CCPI
Charter Committee on Poverty Issues

Back to INTERNATIONAL HUMAN RIGHTS 

• Introduction
• Overview
•  Workfare
•  Eligibility for Social Assistance and Unemployment Insurance
•  Family Poverty and Child Care
•  Adequate Standard of Living
•  Adequate Food and Clothing
•  Adequate Housing
• Health
•  Education
• Conclusion

The National Anti-Poverty Organization (NAPO) was founded in 1971 at Canada’s nation-wide poor people’s conference. NAPO is a non-partisan, non-profit organization mandated to giving a national voice to low-income Canadians. NAPO is directed by activists working within low-income communities, all of whom have personal experience with poverty. 

We write this submission to the Canadian Government and the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights out of growing concern for the increased poverty and destitution we see in Canada. This submission brings together the work of low-income groups outlining concerns from across the country through personal contact and written submissions. Many of these reports have also been sent directly to Canadian Heritage and the U.N. Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Since May 1993, NAPO, together with the Charter Committee on Poverty Issues, submitted two briefs to the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The first, entitled The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living in a Land of Plenty described, in detail, the plight of people living in poverty in Canada. The second, in May 1995, warned of fundamental legislative changes being undertaken by the Canadian government in areas recognized by the Covenant, namely, the elimination of the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP) and the implementation of the Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST). Since that time the Canadian government has indeed passed legislation eliminating the CAP, and almost all rights for those in need of social assistance, and will proceed with the implementation of the CHST on April, 1, 1996.

The following report is intended to update the Committee on the dramatic changes which have taken place both federally and provincially during the period of May 1993 to April 1, 1996. This report will outline some of the impacts federal and provincial policy decisions have had on the lives of poor people in Canada and provide clear examples where NAPO believes either federal or provincial governments have failed to comply with the Covenant.

 Of particular concern to NAPO is the fact that Canada has not progressed in many of the areas outlined in the Covenant. In fact, in many instances, both federal and provincial governments have taken a backward step in the protection of economic and social rights. We are concerned and wish to address the disturbing fact that the situation in Canada has become increasingly desperate for people living in poverty.

NAPO believes it is important to point out that the Canadian government did not address many of the areas of concern raised by the Committee outlined in a report dated June 5, 1993. Some key examples where NAPO perceives a regression in the area of economic and social rights include:

· In 1993, 21% of Canadian children lived in poverty. In 1994, there was a small decrease to 19.5%. However, as a result of a downturn in the economy in 1995, all indications to date point to an increase in child poverty in 1995. Between 1989 and 1993 child poverty in Canada increased by 55%.

Since we last reported to the Committee in 1993, the official unemployment rate has remained stubbornly high at about the 9 - 10% level, with the unofficial rate estimated to be twice that in some regions of Canada. The unemployment rate for young people age 15 to 24 was almost 16% by the end of 1995. While job creation improved in 1994, limited economic growth, high job loss combined with little job creation, has plagued Canada throughout 1995. Furthermore, economists forecast few economic gains in 1996.

 While NAPO is aware of Canada’s current economic situation, we find that many of the poorest people in our country are bearing the brunt of the dramatic cost-saving measures being instituted by all levels of government. NAPO is concerned that deficit-reducing policy decisions are not solely being made on the basis of fiscal constraint but are in fact targeting the most vulnerable people in Canada. This assault on the poorest in our country has most recently been illustrated in several provinces by a significant reduction of welfare benefits without regard for the real costs of shelter, food, utilities and clothing.

 In 1966, the federal government enacted the Canada Assistance Plan in order to ensure that regardless of the ups and downs of the free market economy the people of Canada would be protected from destitution. The Canada Assistance Plan also provided a basis to challenge government actions in the Courts. Unfortunately, Canada’s commitment to protecting its citizens from destitution and entitling the most vulnerable people to basic social and economic rights ended on February 27,1995. It was then that the Liberal government announced the end of the Canada Assistance Plan and introduced the Canada Health and Social Transfer.

 The announcement in the 1995/96 Budget Speech stated that the cost-shared Canada Assistance Plan and the Established Programs Financing (EPF) fund, established in 1977 to transfer federal funds to the provinces for health care and post-secondary education, were to be replaced in 1996/97 by a block fund entitled the Canada Health and Social Transfer. It was also announced $7 billion would be cut from federal transfers to the provinces through the new block fund by the end of the 1997/98 fiscal year.

 When the Canada Assistance Plan was established 30 years ago it not only financially but philosophically made a clear statement that the Canadian government believed they had a social and economic obligation to help people in need. In order to ensure this the CAP required provinces to uphold several national standards including:

Under the newly legislated Canada Health and Social Transfer the only obligation the provinces must maintain is not to require a period of residence in the province as a condition of eligibility for social assistance.

 Already provinces are challenging the federal government’s commitment and jurisdiction over the CHST. Most recently the Province of British Columbia introduced a residency requirement of three months to deter residents of other provinces from moving to British Columbia and collecting welfare benefits. The government of British Columbia estimates that "In the first nine months of 1995, out-of-province residents joined B.C. welfare rolls at a rate of more than 2,200 a month." As a result, the federal government has withheld a percentage of British Columbia’s transfer payment until the province complies with this requirement. This measure does nothing however to prevent destitution that leaves people stranded on the streets.

 NAPO is concerned both with the dramatic decrease in federal funding and that the federal government has ended its commitment to provide economic and social rights to poor people in Canada. It has been pointed out that by ending CAP this "...alters the federal commitment to the development of universal rights and weakens the ability of the federal government to solve problems related to poverty in Canada." In fact, with this change, provinces have no legal obligation to provide welfare at all. In the past the Canada Assistance Plan has always been part of the argument of how Canada complies with its international obligations.

 The following identifies specific areas and examples where NAPO believes that Canada’s federal and/or provincial governments are not adhering to the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.

Workfare is a policy of compelling people receiving social assistance to "work or train for their welfare". It is usually designated as a criteria for eligibility to receive financial assistance. Under the Canada Assistance Plan workfare was prohibited and eligibility for welfare was only to be based on need. The Canada Health and Social Transfer does not prevent provincial governments from developing and implementing workfare programs. In fact, several provinces including, Alberta, Quebec, and New Brunswick have already implemented some form of workfare in the past few years. Ontario is also committed to implementing a workfare program.

 NAPO understands workfare programs to be in direct violation of Article 6.1 of the United Nations Covenant for Economic, Social and Cultural Rights: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right to work, which includes the right of everyone to the opportunity to gain his living by work which he freely chooses or accepts, and will take appropriate steps to safeguard this right.

 NAPO also believes that workfare programs, by only paying inadequate welfare benefits and not provincial minimum wages, discriminates against the labour of welfare recipients and contravenes Article 7(i) and 7(ii): Fair wages and equal remuneration for work of equal value without distinction of any kind... A decent living for themselves and their families...

 Canada: Evaluations of dozens of U.S. work-for-welfare programs in the 1980’s showed very small differences between those who were forced to participate in job programs and those who did not participate. "Experiments in Canada and the United States typically have ended because they cost more to deliver than they return in "free" output. If the purpose of workfare is not to help recipients, and not to save money, then the only remaining explanation is the most mean-spirited of all; to punish and demean those unfortunate enough to be dependent on the state."

Alberta: "If they don’t take part in the [works] program, unless there is a better alternative or good reason why they’re not, then people should lose their benefits. They will lose their benefits." Alberta Social Services Minister, Mike Cardinal, April 1993.

 Ontario: "We should prepare welfare recipients to return to the workforce by requiring all able bodied recipients - with the exception of single parents with young children - either to work, or to be retrained in return for their benefits."

 Ontario: Working for minimum wage pays poorly, but working for welfare is even worse. Under the new welfare rate system in Ontario, for example, a single employable person working full time (35 hours per week) for his or her benefits will be earning $3.71 an hour. (minimum wage in Ontario is $6.85/hour)

 Furthermore, these initiatives do not alleviate poverty but tend to victimize the poor and provide a large pool of underpaid labour with little health or safety protection. This directly contravenes Article 7(b), which ensures Safe and healthy working conditions;

 New Brunswick: The workfare-type program New Brunswick Works experienced unusually high accident rates, including one drowning.

Canada has a history, spanning most of this century, of providing various forms of unemployment insurance and social assistance to needy Canadians. Programs have ranged from a patchwork of regional relief programs to universal child benefits. Canada’s social security programs have been looked at with envy by many countries and have often been the mainstay of what sets us apart from our U.S. neighbours. In fact, "In 1993, 31% of children in Canada would have been poor without government help - almost one in three children, as opposed to the one in five that are actually poor."

Unfortunately, in recent years Canada’s social programs have been considered justifiable targets for spending cuts as governments try to save money and reduce deficits. In some cases social program spending has actually been blamed for high debts and deficits. However, as evidenced by Statistics Canada in 1991: "Expenditures on social programs did not contribute significantly to the growth of government spending relative to GDP."

 Governments are bringing in stricter eligibility requirements for social assistance programs and unemployment insurance, in some cases not allowing people in genuine need to access economic support. NAPO believes that this contravenes Article 9 of the Covenant: The States Parties to the present Covenant recognize the right of everyone to social security, including social insurance.

 Canada: "Less than half of Canadians without jobs - 49.7% - now qualify for unemployment insurance benefits, down from 83% before the series of cutbacks begun by the Mulroney government and continued by the Chrétien government."

 Alberta: Between March 1993 and August 1994, the adult (social assistance) caseload fell by 54,000 from about 122,000 to 68,000. Only 4,877 of those were placed in jobs.

British Columbia: "The Ministry (of Social Services) expects to save about $35 million a year by clarifying and tightening eligibility guidelines for hardship benefits, a category of emergency assistance for those who do not qualify for regular income assistance."

 Ontario: Between June 1995 and December 1995, 54,887 claimants - representing 103,228 people - stopped getting welfare cheques in Ontario. While the provincial unemployment rate fell slightly in November, to 8.3 per cent from 8.6, only 22,000 jobs were created between June and December 1995. In the same period 6000 fewer people received Unemployment Insurance benefits. This means that a majority of the unemployed did not actually find work but are likely on the streets, in emergency hostels or dependent on others.

 Almost 1.4 million children in Canada now live in poverty, that means one in five of all children are poor. Between 1989 and 1994 the number of children living in poverty in Canada increased by over 300,000. In a country as prosperous as Canada these statistics are appalling. The issue of child poverty in Canada has been well documented. Numerous studies have shown the devastating long-term results of children growing up without proper nutrition, housing and social needs. NAPO understands Canada’s regression in the area of alleviating child and family poverty to be in complete violation of both Article 10 of the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which states that, The widest possible protection and assistance should be accorded to the family..., and Canada’s own 1989 all-party House of Commons resolution to work towards the elimination of child poverty by the year 2000.

 Recent federal and provincial policies have made worse the already bleak situation of child and family poverty. While 1994 saw some progress in this area, much of that has been swept away in 1995 as a result of high unemployment and draconian spending cuts to social programs.

Recently, the federal government announced a scaled-down cost-shared child care program, offering the provinces $720 million in grants over three to five years providing they match the grants. At the same time however, provincial transfer payments for social assistance, health care and post-secondary education are being cut by $7 billion. To date, none of the provinces have offered to match funds. In fact, many of the provinces are cutting costs in the area of child care and are unlikely to take the federal government up on their offer. Obviously, while the federal government knows what steps are necessary to alleviate child and family poverty, it is just as obvious that there is the lack of will to allocate the resources to do it.

 Canada: "...the real deficit we’re facing in this country, is when there are a million children who are living below poverty standards, who often don’t have enough to eat, who are not properly nourished, who get a bad start to life...That’s the real deficit, the real cost, the real waste that’s going on in this country."

 Canada: More than 1.1 million children lived in families needing social assistance at some time in 1994.

 Canada: Canada has licensed full-time child care spaces for approximately 333,000 of the 2.7 million children who need them.

 Canada: "Being born poor also means that children are more likely to face ill health - physical health and emotional health. It means facing a greater risk of death, hospitalization or disability. It means being more likely to have difficulties at school or to have some kind of a mental health problem. Although poverty does not guarantee that a child will have health problems, it is strongly correlated with increased risks of illness. Although our understanding of the links between poverty and ill health is not complete, it is clear that children are vulnerable to the consequences of poverty."

 Alberta: Edmonton youth agencies estimated in 1991 that between two hundred and four hundred youth were homeless, while a Calgary professor interviewed 489 homeless and runaway teenagers in Calgary between April 1992 and November 1993.

 Ontario: In October 1995, the Province of Ontario cut welfare benefits to families, leaving many without adequate shelter or food. The province also cut funding to family violence programs and supportive housing, children’s aid services, existing child care programs, and has threatened to cut subsidized child care throughout the province. All of these measures will have a dramatic and devastating effect on a whole generation of Ontario’s children. As Ontario’s Finance Minister Ernie Eves explained to the press in November 1995 "There will be some human costs..." to the cuts.

Perhaps the area where the Canadian government has been weakest in protecting economic and social rights of the people of Canada is in the areas outlined in Article 11 of the Covenant which recognizes the right of everyone to an adequate standard of living for himself and family, including adequate food, clothing and housing, and to continuous improvement of living conditions. Although the cost-shared Canada Assistance Plan helped to protect the adequacy of social assistance benefits, the provinces have always had jurisdictional power to set welfare rates. Since the Canada Health and Social Transfer has no such stipulation, NAPO fears that provincial governments may choose not to fund welfare services at all. This is not an exaggeration when we see the measures that a number of provinces have taken in recent years in an effort to save costs and lower welfare rolls.

 Canada: In 1994, welfare rates ranged from a low of 24% of the poverty line (Statistics Canada, Low Income Cut-off’s) for a single person in New Brunswick to a high of 80% for a single parent with one child in Ontario. Since that time Ontario has drastically lowered their welfare rates, leaving the poorest people in Canada even poorer.

 Ontario: In October, 1995 the Ontario government cut welfare benefits to all recipients with the exception of people with disabilities by 21.6%. With the high cost of shelter and food in many of Ontario’s urban centres, more families are now homeless and must survive in shelters and go to foodbanks.

 Alberta: In October 1993 the Alberta government cut welfare benefits to single "employable" recipients by 16%. Cuts to single parent families ranged from 7 to 17%, including cutting payments for school supplies and transportation costs for the children of recipients.

 Manitoba: Since 1992, the Manitoba government has cut welfare benefits significantly. These changes include eliminating the special needs category, reducing child care subsidies, reducing prescription drugs covered by social assistance, and eliminating the provincial student assistant program, which was shifted down to the municipal level.

As NAPO documented in their 1993 report to the U.N. Committee, "...hunger is surprisingly widespread in Canada". The situation is worse since that document was submitted. In fact, food bank need and use is greater than ever. The Association of Canadian Food Banks states that,

Alberta: In March 13, 1995 the Edmonton Food Bank - released statistics showing that people in Alberta were using food banks at nearly double the rate of people in the rest of the country.

 Ontario: "In less than two months following welfare rate reductions in the Province of Ontario which affected approximately 1 million people, including 500,000 children, food banks were reporting increases of up to 70%. Since the benefit cuts reduced actual after-rent buying power of most families by as much as 50%, and sometimes more, numbers are expected to at least double across the province by January 1996 when the full impact is felt."

 British Columbia: "In British Columbia, food bank use rose 4% between 1993 and 1994, in spite of a burgeoning economy."

 Saskatchewan: "Out of a coalition of 10 Saskatchewan food banks serving some 20,000 people, only one reported a decline in food bank use - attributed to opening a soup kitchen to serve prepared on-site meals instead of issuing groceries and commodities for home preparation."

 New Brunswick: In a report early in 1995, virtually all New Brunswick food banks noted increases in need.

 Nova Scotia: Food bank use declined in Nova Scotia in 1994 when charitable food donations failed to keep up with demand. Shortage of supplies forced food banks to sharply limit their services. Even so, numbers were 14% higher than they had been two years previously.

In our 1993 Report, NAPO also provided this Committee with widespread evidence of homelessness and inadequate living conditions in Canada. We are disappointed to report that since that time neither federal nor provincial government’s have made significant gains in this area. In fact, the federal government has continued to cut funding in the area of social housing and many provincial government’s are no longer willing to support social housing. This, combined with high unemployment, cuts to Unemployment Insurance and social assistance, has led to record numbers of families finding themselves homeless and in shelters in some of Canada’s largest cities.

 This situation is all the more urgent because of the fact that Canadian winters are extremely cold in most parts of the country, with temperatures often dipping below -25° Celsius. Already this winter, there have been several reports of homeless people in Ontario and Alberta freezing to death. These reports are shocking in a country as wealthy as Canada.

 Canada: It is estimated that in 1993 less than 10% of Canada’s housing stock consisted of non-profit, affordable, social housing. Since that time the federal government has capped social housing funding at approximately $2 billion per year. This funding will be used to maintain existing social housing stock, not build new housing. As housing is under provincial jurisdiction the federal government expects provincial governments to make up any short falls.

Ontario: In July 1995, the newly elected Conservative government in Ontario declared that it was "out of the housing business" and vowed to put an end to rent controls. This government also cancelled 385 social housing projects, an estimated 16,732 units, already initiated throughout the province. This government is reportedly in the process of trying to sell off existing publically-supported housing to the private market.

 Alberta: In the end of February 1995, CBC reported 2,000 homeless on the streets of Calgary.

 Health

Although Canada has had an enviable universal health care system for almost 40 years, studies show that poor people in Canada suffer poorer health than wealthier people. In fact, poverty itself erodes health. Statistics Canada has noted "when examining the health of Canadians at different ages in relation to their socio-economic characteristics, the results were consistent: having a low level of educational attainment, being unemployed, being an unskilled worker or living in a household with a low income were all related to having lower health levels."

 Canada: Mortality rate of infants younger than 28 days old was 1.5 times greater in poorer neighborhoods in Canada. For children ages 28 days to one year the mortality rate for children in poorer neighborhoods rose to two times that of children living in richer areas.

 In recent years Canada’s health care system has been under financial pressure due to cuts in funding by the federal government and subsequent changes to the health care system by provincial governments. These changes will, in turn, mean new limits to access to essential services for poor people. NAPO believes that this contravenes Article 12.1. which endeavors to recognize the right of everyone to the enjoyment of the highest attainable standard of physical and mental health.

Ontario: In November 1995, the Ontario government announced that seniors and social assistance recipients will have to pay a fee for prescriptions previously covered under the provincial drug benefit program. This targets the poorest people in the province.

 Alberta: The federal government has recently withheld health care funding to the Province of Alberta because it has contravened the Canada Health Act by allowing privately-funded, for-profit, clinics to open in the province.

 Furthermore, studies such as The Health of Canada’s Children (1994) by the Canadian Institute of Child Health have found significant evidence to suggest that people living in poverty are more likely to need costly health care in the future.

 Canada: "According to the Ontario Health Survey, one in three children and youth who lived in families that received family benefits (social assistance) have at least one chronic health problem. These children and youth are also more likely to limit their activity due to a health problem. They are more likely to visit a hospital emergency room and are almost twice as likely to be admitted to hospital."

While Canada has enjoyed free elementary and secondary education for many decades, recent changes to federal funding for post-secondary education has meant significant cuts to universities and colleges. Most of these funding cuts are passed on to students through higher tuition fees and larger classes. These changes severely limit the possibility of poor people to obtain post-secondary education and better paid employment following. Again, this is a deterioration of the gains Canada made in the two decades since signing this Covenant.

 Even the Canadian government has acknowledged that the good jobs of the future in Canada will require a minimum of 17 years of education. Increased costs puts low-income people at a distinct and long-term disadvantage. "It is now widely acknowledged that one of the keys to both greater social justice and improved productivity and competitiveness is the development of our human resources. This involves our investment in the knowledge, creativity, skills and motivation of individuals - a critical input without which our technological and economic progress will founder."

 Canada: In 1993, 16.7% of Canadians with less than Grade 9 education were unemployed and the average income of this group was only $16,330 a year. In contrast, Canadians with some secondary and/or post secondary education had an unemployment rate of 12% and an average income of $22,939. Of Canadians with at least one university degree, 5.7% were without jobs and the average income of this group was $40,247.

 Canada: By age 15, only 70% of students from poor backgrounds in Montreal had reached their appropriate academic level in school.  

In some provinces early childhood education is also suffering from cuts. This appears to be incredibly short-sighted as growing evidence suggests that early childhood education is both highly beneficial to the child and cost-effective. Fraser Mustard of the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research confirms "...that there is no better social investment than an early investment in children. fiscally the cost of early investment is minimal compared to the cost of intervention later on."

 Canada: Canada is becoming increasingly dependent on computers and computer literacy will be a key to employment for today’s children. However, "in 1995 the richest 20% of households were four times more likely to have a computer than the poorest." 52.6% of the richest households compared to 11.9% of the poorest.

 Alberta: In 1993 Alberta cut funding to kindergarten by 50%.

 Ontario: In 1995 Ontario proposed a plan to eliminate funding for junior kindergarten.

In conclusion, NAPO believes that these examples demonstrate that the Canada has not adhered to many aspects of the Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. In particular, this evidence shows clearly that Canada has not complied with Article 2.1 of the Covenant which states:

Furthermore, the Canadian government has apparently overlooked the areas of concern and recommendations outlined by the U.N. Committee in 1993. The one exception being the reinstatement of the Court Challenges Program. However, because this is a federal program and not applicable to provincial jurisdictions it is unclear whether this important program will really aid low-income and marginalized Canadians in effectively asserting their economic and social rights. It is of particular concern at this time because of growing pressure for the federal government to hand over more jurisdictional power to the provinces for such programs as housing, social assistance, training, education and health care.

 With this one small exception however, Canada’s record on economic and social rights has been in a state of decline since we last reported to this Committee in 1993. In light of this NAPO strongly recommends that the Government of Canada implements the following measures:

HOME