POVERTY

our social blight

By ETHEL OSTRY

Canada is the second largest land
mass in the world, with immense po-
tential natural resources. Our produc-
tive capacity enables us to boast of
sharing fourth place in the world’in per
capita income. Canada is in the posi-
tion of having the fortunate combina-
tion of great natural resources and the
economic asset of potential human re-
sources. And yet, Canada today has
the highest rate of unemployment
among the industrially advanced na-
tions.

Why is this so?

The responsibility for this most seri-
ous state of affairs is the result of our
government’s economic and social poli-
cies on unemployment and _ inflation,
policies which fail to give priority to
the needs of the Canadian people and
which serve to make the rich richer
and the poor poorer.

Canadians are today facing the most
severe unemployment crisis since the
Great Depression of the 1930s. This is

the estimate of economists in govern-

ment, trade unions and universities as
they assess Canada’s economic posi-
tion in the third winter of the Trudeau
administration. They estimate that one
of every 10 workers in Canada’s labor
force of 8,400,000 is expected to be out
of a job when winter unemployment
is at its peak. Vast numbers of men
and women and their families face a
cruel and bitter struggle for their sur-
vival in the months ahead.

Unemployment has excluded from
the main stream of productive and so-
cial life an increasing number of men,
women and youth in all strata of our
society today. Physical hardships, frus-
tration, growing feelings of hopeless-
ness and of social tension are shared
by both the skilled and unskilled work-
ers, the educated and the less-educated
in our society. The hardest hit by the
unemployment situation are the blue-
collar workers — 29%. They are over
25 years of age, married and with
children. ;

In the depressed regions of Canada
the outlook for employment is espe-
cially gloomy. Quebec has the highest
unemployment, accounting for 41% of
all jobless in Canada. In the Atlantic
provinces unemployment is expected
to reach 18% of the Maritimes labor
force.

The facts indicate that the present
way of life for masses of Canadian
working people is at, or below the
poverty line. The Economic Council
of Canada says that four out of every
10 Canadian families are poor — that
is, those who must spend 70% of their
income for the basic needs of food,
clothing and shelter. A non-farm fam-
ily of four is poor if they have to live
on less than about $4,200 a year.

According to present figures there
are 1,380,000 persons in Canada living
on less than $1,000 a year; 22% of
Canadians live on less than $3,000.
Over two-thirds of the labor force in
Canada receive less than $5,000 a year.

Since the figures of the fixed poverty
line were released they have been se-
verely eroded by the monopolies’ and
the government’s inflationary policies
responsible for the rising cost of liv-
ing. This is creating havoc in family
life, untold hardships and sufferings.

The Economic Council of Canada’s
findings show that there are as many
as 6,500,000 Canadians living below
the level declared as the minimum for
4 decent standard of living. Half of
ntreal’s wage earners make less

PRAIRIE FIRE

than $3,500 a year. The number of
people on welfare rolls are increasing
drastically, and perpetuation of their
plight is becoming a social blight.

The Canadian government must
create jobs as the first priority for the
people. Poverty can’t be overcome
without full employment.

@

To meet the priority needs of Cana-
dians, the government must undertake
a program to build 250,000 low-cost
homes, and expand hospital, educa-
tional and recreational facilities. Day
care centres for children are an immed-
iate necessity.

Lack of housing is threatening the
health and well-being of the people
and engendering a spirit of hopeless-
ness and despair. The Ontario Housing
Corporation reports there are now
over 22,000 applications for housing in
Metro-Toronto alone. More than 4,000
Metro-Toronto citizens are on the wait-
ing list, most of them elderly. A
countless number of homeless are
flooding the hostels, seeking meals
and sleeping on floors.

In Montreal, Canada’s largest city,
only 3,000 public housing units have
been built in 10 years, while more than
200,000 people need new or improved
low-cost housing. Mayor Drapeau’s
plans for the Olympic Games show de-
liberate preference for sporting facades
at the expense of the Montreal poor.
Thirty percent of Montreal slum area
dwellings have neither bath nor show-
er. It is no wonder that surveys indi-

~ TRIBUNE—FRIDAY, JANUARY 8, 1971—PAGE 6

‘cate that only a small minority of adult

welfare recipients are healthy enough
to work.
e

To effect a general war on poverty
and to guarantee a decent standard of

‘living for all Canadians, employed or

unemployed, a guaranteed annual in-
come will be a stabilizing factor in
family life and the security of the
home. Such a move is regarded as
essential, and is recommended by the
Senate Committee on Poverty and
supported by the trade union move-
ment.

Increased pensions and family allow-
ances, with.a cest of living adjust-
ment, are a necessity for people on
fixed incomes. :

Failure of the government to set a
minimum wage that would sustain in-
come on a higher, level is victimizing
the workers. A glance at a few of the
statistics of wage levels in Canada re-
veals these facts: 92% of all employ-
ees in hotels earn less than $2.00 an
hour, and 74.5% of them earn less than
$1.50 hourly. In the retail trade, 2/3
of all employees in rubber, footwear,
cotton wear and cloth, woolen and
knitting mills, clothing, retail trade,
laundries, hotels and restaurants, earn
less than $2.00 an hour.

The Canadian government needs to
take heed of the recommendations of
its economists and raise the minimum
wage to $2.50. an hour.

Low minimum wage penalizes wo-
men workers especially. The Senate
Committee on Poverty’s Interim Re-
port states: “We studied the females
who became heads of the family be-
cause of desertion, divorce, death and
detention and these we called the ‘Four
D’s.’ There are 160,000 of them in Cana-
da with 350,000 dependants.” The in-
come of these female heads of families is
adversely affected by the present mini-
mum wage levels, as women workers
in their majority are employed in the
lowest paid sectors of our economy.
In 1967 the average income of women
who are sole supporters of families
was $2,536, while for men it was
$5,821.

The family is the most common
economic unit in our society, it must
be a producing unit. The adults in the
family must be enabled to participate
in the labor force currently and have
the opportunity to prepare their chil-
dren to do so in the future.

Instead of fulfilling the need to make
participation a possibility for the Can-
adian people, our government institut-
ed and perpetuates a public welfare
system for those who are obliged to
resort to some form of assistance for
their survival. A welfare system which,
instead of being dedicated to eradicat-
ing poverty, seems designed to per-
petuate a standard of living below the
poverty level for more and more Can-
adians. Two million of our people are
living on some form of social assist-
ance already, entirely dependent on
the poverty level at which it is set.

Health and welfare services are to-
tally inadequate, and are pared to the
provincial grant made by the federal
government. This means that the
poorer provinces have to give lower
benefits, not only because they do not
have the funds, but because they have
a greater number of people in need of
relief.

For example, a welfare family of
four in Montreal receives $175 a
month. In Toronto the same family

Ethel Ostrey, the writer of this [>
article is a professional social work- }a
er with over 25 years of experience |
in public and private social agen- jir
cies in Winnipeg, Montreal and To- [2
ronto, and in the province of |i
Saskatchewan. She served with the fir
United Nations Relief and Rehabili- |)
tation Administration in Germany fja
from early 1945 for four years in |f
the rehabilitation of survivors of |)
Nazi concentration camps. h

would receive up to $330. It is to be
noted that there has been no increase {
in Montreal welfare allowances since 3}
1962, and that during these eight years ¢;
allowances have been cut at least 20%
by the increased cost of living. iy:

Our public assistance program call(s
best be described in terms of two self-3r
perpetuating structures: First, the s0-D
cial service bureaucracy concerned 0
with its own survival and operating 1
with machinery designed to act slow’)
ly, if at all. Second, the development a:
of a sub-culture of poverty, increas Vv
ingly dependent on welfare, and forced ic
by necessity to adapt its life-style t0le
the demand of. the welfare system,
producing an unhealthy overall en «
vironment for those in need.

@ h

What are some of the policies an k
practices of our public welfare system? vl

Application for welfare immediately
puts the family into a poverty position.” .
The investigation of assets before afl
applicant can be accepted into the syS
tem is destructive and humiliating.
Applicants who are refused assistancé
are simply inividuals whose income at.
the time exceeds the eligibility stand le
ards, but falls below the federal policy |
level. g
Many other applicants for assistancé t
fall victim to the stringent require- lt
ments of the province where they ap:
ply. The problem is especially troubles,
some for workers who move. about. 1%
search of work, leaving their families)
behind, or moving their families with
them. Residency regulations also pre 7),
sent difficulties for people newly al
rived in urban areas, and even for pe
ple who change their residence withifl fic
the municipal level. Re

Also problematic is the division of %,
the bulk of public assistance ihto rigi@},
categories of eligibility. Because of
this rigid division, there is refusal 4
assistance to needy unemployed adult§;.,
under 65, and to most incapacitate@,,,
adults who are not considered pel4,
manently and totally disabled. Thes®},
latter often are classed as “suitable
for light employment,” presumably e*,
pected to find work and to be self
supporting. There are others who may 4,
be classified by default as employable},
All these, welfare fails to reach. tt

At times, the circumstances undél,
which welfare is granted—such as ab qj)
sence of a father from the home aS #3
stipulation of eligibility are devastah,
ing to the family unit and damaging hs
the child. Yet, this premise is the bas!@y
stipulation of eligibility, in return fo%
a minimum amount of economic secul”
ity in the home.

Once accepted into the welfare sy
tem, the financial help finally grantet
is so inadequate that while it may su
ceed in sustaining life, it achiev
almost nothing in the way of ameli@
rating the hardships of poverty. TH
humiliating experience and loss %|
morale of those in receipt of it is d@%
vastating to the family and its indly
vidual members. z

e@

The poverty level standard, Ut
hardships and humiliations it engendel® :
were well illustrated in two cases t
Senate Committee on Poverty heard
Winnipeg. Mrs. Simone Marand @
Mrs. Marilyn Melnyk both spoke abo¥™
the stigma of living in welfare. 2

Mrs. Marand is reported to have.
told the Senators that being “a W
fare recipient” is a degrading and d
humanizing experience. She explain@).
that the welfare stigma leaves the P@™