Cutting services not poverty.

Some provinces and territories contend that welfare income is intended to provide only the bare necessities of life, while the Low-Income Cut-Offs are high enough to allow some discretionary spending as well. But, critics argue that the only discretion many welfare recipients have is how to cut back on food when the money starts running out toward the end of each month

According to Statistics Canada, welfare rolls shrank dramatically during the second half of the 1990s. This comes after years of steady increases in the numbers. The sharpest declines were among single mothers, a third of whom were on welfare in 2000, down from one-half in 1995.

In terms of numbers, the 2004 report showed there were 3.1 million Canadians on social assistance in 1994, but only two million in 2000. An improving economy was part of the reason. But, another part is tighter rules for qualifying for welfare, and the introduction of snitch lines and a get-tough approach to fraud. At the same time, social assistance payments to Canadians dropped from $14.3 billion to $10.4 billion.

But, social advocates say the figures don't translate into less poverty, or lower need for assistance: they maintain it's largely a result of the changes in government policy.

For example, British Columbia's Liberal government announced in January 2002 that it wanted to cut almost one-third of its $1.9 billion welfare budget--nearly $600 million--over three years. The aim was to balance the budget by 2004-05 and make dramatic cuts to taxes at the same time.

The new regulations were described as harsh because they would result in 29,000 people being dropped from the province's welfare rolls starting in April 2004.

The new, tougher approach was also expected to cut payments to some single parents by $100 a month in what some said was an attempt to force recipients to find work. The new rules also set time limits on benefits, allowing single "employable" individuals to receive welfare for no more than 24 months in a five-year period. "Employable" couples with no children were also scheduled to be cut off. (The time limit started in April 2002, so people receiving benefits since then would have been dropped by 2004.)

The changes also required single parents to look for work when their youngest child turned three instead of the previous age of seven. The welfare cuts called for laying off nearly 500 of the Human Resource Ministry's 3,000 employees, closing some offices, as well as reducing the number of recipients. The planned cuts also targeted the province's low-income seniors who were no longer entitled to bus-fare subsidies under the new regulations.

Business and taxpayer groups thought the program and tax cuts were great news. But, critics said most of the people deemed employable are in fact very hard to employ; cutting them off welfare will result in increased homelessness, hunger, poor health, and crime as people are left with no source of income whatsoever.

This is a very different approach from those who believe society has an obligation to protect the human rights of vulnerable individuals who rely on social assistance to meet their basic needs.

The National Council of Welfare expressed horror at the severe cuts in welfare rates, and the time limits on the receipt of benefits in particular, in British Columbia. The Council's 2003 report on Welfare Incomes pointed out that "the gap between the poverty line (using Statistics Canada's Low-Income Cut-offs) and welfare incomes remained large and relatively unchanged in 2003 with people on welfare subsisting on as little as one-fifth of the poverty line." Generally, the report explained, welfare incomes for the year declined because of cuts, freezes, and the eroding effects of inflation.

The Council further outlines what it sees as the inadequacy of welfare rates across Canada. For 2003:

* Single, employable people had the least adequate welfare incomes, as in previous years, with incomes ranging from a low of 20 percent of the poverty line in New Brunswick to a high of 44 percent in Newfoundland and Labrador;

* Single people with disabilities received from 39 percent of the poverty line in Alberta to 59 percent in Ontario;

* Single-parent families had the lowest benefits in Alberta at 48 percent of the poverty line; the highest rate was in Newfoundland and Labrador at 71 percent of the poverty line;

* Two-parent families on welfare received 48 percent of the poverty line in Quebec, with the highest rate in Prince Edward Island at 63 percent.

The report "paints a disturbing picture of poverty in Canada. Welfare incomes which reach only one fifth or one third of the poverty line are unacceptably low and should be raised at the earliest possible date. Rates this low cannot be described as anything other than punitive and cruel."

The National Anti-Poverty Organization (NAPO) also criticized government for its failure to help the country's needy. In July 2004, NAPO said it was time governments across the country raised welfare rates "so people can get out and stay out of poverty."

Some people think the answer is to put welfare recipients into jobs under workfare (work for welfare) programs. Such programs require welfare recipients to either work or enroll in educational or job-training programs in order to receive benefits. Typically, the organizations they work for receive subsidies for participating.

The programs are intended to reduce the number of people on social assistance by placing them in the workforce, and advocates say they provide the unemployed with training or education to help them become self supporting.

But, this isn't everybody's idea of social progress. Workfare programs have been criticized for being little more than a supply of cheap labour to community organizations and industries in the private sector. In 2000, the Community Ministries of the Diocese of Ottawa called Ontario's "workfare" program unethical, and refused to participate in the scheme.

"Workfare stereotypes poor people as lazy and unwilling to work," according to the Community Ministries Board. "We know this to be untrue in the people we see and serve daily."

The Board added that, "The people we serve are often living in crisis. Whether they are fleeing violence, being released from hospital with no accommodation, or living with serious mental illness, they are welcomed and treated with dignity in all the services we provide."

Some anti-poverty advocates also say that workfare violates the United Nations Charter on economic, social, and cultural rights which views welfare as a compassionate response to people who are facing extreme levels of stress in their lives.

As far back as 1996, the Canadian Centre for Policy Analysis (CCPA) reported that very few participants in such programs ever obtain "real" jobs or the skills needed to qualify for them. Administration proved costly and cumbersome, and the schemes failed to reduce the number of people dependent on welfare.

That was the experience in Quebec, where Canada's first workfare program was introduced in 1989: in the first five years of the program, the number of Quebeckers on welfare rose by 42 percent, and fewer than 12 percent of participants were able to find stable jobs. Similar programs in New Brunswick and Alberta were also found to be largely unsuccessful.

According to CCPA, other studies have found no evidence to suggest that large numbers of people on welfare could work if they chose: the problem is unemployment or unemployability and workfare simply creates make-work positions and reinforces government dependency. There also is no evidence of widespread welfare fraud: abuse of the system is relatively low. And the Centre says there is little evidence to support the assumption that workfare teaches new skills, offers training, and improves employability. Very few people receive meaningful training, or find paying jobs after completing training.

But, there are ways of getting people off welfare that are not punitive. A program in Atlantic Canada lets people keep their social assistance benefits for one or two years while they begin working; in this way, they can build up financial resources. With growing assets, they are in a better position to weather setbacks such as illness or short layoffs. Greater security leads to stronger, healthier families, which further strengthens society as a whole. The idea is to break the poverty cycle, not punish the poor.

SUGGESTED ACTIVITIES:

1. Discuss what you think the government should provide in the way of social assistance.

2. The idea of state-sponsored programs and entitlements for broad segments of the population started in the late nineteenth century. After World War II, publicly provided social welfare programs were launched in advanced industrialized countries in the form of universal public pensions, allowances for families with children, better access to health services and postsecondary education, social housing, and better financial assistance to the poor. All were variations on the Keynesian Welfare State which emerged in advanced capitalist countries in North America, Western Europe, and Australia and New Zealand. Produce a timeline on the rise and fall of social assistance in Canada.

3. Canada's, and North America's, first socialist government was elected when the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation (CCF, later the NDP) was voted into power on 15 June 1944 in Saskatchewan. Its leader, Tommy Douglas (winner of the CBC's Greatest Canadian contest in 2004), was known to many as the little man with the big heart. He also became known as one of Canada's most important, and respected, politicians of the 20th century for his pioneering work in promoting the "radical" idea of helping the needy, and developing government-funded social programs. As Premier of Saskatchewan, he introduced free, universal medical care, which eventually became accepted by politicians across the country. Loved for his quick wit and humour as well as his intelligence and compassion, he helped transform the country from a conservative stronghold that believed self-help was better than public assistance, into a social democracy with universal social programs, a strong union movement, and a government more committed to a more just society. Write an essay on the life of Tommy Douglas.

Estimated 2003 Annual Welfare Income by Type of Household *

Province/                    Single      Person with
Territory                   Employable    Disability

Newfoundland and Labrador     $7,395        $8,928
Prince Edward Island          $6,155        $8,048
Nova Scotia                   $5,195        $8,822
New Brunswick                 $3,383        $6,911
Quebec                        $6,758        $9,714
Ontario                       $6,838       $11,765
Manitoba                      $5,567        $8,354
Saskatchewan                  $6,155        $8,833
Alberta                       $5,039        $7,743
British Columbia              $6,445        $9,812
Yukon                        $12,462       $13,973
Northwest Territories        $12,792       $16,428
Nunavut                      $10,427       $12,609

                              Single       Couple,
Province/                    Parent,         Two
Territory                   One Child      Children

Newfoundland and Labrador    $15,056       $18,162
Prince Edward Island         $13,330       $19,999
Nova Scotia                  $12,515       $18,134
New Brunswick                $13,232       $16,852
Quebec                       $14,071       $18,063
Ontario                      $13,917       $18,471
Manitoba                     $12,946       $18,907
Saskatchewan                 $12,433       $18,492
Alberta                      $11,897       $18,638
British Columbia             $13,673       $18,087
Yukon                        $19,870       $28,213
Northwest Territories        $21,647       $29,206
Nunavut                      $28,338       $34,334

* Figures include basic social assistance plus
additional benefits where applicable, federal
and provincial/territorial child benefits, and
federal and provincial/territorial tax credits

Source: Welfare Incomes 2003,
National Council of Welfare.

WHO'S ELIGIBLE

Who qualifies for welfare varies across the country, but generally app cants are between 18 and 65. Under certain conditions, some provinces and territories will accept full-time, post-secondary students, white others don't allow students to apply for welfare unless they leave their studies. Applicants who are accepted then go through a needs test covering items such as food' shelter, clothing, household expenses, transportation; and personal grooming items, Limits are set by the government and don t necessarily reflect the actual cost of items. Recipients with special needs such as medication; prosthetic devices, technical aids and equipment; special clothing; or dental care may be eligible for extra assistance in most provinces and territories,

WHO PAYS

From 1966 to 1996. welfare was covered by the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP) whereby the federal government shared (usually 50:50) the cost of welfare and other social services with the provinces and territories. But CAP was replaced in 1996 with the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST), a system of block funding that covered Medicare and post-secondary education as well as welfare and social services. As of April 2004, the CHST was split into one block fund for health and another block fund for the other three programs.

Federal payments are calculated by a mathematical formula rather than actual spending by the provincial and territorial governments.

ECONOMICS AND POLITICS

In the early 1990s, all levels of government focused on budget deficits, and a recession made the financial picture even bleaker. Unemployment rose along with the cost of employment insurance and welfare. The federal government cut funding, leaving the problems in the laps of the provinces and territories, which also slashed welfare programs, among other social services. Ontario, for example, cut welfare rates for everyone except seniors and the disabled by 21.6% in October 1995, for a savings of $469 million.

As critics see it, governments that are supposed to protect society's vulnerable members, turned their backs on them. Welfare Incomes 2003 points out that, "For several years in the late 1990s, single employables in Newfoundland and Labrador had welfare incomes that were a mere nine percent of the poverty line. In 2002, British Columbia made it impossible for employable singles and families on welfare to supplement their incomes with earnings by eliminating earnings exemptions completely (as well as imposing) time limits on welfare."

The Canadian Council on Social Development (CCSD) goes back a little further in recent history to explain the decline in social programs. In The Canadian Fact Book on Poverty 2000, CCSD says the downsizing of the welfare state started in earnest after the election of the Progressive Conservative government in t984. As a social spending rose in the early 1980s to meet the increased needs caused by the 1981-82 recession. It peaked in 1983-84 at 12.3% of GDP, then declined from 12.1% in 1984-85 to 10.7% in 1990-91, indicating that social spending was growing more slowly than the Canadian economy."

FACT FILE

There are 14 welfare systems in Canada: one system in each province and territory, and another system for Aboriginal people who five on reserves (through the federal Department of Indian and Northern Affairs).

In 2004, Ontario raised welfare rates by three percent, which added $15 to a cheque for a single person receiving $520 a month: the increase, the province's first in 11 years, still left families and single people well below the poverty line.

Websites

National Council of Welfare--http://www.ncwcnbes.net/index.htm

PovNet--http://www.povnet.org/welfare.htm