Clever Clogs
Posts: 666 
Location: BC
Location: BC
May 1st, 2008, 10:55 AM
Almost 900,000 Canadian children living in poverty, StatsCan finds
Commons was unanimously resolved to eliminate child poverty, Statistics Canada says there are still almost 900,000 children living in the poorest of homes. The latest census numbers released Thursday show that an estimated 879,955 Canadian children are living in low-income households, and that more than a third of these deprived children are in the care of single mothers.
That grim portrait of the country's most vulnerable has changed little in a quarter of century.
In 1980, 20 per cent of pre-schoolers and 18.7 per cent of school-aged children lived in low-income families.
Twenty-five years later, those numbers barely improved to 19.3 per cent and 17 per cent respectively.
J.J. Stiles doesn't exactly fit the typical image of Canada's poor.
The single mother of two girls has a university degree, a diploma in radio and television arts and a certificate to teach English-as-a- second-language. She works in Toronto as an administrative assistant and makes just over $37,000 a year.
Although Statistic Canada's low-income cutoff - Canada's closest equivalent to a poverty line - for a Toronto family of three is $31,801, Stiles comes up against financial difficulties every month.
"Come on. If I'm above the poverty line - you've got to be kidding me, because I am living in poverty," she said.
"The poverty line? I think they need to reassess that."
After rent and groceries, Stiles sometimes finds herself at the end of the month washing clothes by hand and hanging them to dry in the bathtub. She can't go into her purse and find a spare loonie for the laundry, as she simply doesn't have one.
A few months back her daughter needed black pants and black shoes for a school concert. Stiles was unsure where she would get the money. Thankfully her mother offered to buy the new togs.
"I don't have money in my bank. I don't have RRSPs. I don't have any savings. I don't have any extra money to put away for my children, for their school," she said.
"I live paycheque to paycheque."
In 1989, the House of Commons unanimously passed a resolution to eliminate poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.
Statistics Canada defines low-income families as those who spend at least one-fifth more of their income than the average family on basic necessities such as food, shelter and clothing.
Stiles was lured to Toronto more than a year ago with hopes of a better paying job than the one she had in North Bay, Ont. - where her yearly income was $14,000.
Not only did the move mean a higher income, but she believed it would mean a brighter future for her girls.
Things didn't pan out the way she had envisioned.
Stiles feels sad when her kids ask for brand-name cereals as she can't afford such "luxuries."
Instead of fresh vegetables and cuts of meat, she buys chicken fingers and frozen vegetables. These are the more frugal options at the grocery store.
The 2006 census marks the first time low-income rates were calculated based on after-tax income, a move the agency said more accurately reflects what families have available to spend.
Using the old criteria, before-tax income, there were some 1.2 million children living in poverty in 2005 - relatively unchanged from the 2001 census.
For a family of four in a large city, an income of $38,610 is the cutoff point. The same family in a rural area would be considered low- income at $26,579.
Lars Osberg, an economics professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, said the median income has been flat in Canada since the early 1980s and that at the very bottom of the income distribution the country has "seen really significant cuts to social assistance and social programs."
"Income gains in Canada have been very narrowly concentrated at the top of the distribution," said Osberg. "Most people haven't seen much change in their real income."
While many Canadians think of children living in poverty as an issue in developing countries, for the Canadian children living in poverty the third world seems a lot closer to home.
World Vision is an international development agency but after donors asked about home-grown poverty, the organization took an in-depth look at Canada's poor and decided there was a need for some of their work to be done here.
Their study entitled "Living Below the Line" was based largely on the 2001 census numbers as well as their own research.
Clayton Rowe, with World Vision, said the study found Canada's poor was made up of new immigrants to the country, aboriginal peoples and that the largest group of most vulnerable children came from families headed by single mothers.
He also found 40 per cent of these poor children live in urban centres, such as Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Winnipeg and Vancouver.
"How do you compare poverty in sub-Saharan Africa with poverty in Canada?" Rowe asked, adding that it is difficult to ignore the ones in front of us for the others across the ocean.
He said no matter where they live, children should have the opportunity to be healthy, educated and safe.
So when the economics of a household falls below a certain level, Canadian kids may not necessarily be starving but they go to bed hungry, Rowe said.
He gave the example of people earning the minimum wage in Ontario will not be able to make it out of poverty. He cited the example of a single mom with two children who barely have enough to pay the rent, let alone the child-care issues.
The latest Ontario budget just lifted the minimum wage to $8.75.
Ann Decter is the national coordinator of Campaign 2000, a cross- Canada public movement to build awareness and support for the resolution to end child poverty.
She said politicians made a grand statement to end child poverty, but they didn't talk about the steps needed to be taken in order to achieve that goal.
"Basically there is a complete failure of implementation," she said, adding that Campaign 2000 is trying to push the government to adhere to timetables and targets.
While the federal government has failed to do enough to end this problem, she said some provinces are trying.
Decter mentions Quebec's expansion of affordable childcare, increased child benefits and improved parental leave has resulted in a consistent decline in child poverty rates since 1997.
Decter said Newfoundland has started to bring in changes but it is too early to know if those measures have taken affect.
She says the rest of Canada will have to adopt what has worked in Quebec in order to reduce child poverty.
A 2007 study by UNICEF, "Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries," found that kids in Canada fared better than children in the United States and Britain. But Canada is hardly a leader of the international pack.
The study looked at six measures of child well-being: material, health-safety, education, family-peer, educational, behaviour-risk and subjective.
Twenty-one countries were ranked as to how well they looked after their children.
Overall the Netherlands was ranked in the top spot (4.2) when it came to child well-being. The United States (1
and the United Kingdom (18.2) nearly tied for last place. Canada tied with Greece (11. for a spot in the middle, just above Poland (12.3) but below Germany (11.2).
Source
It isn't all bad! We're a little better than Poland.
Almost 900,000 Canadian children living in poverty, StatsCan finds
Commons was unanimously resolved to eliminate child poverty, Statistics Canada says there are still almost 900,000 children living in the poorest of homes. The latest census numbers released Thursday show that an estimated 879,955 Canadian children are living in low-income households, and that more than a third of these deprived children are in the care of single mothers.
That grim portrait of the country's most vulnerable has changed little in a quarter of century.
In 1980, 20 per cent of pre-schoolers and 18.7 per cent of school-aged children lived in low-income families.
Twenty-five years later, those numbers barely improved to 19.3 per cent and 17 per cent respectively.
J.J. Stiles doesn't exactly fit the typical image of Canada's poor.
The single mother of two girls has a university degree, a diploma in radio and television arts and a certificate to teach English-as-a- second-language. She works in Toronto as an administrative assistant and makes just over $37,000 a year.
Although Statistic Canada's low-income cutoff - Canada's closest equivalent to a poverty line - for a Toronto family of three is $31,801, Stiles comes up against financial difficulties every month.
"Come on. If I'm above the poverty line - you've got to be kidding me, because I am living in poverty," she said.
"The poverty line? I think they need to reassess that."
After rent and groceries, Stiles sometimes finds herself at the end of the month washing clothes by hand and hanging them to dry in the bathtub. She can't go into her purse and find a spare loonie for the laundry, as she simply doesn't have one.
A few months back her daughter needed black pants and black shoes for a school concert. Stiles was unsure where she would get the money. Thankfully her mother offered to buy the new togs.
"I don't have money in my bank. I don't have RRSPs. I don't have any savings. I don't have any extra money to put away for my children, for their school," she said.
"I live paycheque to paycheque."
In 1989, the House of Commons unanimously passed a resolution to eliminate poverty among Canadian children by the year 2000.
Statistics Canada defines low-income families as those who spend at least one-fifth more of their income than the average family on basic necessities such as food, shelter and clothing.
Stiles was lured to Toronto more than a year ago with hopes of a better paying job than the one she had in North Bay, Ont. - where her yearly income was $14,000.
Not only did the move mean a higher income, but she believed it would mean a brighter future for her girls.
Things didn't pan out the way she had envisioned.
Stiles feels sad when her kids ask for brand-name cereals as she can't afford such "luxuries."
Instead of fresh vegetables and cuts of meat, she buys chicken fingers and frozen vegetables. These are the more frugal options at the grocery store.
The 2006 census marks the first time low-income rates were calculated based on after-tax income, a move the agency said more accurately reflects what families have available to spend.
Using the old criteria, before-tax income, there were some 1.2 million children living in poverty in 2005 - relatively unchanged from the 2001 census.
For a family of four in a large city, an income of $38,610 is the cutoff point. The same family in a rural area would be considered low- income at $26,579.
Lars Osberg, an economics professor at Dalhousie University in Halifax, said the median income has been flat in Canada since the early 1980s and that at the very bottom of the income distribution the country has "seen really significant cuts to social assistance and social programs."
"Income gains in Canada have been very narrowly concentrated at the top of the distribution," said Osberg. "Most people haven't seen much change in their real income."
While many Canadians think of children living in poverty as an issue in developing countries, for the Canadian children living in poverty the third world seems a lot closer to home.
World Vision is an international development agency but after donors asked about home-grown poverty, the organization took an in-depth look at Canada's poor and decided there was a need for some of their work to be done here.
Their study entitled "Living Below the Line" was based largely on the 2001 census numbers as well as their own research.
Clayton Rowe, with World Vision, said the study found Canada's poor was made up of new immigrants to the country, aboriginal peoples and that the largest group of most vulnerable children came from families headed by single mothers.
He also found 40 per cent of these poor children live in urban centres, such as Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa, Winnipeg and Vancouver.
"How do you compare poverty in sub-Saharan Africa with poverty in Canada?" Rowe asked, adding that it is difficult to ignore the ones in front of us for the others across the ocean.
He said no matter where they live, children should have the opportunity to be healthy, educated and safe.
So when the economics of a household falls below a certain level, Canadian kids may not necessarily be starving but they go to bed hungry, Rowe said.
He gave the example of people earning the minimum wage in Ontario will not be able to make it out of poverty. He cited the example of a single mom with two children who barely have enough to pay the rent, let alone the child-care issues.
The latest Ontario budget just lifted the minimum wage to $8.75.
Ann Decter is the national coordinator of Campaign 2000, a cross- Canada public movement to build awareness and support for the resolution to end child poverty.
She said politicians made a grand statement to end child poverty, but they didn't talk about the steps needed to be taken in order to achieve that goal.
"Basically there is a complete failure of implementation," she said, adding that Campaign 2000 is trying to push the government to adhere to timetables and targets.
While the federal government has failed to do enough to end this problem, she said some provinces are trying.
Decter mentions Quebec's expansion of affordable childcare, increased child benefits and improved parental leave has resulted in a consistent decline in child poverty rates since 1997.
Decter said Newfoundland has started to bring in changes but it is too early to know if those measures have taken affect.
She says the rest of Canada will have to adopt what has worked in Quebec in order to reduce child poverty.
A 2007 study by UNICEF, "Child poverty in perspective: An overview of child well-being in rich countries," found that kids in Canada fared better than children in the United States and Britain. But Canada is hardly a leader of the international pack.
The study looked at six measures of child well-being: material, health-safety, education, family-peer, educational, behaviour-risk and subjective.
Twenty-one countries were ranked as to how well they looked after their children.
Overall the Netherlands was ranked in the top spot (4.2) when it came to child well-being. The United States (1
and the United Kingdom (18.2) nearly tied for last place. Canada tied with Greece (11. for a spot in the middle, just above Poland (12.3) but below Germany (11.2). Source
It isn't all bad! We're a little better than Poland.
May 1st, 2008, 11:07 AM
My kids live in poverty, and worse, they live as slave labor. Poor brats.
Okay, but, putting on my serious pants. Considering the way that so many Canadians seem to define poverty (most of the people I know who label themselves poor still own computers, tv's, DVD players, buy new clothes, eat meals out), I'm shocked the number isn't higher.
That's not saying that nothing should be done about it, but, I'm surprised it's not higher.
Now, one line in the article which was of particular interest to me... "How do you compare poverty in sub-Saharan Africa with poverty in Canada?" Rowe asked, adding that it is difficult to ignore the ones in front of us for the others across the ocean... it then goes on to explain that many of these kids aren't starving, but they go to bed hungry.
I pay good money, tons of taxes, into social programs that are supposed to help ensure that these kids aren't going to bed hungry, that families are given what they need to survive. If World Vision has decided that they need to divert some of their funds and energies here, it had better be to whip the hell out of those running the social programs and get them off their butts, because World Vision DOES have more pressing issues on their agenda than kids going to bed hungry. The hunger a lot of Canadian kids know is nothing compared to the starvation and death occurring elsewhere (although I know there are probably the rare few).
Whip the social programs back into shape. Demand it. I want my money's worth dammit.
My kids live in poverty, and worse, they live as slave labor. Poor brats.
Okay, but, putting on my serious pants. Considering the way that so many Canadians seem to define poverty (most of the people I know who label themselves poor still own computers, tv's, DVD players, buy new clothes, eat meals out), I'm shocked the number isn't higher.
That's not saying that nothing should be done about it, but, I'm surprised it's not higher.
Now, one line in the article which was of particular interest to me... "How do you compare poverty in sub-Saharan Africa with poverty in Canada?" Rowe asked, adding that it is difficult to ignore the ones in front of us for the others across the ocean... it then goes on to explain that many of these kids aren't starving, but they go to bed hungry.
I pay good money, tons of taxes, into social programs that are supposed to help ensure that these kids aren't going to bed hungry, that families are given what they need to survive. If World Vision has decided that they need to divert some of their funds and energies here, it had better be to whip the hell out of those running the social programs and get them off their butts, because World Vision DOES have more pressing issues on their agenda than kids going to bed hungry. The hunger a lot of Canadian kids know is nothing compared to the starvation and death occurring elsewhere (although I know there are probably the rare few).
Whip the social programs back into shape. Demand it. I want my money's worth dammit.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 666
Location: BC
Location: BC
May 1st, 2008, 11:19 AM
Quoting karrie
I completely agree. Considering the average family world wide lives on two dollars a day I think we have a lot further to fall. Obviously our elite are getting the shaft here. How can we blame them for exporting jobs when we demand more than a sub-Saharan African? I say lower the working age to three and bring back the strap! There is no reason people shouldn't be dying in mines at 12 like the good old days - when an industrialist was king and a commoner knew his place!
My kids live in poverty, and worse, they live as slave labor. Poor brats.
Okay, but, putting on my serious pants. Considering the way that so many Canadians seem to define poverty (most of the people I know who label themselves poor still own computers, tv's, DVD players, buy new clothes, eat meals out), I'm shocked the number isn't higher.
That's not saying that nothing should be done about it, but, I'm surprised it's not higher.
Now, one line in the article which was of particular interest to me... "How do you compare poverty in sub-Saharan Africa with poverty in Canada?" Rowe asked, adding that it is difficult to ignore the ones in front of us for the others across the ocean... it then goes on to explain that many of these kids aren't starving, but they go to bed hungry.
Okay, but, putting on my serious pants. Considering the way that so many Canadians seem to define poverty (most of the people I know who label themselves poor still own computers, tv's, DVD players, buy new clothes, eat meals out), I'm shocked the number isn't higher.
That's not saying that nothing should be done about it, but, I'm surprised it's not higher.
Now, one line in the article which was of particular interest to me... "How do you compare poverty in sub-Saharan Africa with poverty in Canada?" Rowe asked, adding that it is difficult to ignore the ones in front of us for the others across the ocean... it then goes on to explain that many of these kids aren't starving, but they go to bed hungry.
Quoting karrie
Not me. I would like to see less government and fewer taxes. I'm sick of government trying to wipe everyones nose for them. BC just implemented a "green tax" f**king bast**ds!! Meanwhile China and India couldn't care less about the environment. We're really cutting our own throats with this BS.
I pay good money, tons of taxes, into social programs that are supposed to help ensure that these kids aren't going to bed hungry, that families are given what they need to survive. If World Vision has decided that they need to divert some of their funds and energies here, it had better be to whip the hell out of those running the social programs and get them off their butts, because World Vision DOES have more pressing issues on their agenda than kids going to bed hungry. The hunger a lot of Canadian kids know is nothing compared to the starvation and death occurring elsewhere (although I know there are probably the rare few).
Whip the social programs back into shape. Demand it. I want my money's worth dammit.
Whip the social programs back into shape. Demand it. I want my money's worth dammit.
May 1st, 2008, 11:25 AM
Quoting Scott Free
Well, if that's your vision, then you're clearly not agreeing with me.
I completely agree. Considering the average family world wide lives on two dollars a day I think we have a lot further to fall. Obviously our elite are getting the shaft here. How can we blame them for exporting jobs when we demand more than a sub-Saharan African? I say lower the working age to three and bring back the strap! There is no reason people shouldn't be dying in mines at 12 like the good old days - when an industrialist was king and a commoner knew his place!
I would like to see less government and fewer taxes. I'm sick of government trying to wipe everyones nose for them. BC just implemented a "green tax" f**king bast**ds!! Meanwhile China and India couldn't care less about the environment. We're really cutting our own throats with this BS.
I would like to see less government and fewer taxes. I'm sick of government trying to wipe everyones nose for them. BC just implemented a "green tax" f**king bast**ds!! Meanwhile China and India couldn't care less about the environment. We're really cutting our own throats with this BS.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 3,773 
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
May 1st, 2008, 11:32 AM
A lot of the problem is they who pull the strings are they who are so loathe to see their money being given away as "handouts" to the poor - while subsidies for industry and huge buy-out packages for errant CEO's (Ontario Hydro) and fat multiple pensions for ministers of multiple portfolio are perfectly acceptable.
Woof!
A lot of the problem is they who pull the strings are they who are so loathe to see their money being given away as "handouts" to the poor - while subsidies for industry and huge buy-out packages for errant CEO's (Ontario Hydro) and fat multiple pensions for ministers of multiple portfolio are perfectly acceptable.
Woof!
Clever Clogs
Posts: 666
Location: BC
Location: BC
May 1st, 2008, 11:34 AM
Quoting karrie
I was being sarcastic but yeah, your right, I probably don't.
Well, if that's your vision, then you're clearly not agreeing with me.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 666
Location: BC
Location: BC
May 1st, 2008, 11:36 AM
Quoting lone wolf
A lot of the problem is they who pull the strings are they who are so loathe to see their money being given away as "handouts" to the poor - while subsidies for industry and huge buy-out packages for errant CEO's (Ontario Hydro) and fat multiple pensions for ministers of multiple portfolio are perfectly acceptable.
Woof!
Woof!
May 1st, 2008, 11:43 AM
Quoting lone wolf
And that's where I'm angry. We've paid already. And now some international relief organization we give to in order to provide charity for countries in even worse situations, is having to step in and do the job we already paid the government to do? So we're essentially paying twice? Where else in life would we put up with that?
A lot of the problem is they who pull the strings are they who are so loathe to see their money being given away as "handouts" to the poor - while subsidies for industry and huge buy-out packages for errant CEO's (Ontario Hydro) and fat multiple pensions for ministers of multiple portfolio are perfectly acceptable.
Woof!
Woof!
Clever Clogs
Posts: 666
Location: BC
Location: BC
May 1st, 2008, 12:13 PM
Quoting Walter
That's why poor people should be sterilized right?
In Canada it is very often a choice to be poor. Having children when you have very little money or potential to earn money is a very bad choice to make for you and the child.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,412
May 1st, 2008, 12:16 PM
Quoting Scott Free
People need to make wise choices. Do not have children until you can afford to look after them properly.
That's why poor people should be sterilized right?
Clever Clogs
Posts: 666
Location: BC
Location: BC
May 1st, 2008, 12:22 PM
Quoting Walter
So who gets to decide if their choice was right or not? How much money should you have before being allowed to have children?
People need to make wise choices. Do not have children until you can afford to look after them properly.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,412
May 1st, 2008, 12:27 PM
Quoting Scott Free
That is a decision left up to the folks having or not having children.
So who gets to decide if their choice was right or not? How much money should you have before being allowed to have children?
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 3,773
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
May 1st, 2008, 12:31 PM
A choice to be poor.... Moron is a choice too....
Woof!
Quoting Walter
A choice to be poor? I'm sure a money-oriented neanderthal would understand the concept of profit at any cost. Most often, that cost is the incomes of those who can least afford it - like millworkers in a one-industry lumber town or ore processors where raw product is now being shipped offshore in the name of investor greed.... In Canada it is very often a choice to be poor. Having children when you have very little money or potential to earn money is a very bad choice to make for you and the child.
A choice to be poor.... Moron is a choice too....
Woof!
May 1st, 2008, 12:35 PM
That's bull. Not all families start out poor. There are too many unforeseen pitfalls in life to think that abstaining from sex, or aborting any whoopses, is going to be the answer. My hubby and I started out with a lot of money and chose to have two kids. I've gotten sick and am now technically disabled, and if something happened to him, or he left, we'd be screwed. We'd probably end up in the 'poor' bracket too, and the instant someone came and told me to suck it up, my kids shouldn't exist, I think I'd probably take out their teeth with a baseball bat.
Quoting Walter
People need to make wise choices. Do not have children until you can afford to look after them properly.
That's bull. Not all families start out poor. There are too many unforeseen pitfalls in life to think that abstaining from sex, or aborting any whoopses, is going to be the answer. My hubby and I started out with a lot of money and chose to have two kids. I've gotten sick and am now technically disabled, and if something happened to him, or he left, we'd be screwed. We'd probably end up in the 'poor' bracket too, and the instant someone came and told me to suck it up, my kids shouldn't exist, I think I'd probably take out their teeth with a baseball bat.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,412
May 1st, 2008, 12:42 PM
I can only go by my experience. My wife and I waited until we had a house and a secure income before we decided to have children. We also had insurance just in case there was an unforseen circumstance where one of us could no longer earn an income. My wife stayed home to look after the children until they were full-time in school (ie. grade one). It's a matter of choice to have children living in poverty.
I can only go by my experience. My wife and I waited until we had a house and a secure income before we decided to have children. We also had insurance just in case there was an unforseen circumstance where one of us could no longer earn an income. My wife stayed home to look after the children until they were full-time in school (ie. grade one). It's a matter of choice to have children living in poverty.
May 1st, 2008, 12:42 PM
On another (more elitist, jaded) note.... if you look at the issue of 'the poor' having children from the viewpoint of requiring a sustainable country, discouraging them from doing so would be highly detrimental. Investing in food and education for a new generation of children means a future tax base. As it stands, our population is shrinking, and without a new generation of tax payers, our futures would look pretty grim.
On another (more elitist, jaded) note.... if you look at the issue of 'the poor' having children from the viewpoint of requiring a sustainable country, discouraging them from doing so would be highly detrimental. Investing in food and education for a new generation of children means a future tax base. As it stands, our population is shrinking, and without a new generation of tax payers, our futures would look pretty grim.
Clever Clogs
Posts: 666
Location: BC
Location: BC
May 1st, 2008, 12:44 PM
And if you happen to become poor you can always sell them to a workhouse...
Quoting Walter
It's a matter of choice to have children living in poverty.
And if you happen to become poor you can always sell them to a workhouse...
