Freedom from Want
- First Posted: Sep 25 2009 14:13 PM
- Updated: 9 months ago
Canada's growing poverty problem will not be solved until calls to action are based on justice, not charity.
From parliamentarians, think tanks, and NGOs, the reports on combating Canadian poverty keep on coming. “Eh, what do you mean, poverty in Canada?”
- The poverty of the homeless, who number as many as 300,000 – about one in 110 of us.
- The poverty of the millions of working poor whose insufficient earnings do not meet ends. (They, too, are often among the homeless.)
- The poverty of the young, whose setbacks put them at a disadvantage from the get-go, while costing us all a bundle. (A 2008 study pegged the cost of child poverty in the U.S. at $500 billion USD per year: pro-rating to Canada, our cost may be $50 billion CDN or more, or about 3 per cent of GDP.)
- And poverty of Aboriginals, recent immigrants, persons with disabilities ... the story runs deep.
The latest report is from The Conference Board of Canada. In its 2009 edition of "How Canada Performs: A Report Card on Canada," the board gives Canada a “D” for the poverty rate (12 per cent) among working-age adults. It also issues a “C” for our record on child poverty, income inequality (poverty’s ugly step-parent), and the pay equity gap (21 per cent) between women and men.
Indeed, in a ranking of 17 peer countries, the board placed Canada 13th for its child poverty rate in the mid-2000s (15.1 per cent, up from 12.8 per cent 10 years earlier), and 15th for its poverty rate among working-age adults (12.2 per cent, up from 9.4 per cent). We fare better with an “A” grade for our elderly poverty rate (5.9 per cent). But even here is trouble – in the mid-1990s it was almost half that, just 2.9 per cent.
Which raises the question: What does Canada need to do differently to progress on this issue?
The Conference Board points to solutions often touted – “make work pay” and greater investment in education, child care, and flexible employment for parents. These are urgent, but alone, and even in combination, are insufficient. For there are at least two prerequisites to meaningful Canada-wide progress on poverty – and both are presently lacking.
First is for the exercise of visionary, vigorous federal leadership. Through its policy-making and income redistribution powers, the federal government is a critical combatant of poverty. Precisely because of the federal introduction of income security programs for seniors, the poverty rate for the aged is admirably low.
But rather than seize the day for stepped-up leadership on this issue, the Conservative government rejects a strong federal role. In June, it rejected a UN Human Rights Council recommendation for Canada to have a national poverty elimination strategy, falsely claiming that “provinces and territories have jurisdiction in this area of social policy.” In fact, the feds own, control, administer, or fund 75 to 80 per cent of all income security programs in the land and, as well, have a major hand in housing, health, post-secondary, and other relevant programs. Indeed, according to an OECD report, were it not for government cash transfers and tax credits for low-income earners, Canada’s poverty rate in the mid-2000s would have been 23 per cent rather than 12 per cent.
The second prerequisite for lasting success is to place human rights at the centre of anti-poverty action.
Too often, the call for action is based on charity, not justice. “Help for the vulnerable,” we hear.
But embracing poverty as a matter of human rights – what Louise Arbour calls “an international consensus on the minimum conditions for a life of dignity” – changes the frame. She argues that giving economic, social, and cultural rights, as articulated within the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) and related agreements, the force of law – the status of constitutional entitlement – would promote the “freedom from want” to which millions of Canadians aspire, while capturing the “immense opportunity to affirm our fundamental Canadian values” such as fairness and equality.
The tide is turning towards the rights-based approach to poverty. As one marker, Amnesty International recently launched its worldwide Demand Dignity campaign with the observation that “whatever plan is pursued, whatever projects are prioritized, whatever aid package is agreed, no solution to poverty without human rights at its core will have any long-term impact. ... Governments must create the conditions that allow people living in poverty to claim their human rights, to empower themselves, so that they can be masters, and not victims, of their destiny.”















Comments
Re:Marks
“ Poverty and Rights Brewster Kneen As a way of addressing the issue of poverty in Canada and elsewhere, the language and logic of human rights raise a number of troubling questions. After all, it is the policies of the federal and provincial governments that have structurally encouraged the growth of poverty in Canada both incidentally and deliberately. Combine this with the nurturing and honouring of a culture of greed and you have a fine poverty policy. It is therefore a questionable strategy to ask these same offices to counter their own policies by recognizing or granting certain rights in order to overcome poverty. Progressive taxation should be one of the most obvious and effective ways to address the growing financial inequity in Canada. On the other hand, regressive tax policies are one of the most obvious mechanisms to facilitate the concentration of wealth and increase economic inequity, particularly when combined with a permissive, if not encouraging, attitude of the federal government toward corporate mergers and acquisitions carried out for the sole purpose of further concentrating capital accumulation and power. Rights are all about law and power. They are not about respect, justice and the welfare of society. In fact, rights have a strong anti-social character, being essentially individualistic: my rights, my claims against society and the state. Even collective rights, so-called, are anti-social since they set one collectivity against others, rather than seeking the health and welfare of the whole society. Achieving the right to food might appear to be a legal victory, but it would not necessarily provide the hungry with anything to eat. The bowl may be empty. Even if there is some food in it, more than likely, without political change, it will be the industrial food provided by the same corporate businesses that benefit by the regressive tax structure and public subsidies. Without economic restructuring, poverty and inequity will not be addressed by any campaign for human rights. 30/9/09
Brewster Kneen