‘to exploitation of landlords,
© Companies, furniture and gro-
Stores. In reference to her own
| al Situation she said, ‘My mar-
Aidn’t work out, my husband and
¥.just unable to get along. This
: artly due to the lack of environ-
_ Poor housing and many other
res. We separated many times,
ach time I would go on public
ice. I didn’t have the money to
wt a divorce.”
> Marand has a large family. In
fation of her own concern and
1 other mothers on welfare, she
7 any of the mothers on welfare
‘Heir problems because their chil-
on learn that at the end of the
they will be short of food. Per-
+ 1S nO wonder that my children
_ hide, or steal small things at
from the grocery store.’ She
she had contemplated suicide
imes,
Stringency of budgeting and
agement in supplementing wel-
sistance with occasional em-
nt was expressed by Mrs. Mel-
the Senate Committee. She
of the inability of welfare reci-
under present welfare stand-
budget even for basic neces-
nd that the system provides no
ve to work. “Under present
Ons,” she said, “welfare per-
te to earn no more than $20 a
If I earn more, my monthly
"Of $212 is cut.”
5 e
‘ave created a welfare system
{helps only a comparatively low
y28e of those who are in need
Which forces men to leave their
_80 that public assistance can
ined, and which has created a
Mce that degrades and leaves
the most essential and mini-
ds of the family.
festitution amidst plenty is
thle.
€ 5 of the Universal Declara-
Human Rights, to which Cana-
Cribes, affirms: “Everyone has
0 a standard of living adequate
i Ith and well-being of himself
his ‘family, including food,
3, housing, ‘and old age, or lack
pau in circumstances beyond
© 25 declares: “Motherhood
Aldhood are entitled to special
assistance,” and. “all children,
born in or out of wedlock,
Oy the same social protection.”
€neral failure of the present
f Public welfare is all too evi-
€ inability of public assistance
at the physical and Psycholo-
-Privation of poverty has the
Tupting effect on family life.
Tession of Poverty is omnipre-
jd affects every action that
1p the Poor man’s way of living.
Sections of the Public con-
express indignation over the
of Welfare, the disturbing
hat relatively few of our coun-
Or are being assisted at all,
those who are being helped
Provided for inadequately. It
ikely that Only one-fifth of the
actually receiving help.
therefore, be deduced that
As of the poor people in Cana-
from the unchecked fury of

scat

the disadvantages of life in- sub-

standard conditions. And if not alrea-
dy living in the poverty level, dread
that they will be forced into it. This
justified assumption is based on the
countless numbers of the  under-
employed, of the low-standard work-
ers, of men and women whose unem-
ployment insurance has_ terminated,
etc.

Raising the standard of public wel-
fare must be a first priority for the
government. Any welfare program ope-
rative must provide a standard of liy-
ing adequate for the health and well-
being of the family and its individuals
—to include food, clothing, housing,
medical care and necessary social ser-
vices, such as day care, family coun-
selling and homemakers’ service. It
must take into consideration and give
the right to security in the event of
unemployment, _ sickness, disability,
widowhood, old age, or lack of liveli-
hood in circumstances beyond one’s
control.

e

The Senate Committee on Poverty
recently wound up 93 public hearings
across Canada. Their conclusions were
a total condemnation of welfare, which
Senator Croll called ‘a mess.”

The impact of poverty startled the
Committee. It estimated there are
4,000,000 “poor” in Canada, 50% of
whom are working. The chairman of
the Senate Committee, Senator Croll
said, “We saw it (poverty) at first
hand in homes. Saw people live in it,
saw them unable to break out of it,”
He termed the Committee’s report,
which he expected would be ready
about Easter time, “a blueprint for a
generation.”

Does Senator Croll accept the afflic-
tion of poverty in Canada for a gene-
ration? Is there not here and now a
solution for the poor in our country?

e

Poverty, to be understood correctly,
is not to be regarded merely as a
passive condition. It does not just fail
to provide the stimulation considered
essential to healthy development, but
actively impairs the well-being of the
individual.

Life under the poverty ‘level means
a life full of physical barriers—from
inadequate nutrition to poor pre-natal
care. The deathly inffuence of poverty
begins at the moment of conception.
Fetal mortality, prematurity and its
most serious consequence, infant mor-
tality, all vary inversely with social,
economic status.

Like poverty and disease, poverty
and poor nutrition are closely associat-
ed. Damage done to the child by his
environment during the reproductive
cycle is liable to be permanent, be-
cause organic in nature. As a result
of poor health, poor nutrition and poor

education, the expectant mother her-
self may be a poor reproductive risk.

Who knows how many women in
‘nancial straits are led, by desperation
because of large families, lack of birth
control information, inability to pay
for doctors’ services and legal limita-
tions, to resort to folk remedies or
mechanical intervention on their own
part to abort a child, the failure of
which permanently impairs it?

When hunger and mulnutrition be-
come a fact of life, when adults and

fo

especially children do not get enough
‘* proper nutrition, when life is car-
r -d on under intolerable conditions of
housing and there are lacks in every-
day living, sickness in many forms
becomes inevitable.

Inadequate nutrition can result in
failure at school or mental retardation.
Research by Mavis Stock in South
‘Africa sustains the thesis that if a
child does not eat enough nutritious
food he will not develop to his full
intellectual capacity.

A study conducted by R. F. Harrell
in the United States verifies the fact
that if an- expectant mother suffers
from an inadequate diet such a condi-
tion can depress the intelligence of the
unborn child.

Anyone who has ever gone without

food can appreciate the pernicious. -

effects that hunger has on concentra-

tion and alertness in the classroom.

Beyond the inadequate income as a
source of poverty and poor health, the
very environment has its negative ef-
fects. Relationships between parents
and children are disturbed. Because the
father is unemployed or cannot earn
enough to support the family, the
mother is often forced to go out to
work, generally on a menial job such
as domestic work. =

Frequently the children are left at
home under the supervision of older
brothers or sisters, or they are left to
take care of themselves in an environ-
ment lacking the facilities for proper
care in kindergartens, day centres, or
constructive after-school programs.
The commonplace dangers that a slum
child faces, such as being nagged by
an adult, or beaten for lunch money
by older boys, become startling re-
alities.

Even when the mother is at home
every day, pressures of poverty condi-
tions affect the mother and child rela-
tionship adversely. The physical and
emotional stress of manipulating a
budget that cannot possibly meet the
needs of her family, of attempting to
clean a home where the plaster is fall-
ing from the ceiling and roaches are
embedded in the walls, and many other
frustrating difficulties, all have de-
vastating effects.

That the general welfare system_as
constituted and operative today has
many failures is all too clear. On its
present basis it fails to combat phy-
sical and psychological needs. It leads
to deprivation associated with poverty,
and it has the most disruptive effects
on family life.

Poverty is primarily a human social
problem of how the fruits of our eco-
nomic system should be shared.

But today, our government’s econo-
mic policies are exploiting Canada’s
natural and potential human resources
to fill the pockets of big business and
monopoly instead of serving the needs
of the Canadian people.

: e

It is noteworthy that for the year

PACIFIC TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, JANUARY 8, 1971—PAGE 7

BOB MINER — 1924

1970 the government has spent a total
of $1,814,057,000 on the defense
budget.

Have we ever estimated that the
standard of assistance could be raised
above the subsistance level, by taking
the amount required from our military
budget and the profits made from our
armaments sales complicity in the war
in Vietnam? :

In an Oct. 24, 1970 Toronto Star in-
terview, a young man whose parents
are on welfare in Montreal pointed out,
“People in our district are dying all
the time because of poor health, poor
food, poor housing and no doctors. But
what do they do about it? They won’t
spend a cent to keep us from dying...”

“About the FLQ business,” he said,
“I don’t believe in kidnapping and mur-
der, but look at it this way: One man
is killed and the whole country is in an
uproar and the government spends
millions of dollars calling out the army.

' At the same time, thousands of people

in Vietnam are killed and nothing is
done about it.”

Can the Canadian government afford
to ignore the needs of the Canadian
people and wastefully expend millions
of dollars of the wealth of our country
on instruments of death and destruc-
tion, while more and more Canadians
are living under conditions of im-
poverishment?

Canadians have the right to ask
these questions—and the Canadian
government has the responsibility to
provide answers.

Why in our “affluent society” are
there, as_ statistics indicate, nearly
20% of all Canadian families, and
40% of individuals on their own, liv-
ing near or below “poverty levels,”
while the affluent in our midst are ac-
cumulating more and more wealth?

More and more Canadians are be-
ginning to realize the danger to their
survival, are despairing for their chil-
dren’s future. People’s movements
throughout Canada are spreading, are
demanding change. Politicians and
policy-makers are being pushed to
consider immediate reforms.

Social action groups are springing
up right across the country, demand-
ing a share in the resources and wealth
of our country. Increasing unemploy-
ment, battered children, defeated fa-
thers, neglect of the aged and of the
rebellious youth are involving growing
numbers of concerned citizens to make
environmental approaches. Effective
citizens’ organizations can result in a
form of participatory democracy where

_ residents of local committees can be-

gin to have some control over im-
portant decisions affecting their lives.
Our government authorities at all
levels, instead of fearing activists,
would be well-advised to pay attention
to the priority needs of Canadians as
expressed by these action groups.

‘

ee