverty, and their root causes.

Therefore, To Our Brothers And Sisters Who Struggle With Poverty And Homelessness, We Commit to…

LEARN all we can about the systemic, sociological, economic, cultural and spiritual deficits that have left them in this state. We will listen carefully to them, for they are our greatest teachers. We will seek out the knowledge others have acquired, and teach what we ourselves have learned to those who want to care more effectively for people who are poor or homeless;ACT with diligence and integrity to create with them healthy, nurturing relationships, and safe, secure, dignified homes;SPEAK on their behalf when their own voices are not heard, and support them in speaking for themselves, to the end that Canadian churches, governments, media and businesses would make the substantial reduction of homelessness, poverty and their root causes a high priority; and COOPERATE with others committed to these baseline objectives, respecting differences of approach and philosophy.

Before God, We Make These Commitments In The Places Where We Work And Serve, In Our Communities Of Faith, And In Our Personal Lives