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@™