The Toronto Star reports on Ontario’s new measurement for counting poverty – the Ontario Deprivation Index. According to the new index, there are over 337,000 children living in poverty in Ontario:

One in eight Ontario children live in families that can’t afford fresh fruits and vegetables every day, or can’t afford to replace a broken appliance or share the occasional meal with friends or family.

These are a few of the 10 indicators listed in a new provincial poverty measure called the Ontario Deprivation Index, introduced Wednesday by Children’s Minister Laurel Broten as part of the government’s first annual report on the province’s poverty reduction plan.

The 10 “deprivation indicators” are not intended to be a comprehensive list. Instead, they are a sample of items and activities common to most Ontarians but out of reach for poor households, the report says.

“Fighting poverty means looking beyond income and examining the realities of life for our most disadvantaged families and children,” it says. “The Ontario Deprivation Index is a new measure that tells us how the Poverty Reduction Strategy is ensuring more families can afford a standard of living that many Ontarians take for granted.”

Families not able to afford two or more items from the list are considered to have a “poverty level standard of living,” the government says. This year, 12.5 per cent of Ontario children – or 337,000 kids – were lacking at least two items.

This just goes to show that the McGunity government is, if nothing else, committed to measuring things.  But the real question remains. Will Ontario’s new index for counting poverty lead to more action for ending poverty?  What matters is ending poverty, not simply counting it.

Also, when poverty drops, we should keep in mind that the standard of what counts as “ending poverty” will become stricter.  That’s because “no poverty” means that there is full participation in social, economic and political life, for everyone.  If this standard were being applied today by the governments of Canada (or even by most anti-poverty organizations), our poverty rates would be a lot higher than the more conservative estimates that already send alarm bells all over progressive Canada.

Let’s not forget that ending poverty requires that every economic human right be respected, including that every human rights covenant and treaty entered into by Canada on respecting human rights at home will need to be fully implemented.  We have a lot of work to do if we’re going to live up to our own hopes for ourselves.

From the Coast Reporter… “Child poverty high in province, on Coast“:

And child poverty is a problem on the Coast, as it is across the province and country, said Sarah Pond, who co-ordinates the Success By 6 program which funds early childhood development programs.

“We have fairly high vulnerabilities on the Coast, including the usual suspects of geographic isolation that brings along the whole aspect of poverty with young parents, single parents, lack of connection with extended family — all that kind of stuff,” Pond said.

But locally, she said, there are some strong supports available — particularly for the under-six age group.

“Children don’t develop to their potential if they live within poverty. However, if they’re given support, if their families can access really good drop-ins and programs and get to those programs and they’re offered for free, then the development is boosted,” she said.

And the paper’s editorial “We’ll all pay for child poverty“:

We can continue to turn our heads from the reality of child poverty in B.C. and for that we will reap what we sow in the years to come. Without proper nourishment, which, you guessed it, costs money; there will be even larger demands on our health system. Without proper childcare, because parents are working ungodly hours to survive and there are no babysitters they can afford, we will pay a big price when lonely, unsupervised children resort to illegal acts.

The reason to bring an end to poverty is because all people deserve equal means to achieve their full potential, which is different from saying that people in poverty “don’t develop to their potential.”  Many people who are poor, of all ages, do develop to their full potential. All people can develop to their full potential – even if they were born into poverty.

Social and economic inequities make it harder for some people to achieve their potential, creating barriers and roadblocks that must be overcome. But those barriers can be – and often are – overcome.  Communities of people in poverty play a major role in making this a reality.  The power of communities in poverty to overcome the challenges placed on them by the conditions of poverty should never be underestimated and should not go unrecognized.

I also think it’s a mistake to justify child care programs on the basis of crime reduction benefits.  Children in low-income families are not “future criminals” and should not be characterized as such.  The reasons for providing child care supports to families should instead be based on our shared community values.

When communities care for each other and families are supported we create a society based on the values of equity, justice and love.  The same is true when we develop justice programs that treat everyone with respect, including offenders of the law.  The costs of child care should be justified by how we want children to be treated today, how we want to support families today, how we view and treat all human beings in accordance with our human rights values.

These criticisms aside, the more we cover poverty as a problem and include child care and other publicly funded social measures as part of the solution, the better. We should all be talking about poverty as a first step to building the political power to tackle the economic and political conditions that cause poverty’s continuation.

In a response to a National Post editorial opposing Campaign 2000’s calls for social policies aimed at ending poverty in Canada, Laurel Rothman of the campaign points out that many families in poverty are employed. Here’s what she says in her response to the original editorial:

Thursday’s editorial seemed to imply that supporting the poor is done to the detriment of the rich. Poverty has an impact on us all. A recent study by economist Nate Laurie found that poverty costs Canada at least $30-billion a year. The measures called for by Campaign 2000 are grounded in sound economic thinking. Many economists have demonstrated the cost benefits of public investment in child care, for example, which we strongly endorse. Gordon Cleveland and Michael Krashinsky at the University of Toronto determined that an investment of $1 in a universal, high quality, accessible system of ECEC services for children two to five years of age would yield $2 derived from a combination of benefits for children, parents and society.

Employers who pay their workers poverty-wages are essentially off-loading their expenses onto workers and their families. These businesses are asking the rest of us to hand over our resources for their profits.  This a bad deal not only for workers, but for everyone (other than the employer on the receiving end of the equation). These employers are not only exploiting workers, but are also asking everyone else to subsidize them.  These subsidies come in the form of struggling families and the social costs associated with poverty.

Businesses based on paying workers poverty wages should be eliminated from the economy, so that resources can be freed up and used for supporting more productive sectors and business models.  We should tell businesses to either figure out how to pay workers dignity-wages, or to shut down and make room for those with sustainable business models.

Poverty-based business models are a drag on everyone, and should be viewed as detractors and not contributors to the overall health of the economy. And if the services these companies provide are essential, then the public sector should take over by providing the services as a public good.  That way the costs will be shared by everyone, not only low-wage workers. It’s not fair for a community to off load its essential social services onto low-wage workers.  Public goods should be supported with taxes, so that everyone pays a fair share.  The last thing a community should do is take advantage its most vulnerable workers in order to off-load the true costs of important social programs like child care.  Such a system is totally unfair, going against our shared values as Canadians.

Campaign 2000 is right in reminding policy makers that child care workers, many of whom are either unpaid or paid a poverty-wage, provide an essential social service.  We know that families and children already value this work, given how much time, thought and effort families contribute to the care of their children.  The challenge now is getting politicians and the business sector to reflect this common value. We also already know that quality child care is expensive, and worth the cost. That’s because quality child care contributes to communities, supports the well-being of children and advances equity for women, children and marginalized communities. Child care is a good social investment, well worth the costs. These costs should be shared by everyone, provided in the public interest, controlled by communities, and held to account through democratic oversight.

CCPA’s Policy Note writes today about B.C.’s $8 minimum wage and the calls for it to be raised to $10:

At the BC NDP convention over the weekend, Carole James reiterated calls for a $10 an hour minimum wage. While $10 an hour would certainly be better than the current $8 an hour (lowest in the country), I’m concerned that this campaign is stuck on a round number not what is adequate for improving the livelihoods of the working poor.

I agree with this concern, and not just because $10 an hour is not enough to support a family in Vancouver or in many other communities in B.C. (including the province’s many high expense rural and isolated communities).  Before exploring other reasons why $10 is too low, here is more from Policy Note on why:

CCPA reports have argued in the past that the minimum wage should put someone working full-time, full-year at (and ideally, above) the poverty line (in this case Statistics Canada’s Low Income Cut-Off). The latest stats put the LICO in 2008 at $22,171 (before taxes) for a single person living in a city larger than 500,000 people. This translates into $10.66 an hour for someone working 40 hours per week, and $12.18 per hour for someone working 35 hours per week (based on 52 weeks, assuming some of this is paid vacation). . . . [This means that] the minimum wage should minimally be about $11 per hour, and in Metro Vancouver, closer to $15 per hour. I think I just heard some small business owners spray their coffee across their desks (sorry about that). But the reality is that lots of people making much more than that have difficulty making ends meet; the basic standard for paid work should a wage that allows the working poor not just to survive but participate in society.

A minimum wage of $15 an hour (or any level that’s actually above poverty) would make a substantial difference for child care workers, including daycare workers, preschool teachers, domestic workers and nannies, since many workers in these occupations are paid less than $15 an hour.  It would also make a difference for other child care workers, including the unpaid child care workforce, and also those who are paid a living wage currently.  This is because the minimum wage is about more than just wages.  It’s also about power, respect and human rights security.

A fair minimum wage shifts power in the labour economy back to workers. This in turn protects the rights and interests of all B.C. workers.   Wages of $8, or even $10 an hour, do not reflect the value of the work that low-wage workers provide, which results in a massive transfer of power and wealth up the profit chain.  This transfer of power weakens efforts to extend protections to workers, improve working conditions for workers and ensure that everyone’s human rights are respected.

This not only gets in the way of creating a fair and equitable B.C., but it’s also bad for democracy by tipping the balance of power too much. As child care workers, we already know that our work is worth far more than the low wages paid for what we do.  This gap between value of the work and what we’re paid means that we’re transferring the benefits of our work up the profit and power chain.  This erodes our democracy in many ways, including by concentrating power to those at the top. Everyone benefits when this balance is not tipped in favour of a small number of people whose interests often conflict with the public interest, or the values of the community at large.  Protecting low-wage workers and requiring that nobody work for poverty wages protects the interests of all workers.

Low wages are also part of an overall package of problems facing B.C. workers and families. This package includes poor enforcement of labour standards, lack of access to quality child care for all families, lack of robust social security across the entire life span, lack of universal access to public dental care and phramacare, and inadequate unemployment insurance for many workers. All these factors combine with the pushing down of wages to create a more vulnerable and less powerful workforce.

The minimum wage should be part of how we ensure fairness in the labour market. It should be part of how we eliminate poverty in B.C., part of how we defend labour power, and part of how we advance the dignity of workers.  We should demand a living wage that is above poverty, protects workers, expands the social economy and respects human rights.