Vibrant Communities Calgary

* The following is a letter to the editor (Calgary Herald) from Susan Brooke and Joe Ceci of Calgary Social Workers for Social Justice

Re: Pay Day, Increasing minimum wage won’t help Alberta’s poor - editorial Calgary Herald, September 10, 2012

The recent Herald editorial missed the mark when it concentrated largely on the specifics of those earning minimum wage rather than considering the lot of all low-wage workers in our province. The editorial also selectively trotted out the old clichés about the demographics of minimum wage earners, failing to recognize the fact that many of these workers are not simply youth working for pocket money or job experience. Many minimum wage earners are over the age of 25, and working to support their families. The minimum wage certainly has a gender dimension too. Overall, though, minimum wage or not, the evidence suggests that wages by themselves are no guarantee that working people will not face the social exclusions caused by the daily grind of poverty.

Therefore, if we are to deal with poverty we need to address it in a comprehensive manner. Certainly, wages have a necessary place in this broad ranging approach. However so do adequate childcare, affordable housing, income replacement programs and job re-training. Simply put, the elimination of poverty requires a combination of approaches if it is to be successful and sustainable.

Finally, while minimum wage may be paid to less than two percent of Albertans they are our fellow citizens and are deserving of social policy and economic respect.

 

*The following is a guest post from Timothy Wild, RSW

Recently Dan Meades, the urbane, brilliant and generally witty Executive Director of Vibrant Communities Calgary, was taken to task by the editorial board of The Calgary Herald for his suggestion that the risible September increase in Alberta’s minimum wage would not “have an impact on poverty rates in the province”.  The Herald, following their typical free market ideological line, suggested that Alberta’s workers have the “highest income in the nation” and that only 2% of working Albertans worked for the minimum wage, adding that many of that particular cohort of low paid workers were young people working for job experience and / or pocket money.  As if 2% of the population isn’t worthy of attention…but ironically, on the other hand, the economic wellbeing and ongoing enrichment of the 1% is! Anyway, to back up this assertion, the almost daily newspaper quoted a representative of Alberta Human Services who suggested “a lot of minimum wage earners are young dependents, living at home, working at the mall”.  Overall, The Herald cautioned its gentle readers that a meaningful increase in the minimum wage would lead to job loss and fewer opportunities. It would not lead to a reduction in poverty in our province. Yawn!

Sadly, the content, direction and thrust of the editorial are hardly surprising. But once again the piece about the minimum wage failed to put the issue into a meaningful context.  It also downplayed the demographic profile of minimum wage earners.  For example, more than 50% of people working for minimum wage are over the age of 25, and many of these workers are women employed in the service sector of the economy, enjoying few – if any – benefits. And if you do actually go to “the mall”, look at the workers in the food courts (especially the people cleaning the tables and mopping the floors).  There you will see the older, female and New Canadian face of the service economy.  Chat with them as I have and you will find that many of these workers are trying to meet the daily basic costs of living – food, shelter and clothing. That, my friends, is the face of the 2% that is so cavalierly dismissed by the newspaper and the provincial government.

Furthermore, it bears emphasizing that minimum wage earners are just one section of a wide array of lower paid members of the postindustrial working class who fail to earn a decent / viable wage.  Even the Living Wage only aspires to bring wages up to the equivalent of a poverty level income for a single person; the adequacy of the income for a family is not even a consideration.  All told the legitimate concerns surrounding the practicality and functionality of the minimum wage reflect just the tip of the low-wage iceberg. But the editorialists of The Calgary Herald dismissed (or, I will be generous, overlooked) these legitimate concerns and broader public policy dimensions.

I guess the basic point is that ideology aside full-time employment is no guarantee of meaningful social inclusion. Wages themselves are no guarantee that workers and their families will not experience the bitter sting of preventable poverty.  Minimum wages, Living Wages and wages even slightly above Statistics Canada’s Low Income Cut Off lines (but below the incomes suggested by the more realistic Core Needs Income Thresholds) are no guarantee that the worker and her family will be able to participate meaningfully in society. 

But what could guarantee this inclusion, choices and participation?  Well, decent wages can certainly be an important part but they have to be aggregated as just one part of a comprehensive poverty elimination strategy. Income from employment must be augmented with, for example, accessible quality and affordable childcare, educational opportunities for people of all ages, job retraining schemes and the provision of affordable housing.  And for those unable to participate in the traditional work-income nexus, there must be adequate programs of income replacement such as AISH, EI and WCB. That is how wages fit with the development of a comprehensive social policy framework aimed at eliminating poverty. It can be done; we just have to show the political will.

When it comes right down to it, it may be “just” 2% of the workforce.  It may “only” be 30,000 or so workers. But I don’t actually care about the actual numbers.  I am more interested in justice for each and every Albertan, because when it comes right down to it – as the phrase goes – “an injury to one is an injury to all”.

Vibrant Communities Calgary is in favour of secondary suites across Calgary and we have been very vocal in our support. The result of this vocal endorsement of an important policy decision has prompted many people to get in touch with VCC about secondary suites in their neighbourhoods.

The majority of citizens who have contacted VCC have been in support of suites; this is no surprise as every survey conducted indicates that an overwhelming number of Calgarians are in favour. We also heard from people who are firmly opposed to legalizing secondary suites in their neighbourhoods; it was great to hear from people who are opposed as the entrenchment on this issue had us baffled. The staunch attitudes were particularly difficult to comprehend after attending the public hearing at committee where not only support for suites was overwhelming but so was the evidence in favour of secondary suites.

Publicly, we have all heard the arguments against secondary suites – parking, property value, higher density stressing infrastructure – and systematically these concerns have been disproven with evidence. Out of the public eye, the concerns take on a different approach and one that compels me to shed some light on the root of the opposition.

Behind closed doors, we hear opponents to secondary suites tell us that they have worked hard to be able to afford a home in their R1 zoned neighbourhoods and that they do not want to have to put up with the perceived problems that secondary suite renters bring with them. It can be true that people who rent do so because they cannot afford to purchase a home and it is also true that some renters may be living in low-income. One is not hard-pressed to reach the conclusion that the root of the secondary suites issue lies here - people opposed to secondary suites are telling us that they should not need to live near people that have been less fortunate and are potentially living in poverty.

This kind of thinking is a dangerous path to follow for a city. Would we tell any other group of people in this city that they are not welcome in certain areas? Sorry… you may not live in that neighbourhood, your kind is not welcome.

If this is indeed the case, that people do not want secondary suites made legal in their neighbourhoods because they do not want to allow people living in poverty in their neighbourhoods, then we have some very tough questions to ask ourselves: is Calgary the sort of city that responds to rhetoric and unsubstantiated fear or is it a city that relies on facts and evidence to make decisions?

I believe in Calgarians. We will not buy into antiquated and elitist thinking – Calgary is a city that embraces diversity and inclusivity and I retain the hope that we will collectively stand against attitudes and decisions that push us in any other direction.

Saying no to secondary suites won’t address the root cause of the problem. I leave you with this thought, if you don’t want people living in poverty in your neighbourhood I say great - lets work together to end poverty.

Vibrant Communities Calgary is a non-profit organization that works collaboratively with various stakeholders and partners, seeking to engage Calgarians and to advocate for long-term strategies that address the root causes of poverty in Calgary.  For more information on this initiative or Vibrant Communities Calgary, visit www.vibrantcalgary.com.

*updated post from September 8
 
The leadership race began with the first ballot September 17 (narrowing the field to the top 3) and continues with the second ballot on October 1. We know that many of you plan to vote on October 1 and that you care about reducing poverty in the province. We are re-posting responses about a poverty reduction strategy from the 3 top candidates in the race to help inform your decision.
 
In Calgary on Wednesday, September 8 at the Progressive Conservative leadership forum, candidates vying for the job of Alberta’s next premier, at least until the next provincial election, were asked the following:  “Many of you have failed to commit to implementing a Provincial Poverty Reduction Strategy; what do you say to the 400,000 Albertans currently living in poverty who need your help?”
 
We have drafted our ideal response to the question above and have summarized the candidates’ responses below. You can also watch the video from the forum; the Poverty Reduction Strategy question and responses start at 123:25.
 
When we compare about our ideal response with the candidates’ responses, there was a clear difference among the candidates. No one gave a perfect answer of course but it was clear that some are closer than others to grasping the urgency and importance of implementing a poverty reduction strategy for the province. We hope that this has been helpful in illuminating where the candidates stand on poverty reduction in the province and that it is helpful in your decision-making.
 
Elements of our ideal response would contain all of the following:

• Commitment to a Provincial Poverty Reduction Strategy that addresses the root causes of poverty
• Recognition that an effective strategy must be developed in consultation –particularly with people experiencing poverty
• An understanding that a collaborative approach to reducing poverty – working across ministries and including the non-profit sector and the for-profit sector – is the best way to tackle the problem
• A commitment to collaborate with municipalities on reducing poverty
• Reference to a funding commitment from the provincial government
• Knowledge that poverty affects some groups disproportionately: new immigrants, single moms, First Nations, and persons with disabilities
• Acknowledgement that reducing poverty is an investment in our province and its people that generates a return
• A clear statement that in a province as wealthy as Alberta, 400,000 people in poverty in unacceptable

Candidates’ Responses In Order they Answered:

Gary Mar:

Mar suggested that we can create employability and circumstances where people can be on medications for mental illness and substance abuse, IF they have homes. “You can’t deal with the issue of poverty until you deal with some core issues like homelessness.” Mar then focused his comments on the Aboriginal population indicating that they lead in many areas that they do not want to, including poverty. 

Allison Redford:

Redford committed a succinct “yes” to a poverty reduction strategy as a very specific policy that has been adopted by every other province. She indicated that a poverty reduction strategy helps government think differently about social policy to ensure we are reducing poverty for people living in poverty. She sees importance in integrated planning around housing, education, mental illness, addictions and the justice system.  She concluded her comments by saying “lets not be afraid to call it…a poverty reduction strategy and I am committed to that”.

Doug Horner:

Horner says that a poverty reduction strategy needs to be adopted by all departments of government to stop silo thinking in the same way that was done with the Homelessness strategy.  He also indicated that it is not enough that “we just put in a home” – the government needs to implement an Alberta Mental Health Strategy and to ensure that there are opportunities for training and education that are properly resourced so that we maximize the return.

By: Cesar Agudelo

When I was in school one of my biggest worries was fitting in and that involved asking my parents for the latest fashion items and the coolest backpack. At the time, it seemed like the biggest disappointment to hear my parents say “no, we can’t afford that, don’t worry about the other kids, all you have to worry about is doing well in school.”  Year after year all my basic school needs were met. I know now how lucky I was and that my stress was nothing compared to the stress that my parents went through during back to school shopping.
 
 In Alberta, the richest province in one of the richest nations (one that has survived the economic downturn largely unscathed) is home to many students who can’t worry solely about school. These are students living in households with parents who work for poverty wages. And, unlik3e me who complained needlessly, these kids have to silently endure not having what others have.
 
Maria, mother of three, immigrated from Peru. Her actions speak for themselves: she works full-time and studies full-time, raises three children and is adapting to Canada. Her husband, Victor, also contributes with part-time work and part-time studies, and is learning a new language, English.  This dynamic, studious duo of dedicated parents is something to admire.
 
But they can’t save for their future. They are not prepared for unforeseen circumstances.

Back to school, to them, means number crunching.
 
Back to school is one of the most expensive seasons for any family. Gone are the days when schools provided students with all the resources. Now, parents are either given a supply list or they come up with one of their own. But as frugal and money conscious as parents may be, the bill can still add up to an uncomfortable amount.
 
Based on the supply list for a grade 3 student in a Catholic school in the NE, school materials alone cost $103.10 per student. Based on another list from a public school, the cost of supplies can be $113.
 
Add to that the need for new clothes – kids grow fast, you see – and that’s $125 for one pair of jeans, an eight pack of underwear, a five pack of socks, three t-shirts, one fall coat, one pair of outdoor runners and a back pack.
 
Without asking for anything fancy, a kid’s basic school needs can cost over two hundred dollars. Add to that school fees and character building activities like band and sports, and you could be looking at five hundred dollars for one child.
 
For a family like Maria’s, five hundred dollars is not a small amount and definitely not something to be disposed of as casually as buying an upgraded version of your current iPhone. The well educated, hard-working full-time employee/full-time student can barely muster $3,000 a month, even with the combined income of her husband and the Child Tax Benefit.  Her disposable income after rent, food, credit card, internet and public transit, is a mere $505 that she somehow has to distribute among her three children’s school needs, one of which is in the school band. She can’t even afford to buy the grocery products sold at her work.
 
Luckily for Maria and her family, there is help. One of the schools her children attend provides them with most materials and sometimes with clothes. Sometimes, and at the discretion of the school principal, the fees may be waived. Calgary also boasts a healthy service sector full of charities that give families such as Maria’s a helping hand. Yet, all the help and assistance doesn’t take away the fact that Maria cannot save for her family’s future or for an unforeseen circumstances.
 
The ability to save for the future is more than building toward your dream retirement; it means being able to handle whatever the future throws at you: braces for the children, eye ware, accidents, emergency trips, etc. The power to survive unforeseen circumstances without being worse off at the end can mean the difference between poverty and extreme poverty, a home and homelessness.
 
These are the basic numbers and issues faced by Maria and other families working for poverty wages. And these numbers don’t tell the full story. Hard-working parents in Calgary and Alberta often juggle to find quality time for their children. Sometimes they feel the pressure of circumstances out of their control; in Maria’s case, the gentrification of her neighbourhood, Bowness. Regular working families always face a complex web of needs and outside forces that put a strain on their finances and their families. Maria and her husband struggle because they don’t make a Living Wage. If they did, the picture would look a lot different; for one, it would be less stressful.
 
“My husband and I try to keep the stress over money away from the children, but we know it affects them,” says Maria. What can be done to provide her with financial stability? She could get a second job, but then she can’t study, thus ruining her chances of upward mobility, let alone quality time with her family.
 
Whatever the solution, Maria’s is an example of how poverty wages can put a family in danger of extreme poverty and the children in a stressful environment.
 
Awareness of what families on poverty wages go through should raise more than sympathy, it should prompt us to find reasonable solutions and take meaningful action. Initiatives such as the “Living Wage” advocated by Vibrant Communities Calgary aims to find permanent, meaningful and empowering solutions for Calgary’s working poor.
 
In an era of government cutbacks we can hardly expect schools to again foot the bill for supplies. Charities don’t seem to be a permanent solution either. Education is a powerful enabler, but to get it you need time and money, two things in short supply for people on poverty wages. Other services to help people in need come from the taxpayers’ pockets. In essence, paying a poverty wage is forcing a whole community to cover the cost of poverty.
 
People like Maria obviously have what it takes to succeed and she knows it. That is why she works hard and studies at the same time. Perhaps the answer lies within her; the solution is in the people going through the hardships. All that Calgary needs to do is give them the tools.
 
Vibrant Communities Calgary believes in the strength and power of people. We know for a fact that the people who struggle are not lazy, don’t lack the will, and work hard for their futures and their families. In short, they practice the values that make a city like Calgary so great. However, despite their efforts, they don’t have the financial tools to get ahead.
 
Enter Living Wage. In Calgary a Living Wage means $12.50 with benefits and $13.75 without. By having businesses as Living Wage Leaders and with the City of Calgary adopting Living Wage policies, we can ensure that hard-working families like Maria’s have the power to comfortably cover school costs, continuing education, and basic necessities.
 
Paying the Living Wage alone won’t completely insulate families from unforeseen circumstances, but it does mean they have more room to manoeuvre, and that can make all the difference. This in turn reduces how much taxpayers have to pay for poverty related issues such as homelessness and crime. 
 
By leading the way with Living Wages, businesses and governments can greatly contribute to reducing the ills that come with poverty, and hopefully take us to a future where children do a lot more needless complaining which parents can safely ignore knowing that all their basic needs are covered.
 
A future where parents can confidently tell their children, “Stop that! Now, go back to your school work. It’s the only thing that you should worry about. “
 
Cesar Agudelo
Living Wage Action Team

In Calgary on Wednesday night at the Progressive Conservative leadership forum, candidates vying for the job of Alberta’s next premier, at least until the next provincial election, were asked the following:  “Many of you have failed to commit to implementing a Provincial Poverty Reduction Strategy; what do you say to the 400,000 Albertans currently living in poverty who need your help?”
 
The leadership race is coming to a close soon, with the vote on September 17 and we know that many of you plan to vote for the next leader of the party and that you care about reducing poverty in the province; in order to help inform your decision, we have drafted our ideal response to the question above and have summarized the candidates’ responses below. You can also watch the video from Wednesday night; the Poverty Reduction Strategy question and responses start at 123:25.
 
When we compare about our ideal response with the candidates’ responses, there was a clear difference among the candidates. No one gave a perfect answer of course but it was clear that some are closer than others to grasping the urgency and importance of implementing a poverty reduction strategy for the province. We hope that this has been helpful in illuminating where the candidates stand on poverty reduction in the province and that it is helpful in your decision-making.
 
Elements of our ideal response would contain all of the following:

• Commitment to a Provincial Poverty Reduction Strategy that addresses the root causes of poverty.
• Recognition that an effective strategy must be developed in consultation – particularly with people experiencing poverty.
• An understanding that a collaborative approach to reducing poverty – working across ministries and including the non-profit sector and the for-profit sector – is the best way to tackle the problem.
• A commitment to collaborate with municipalities on reducing poverty.
• Reference to a funding commitment from the provincial government.
• Knowledge that poverty affects some groups disproportionately: new immigrants, single moms, First Nations, and persons with disabilities.
• Demonstrated understanding that poverty is a root cause of homelessness.
• Acknowledgement that reducing poverty is an investment in our province and its people that generates a return.
• A clear statement that in a province as wealthy as Alberta, 400,000 people in poverty in unacceptable.

Candidates’ Responses In Order they Answered:

Gary Mar:
Mar suggested that we can create employability and circumstances where people can be on medications for mental illness and substance abuse, IF they have homes. “You can’t deal with the issue of poverty until you deal with some core issues like homelessness.” Mar then focused his comments on the Aboriginal population indicating that they lead in many areas that they do not want to, including poverty. 
 
Rick Orman:
Orman believes that it is incumbent on government to continue to support the Homeless Foundations in Calgary and Edmonton.  As Premier, Orman would bring Aboriginal Affairs into the premier’s office as a Secretariat, to address poverty, homelessness, and joblessness.  In order to continue developing the oil sands he would engage with First Nations and take full responsibility on the outcome.
 
Doug Griffiths:
Griffiths has committed to a Provincial Poverty Reduction Strategy but that it must be meaningful and not just “a headline”. He indicated that he liked the announcement of a 100 million dollars to end homelessness as much as anyone else but that funding is not the answer to solving these kinds of problems – “if that’s all it took we should have done it 20 years ago”. A Strategy must break down silos and barriers. And, it is not only the government’s responsibility to reduce poverty; every single Albertan has a responsibility to do so.
 
Ted Morton:
Morton began by stating that he believes in a “hand-up not a hand-out”. He wants to “bring back the Alberta advantage”, grow the economy, and create jobs, since “the best thing to reduce poverty is a job”. He indicated that fiscal responsibility and balanced budgets were important to keep supporting initiatives like the homeless strategy, the need to focus on Aboriginals because the population is over-represented in poverty, and in keeping social service for drug addiction and mental health. “Those are the drivers of poverty”.
 
Allison Redford:
Redford committed a succinct “yes” to a poverty reduction strategy as a very specific policy that has been adopted by every other province. She indicated that a poverty reduction strategy helps government think differently about social policy to ensure we are reducing poverty for people living in poverty. She sees importance in integrated planning around housing, education, mental illness, addictions and the justice system.  She concluded her comments by saying “lets not be afraid to call it..a poverty reduction strategy and I am committed to that”. 
 
Doug Horner:
Horner says that a poverty reduction strategy needs to be adopted by all departments of government to stop silo thinking in the same way that was done with the Homelessness strategy.  He also indicated that it is not enough that “we just put in a home” – the government needs to implement an Alberta Mental Health Strategy and to ensure that there are opportunities for training and education that are properly resourced so that we maximize the return.

Letter to the Editor

August 23, 2011

We have been following the leadership races of the Progressive Conservatives and the Alberta Liberals very closely and we notice that there has been little discussion about poverty in our province. Based on Statistics Canada data, we know that there are nearly 400,000 Albertans living in poverty. We should be clear that poverty measures reflect bare minimum standard of living, even at or above this cut-off, many Albertans are facing rising costs while salaries are not keeping pace. Albertans living in poverty are over-represented among women, children, new immigrants, people with disabilities and aboriginals. It is our responsibility to ensure that everyone in this province has the support and opportunity to prosper. As we know, poverty can happen to anyone and the province must play a role in reducing poverty by searching for root cause solutions.

In October of 2010, the all-party Standing Committee on the Economy unanimously recommended that the province undertake the process to create a Provincial Poverty Reduction Strategy. The committee was motivated to unanimously pass this recommendation because of the overwhelming evidence demonstrating the depth of poverty in Alberta and the stories they heard from Albertans living in poverty. Albertans presented their stories about working very hard to meet basic needs for themselves and their families but their wages are falling short and they are not getting the supports they need from social programs. While no response from the Ministry of Employment and Immigration has been been made on this recommendation, many Albertans believe that a provincial government willing to tackle the root causes of poverty makes good sense.

We wonder where these leadership candidates stand on developing a Provincial Poverty Reduction Strategy? The candidates in these races are likely to produce the next Premier and the Leader of the Opposition - we hope they will move quickly to address the Standing Committee on the Economy’s recommendation for a Provincial Poverty Reduction Strategy. Then Alberta will join most of the other provinces and territories in Canada who have already taken this important first step. Many municipalities are also accepting responsibility to reduce poverty, including Calgary, but it cannot be done without support and commitment from the province.

Alexa Briggs, Associate Director Strategy and Research, Vibrant Communities Calgary

Joe Ceci, Coordinator, Action to End Poverty in Alberta

Linda McFarlane, ASCW Calgary Social Action/Social Justice Group

Today is a sad day for all Canadians.  The death of Jack Layton hit us all hard: we all work each day to make Canada better; we all work to ensure that there is positive change in our great country and that the change created serves all Canadians. This sadness is not about politics, it is not about ideology, and it is not about partisanship.  Whenever someone, who is willing to stand up with respect for their opponents and debate the important issues of the day with passion and thoughtfulness, ceases to do so - we all feel the loss.  To me that is what Jack Layton stood for.  He gave voice to the voiceless, he stood up and spoke on behalf of the most vulnerable Canadians, and no matter what party you belong to, or if like me you belong to no party at all, you must realize that an amazing Canadian voice for equality was lost today.

For those of us who care deeply about poverty and work tirelessly to banish it from Canada, there can be no doubt that our jobs became a little harder today; but in my view they became all the more important. Jack’s strong voice in Ottawa could always be counted upon to raise the issue of poverty and ensure that the voices of Canadians living in poverty were heard.  He was a giant, and his shoes are too big for any person to fill alone; we all must work together to fill the void left in the Canadian political discourse today.

In this time of sadness for the loss of a Canadian who inspired hope, we can honour him in no better way than to carry on his passion for this country and for continuing to work towards a country that is great for all. As Jack said himself in his letter to Canadians, released today after his death, “My friends, love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we’ll change the world.“

Dan Meades

Director, Vibrant Communities Calgary

 

The Progressive Conservative Party and the Alberta Liberal Party are currently holding leadership races and you can be involved in selecting the leaders of these provincial parties. You can be a member of multiple provincial parties, which means you can participate in selecting the leader for both parties.

Below is some information on how to have your say, please see the party websites for details.

**PC Leadership Race 
 
Advance Poll:
September 13
 
Voting Date:
September 17
 
Eligibility to Vote: 
Purchase a membership ($5) any time up until day of vote.
 
Ways to Vote and Vote Location:
In person, at poll locations to be advertised in newspaper by constituency.
 
Candidates:
Doug Griffiths
Doug Horner
Gary Mar
Ted Morton
Rick Orman
Allison Redford
 
Upcoming Forums in Calgary:
August 28, 2011
September 7, 2011

**Liberal Leadership Race

Voting Date:September 5 - 10, 2011
 
Eligibility to Vote:  
Register support for the party or purchase a membership ($5)
 
Ways to Vote and Vote Location: 
1. If you are a supporter or member by August 19 you vote online or by telephone.
2. If you are a supporter or member after August 19 but before September 6 you vote in person at the convention in Edmonton or at a remote location (TBD).
 
Candidates:
Laurie Blakeman
Bill Harvey
Hugh MacDonald
Bruce Payne
Raj Sherman
 
Upcoming Forums in Calgary:
None announced

Alberta’s coffers – and its social programs – are suffering because our government has failed to collect its share of oilsands revenue, says political scientist Regan Boychuk.

Boychuk has presented his work on “Artificial Austerity: The Oilpatch and Poverty in Alberta” several times this year, most recently on June 8^th for Women Together Ending Poverty (WTEP).  If you haven’t seen it or gone through the powerpoint yet, it is well worth your time.  Here are some key points, drawn from WTEP’s summary of the article:

• Over the last ten years the government has set royalties targets at 50-75% of rent (the financial surplus left over after oil and gas companies recover costs, and recover a normal rate of profit – typically 10%)
• If the government had managed the middle of its target range, it would have collected an additional $37 billion over the last decade - which could have helped finance well-needed public services.
• In 2007 and 2008 collectively, the province’s share of revenue was $2.5 billion below their bottom target range, while their 2010 deficit was $4.7 billion.
• The 2007 Royalty Review concluded that the government should increase royalties, and according to a Calgary Herald/Edmonton Journal poll, the public agreed.  However, the oil industry swayed the provincial government such that the New Royalty Framework increased royalties by a fraction of what had been recommended. 
•  As such, Boychuk also questions the state of our democracy in Alberta. 

We welcome any comments and feedback on this topic!                 

Dear LPT Committee and Council Members,
 
Thank you for your continued discussion on a transit fare strategy for the city that is fair to all Calgarians. The City of Calgary led the way in creating the low-income transit pass and, as we all know, this initiative has meant access to transit for thousands of Calgarians who could not otherwise afford to use public transportation. 
 
We write to you today as you consider the report and recommendations before you to provide direction for funding future transit service. Our main concern is for the maintenance of the low-income transit pass; that it is increasingly affordable to low-income Calgarians; that it is available to those who need it most; and that the process for accessing the pass is as efficient and as fair as possible.
 
In particular, we have noted that recommendations b) and d) may impact the cost of the low-income transit pass and we would like to encourage the committee to commit to maintaining or reducing the cost of the low-income pass. Please recall that Calgarians accessing this pass are living on income lower than 75% of the Low Income Cut-Off, very deep poverty.
 
We also note that recommendation g) is an excellent opportunity to examine options for administration and eligibility requirements of the pass. While the pass itself is a welcome addition to the transit fare strategy, we know that the monthly access to the pass is cumbersome and that the eligibility requirements are restrictive for some who need the pass (such as new immigrants). As always, we are available and eager to provide consultation for alternative eligibility and proof requirements that would meet the city’s needs for accountability and fairness.
 
Thank you for your time.

Dan Meades
Director,
Vibrant Communities Calgary
dan@vibrantcalgary.com

Here is the agenda and supporting documentation for July 20, 2011 meeting of the Calgary Standing Policy Committee on Land Use, Transportation and Planning.

Committee Members include: Alderman A. Chabot, Alderman D. Hodges, Alderman G-C. Carra, Alderman R. Jones, Alderman S. Keating, Alderman J. Mar, Alderman R. Pootmans, and Mayor N. Nenshi, Ex-Officio

“We have to decide to either address the emergency that is poverty or we can let it fester and pay for it later”
 
Yesterday at the Telus Convention Centre, hosted by Calgary Economic Development and Vibrant Communities Calgary, Mark Chamberlain stated that poverty is a public health crisis out-competing SARS and much more detrimental to our economic prosperity.
 
Mark Chamberlain described the focused emphasis that the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction put on children (1 in 6 children in Calgary live in poverty).  Research in Hamilton recently revealed the geographic nature of poverty in Hamilton, where life expectancy was 21 years shorter for those living in a low-income area than from those in areas of higher-income earners. Chamberlain added that researchers in Hamilton could now fairly accurately determine a child’s future by his/her postal code.
 
Chamberlain thus urges us to work together to remove the conditions that create poverty – to make sure children are fed, safely housed, and educated – saying this will cost us much less later on in terms of health and the justice system.  As well as calling poverty a public health crisis, he calls it a human capital crisis, pointing out that the more Canadians who are healthy and resilient, the more they can contribute to a thriving economy, and the less they drain various social service sectors.  He calls this the difference between an “aspirin” society, where we pay to treat illness and hardship, and a “vitamin” society, where we work to avoid illness and hardship altogether, and diminish treatment costs. 
 
Thank you to Mark Chamberlain for a talk that was both moving and practical, and encompassed both economic rationale and basic human compassion.

Like you, I too care deeply about the issue of poverty in Canada.  Like you, I find it completely unacceptable that anyone should live in our country without basic needs being met, that some do not have fair access to opportunity and security in the fullest meaning of that word.  Like you, I am convinced solutions to poverty are before us, that what is most lacking is sufficient political will, backed by public will, to make these solutions real.
 
Earlier this year I accepted an invitation to join Canada Without Poverty as one of its Honorary Directors, the roster of which includes four individuals well known to many of you: the Hon. Louise Arbour, the Hon. Monique Bégin, the Hon. Ed Broadbent and Mr. Ovide Mercredi.  I accepted this invitation because I support what Canada Without Poverty and its allied group, the CWP Advocacy Network are striving towards: public policy decisions that will realize lasting, meaningful outcomes for people in or at risk of falling into poverty.  I am pleased to be now advising their organizational leaders on questions of policy, parliamentary strategy and more.
 
Within the context of a current major gift campaign, we are striving to raise $150,000 before mid-December from among individuals like you – current or prospective individual donors who know that solutions to poverty must be rooted in systemic change, for example serious reform of income security systems and approaches to ensuring the right to housing is honoured.  Will you please join me, then, in making a financial investment in this campaign, at a level you can afford?  Your contribution will support a range of actions such as those outlined in the Case for Support, available on-line at the Canada Without Poverty web site.  If you have never given to Canada Without Poverty, I hope you will now do so for the first time.  Your contribution is tax-deductible.  A tax receipt can be provided immediately by donating through CanadaHelps, which we encourage you to use especially at this time with the current Canada Post mail strike.
 
Thank you,
 
Right Hon. Joe Clark

**Reposted from:
CANADA WITHOUT POVERTY
Working in alliance with the CWP Advocacy Network

By: Bob Barnetson

(Reposted from http://albertalabour.blogspot.com/)

As expected, the province announced it would increase the minimum wage yesterday. The new minimum (as of September 1) will be $9.40 an hour, unless you serve liquor (then it will $9.05).

The minimum wage will then increase each year based on an indexing formula. Although the liquor-serving wage will not move until the reqular wage is $10.05 and thereafter the $1 an hour disparity will be maintained.

On the one hand, this increase is good for low-wage workers. It restores their buying power to what it was more than a year ago when the Minister froze a planned increase. It does not nothing to address that the minimum wage is difficult to live on but maintaining buying power is a laudable benefit for these workers.

That said, these workers would have been better off if Minister Lukaszuk had never interfered with the existing system of increases in the first place. The 17-month delay in the increase is inexcusable. In effect, these low-wage workers (mostly women) subsidized their employer’s profit through forgone increases during this time. There is no back pay provided for these workers for the time they went without while the government twiddled its thumbs.

And, under the old system, those who serve alcohol would not be getting a lower wage. The official explanation for the two-tier system appears to that those who serve alcohol receive more tips thus need a lower wage. We seem to be straying here into strange territory, where the government is saying not only what the minimum wage should be, but also what the maximum wage should be. If someone works hard and hustles for tips, why should they be penalized by the government with a lower wage?

No, really. Why?

One explanation is that the restaurant and food services lobby in Alberta has pushed hard to reduce the minimum wage for servers. Simply, this system reduces reduces their labour costs. They orchestrated a laughable write-in campaign last fall. They have also met with the Minister (here’s a nice pic from their website):

And they’ve met with the premier and gave him a spiffy jacket:

There is no hard evidence that anything untoward has happened here. (Although the Edmonton Journal is reporting that the Canadian Food and Restaurant Association is not a registered lobby group…). Businesses lobby. So do workers.

It is interesting, though, that businesses get to meet the Minister and the Premier and then policy outcomes go their way. Even though a legislative committee stacked with conservative members clearly rejected this approach last fall. By contrast, labour leaders are refused meetings and policy goes against them.

It will also be interesting to follow the conservative leadership race. Minister Lukaszuk is expected by many to declare his candidacy. If he runs, will his list of supporters include members of the restaurant and food services industry? If he runs, will he release his list of donors? This kind of transparency will go a long way towards restoring my faith balanced public policy making.

Hennessy’s Index: A number is never just a number (Reposted from CCPA: Original Post)

June 2011: Minimum vs Living Wage

by Trish Hennessy

June 1, 2011

Hennessy’s Index is a monthly listing of numbers, written by the CCPA’s Trish Hennessy, about Canada and its place in the world. Scroll down for a PDF version.  For other months, visit: http://policyalternatives.ca/index

• • $8.75 Minimum hourly wage in B.C. Lowest in Canada, but scheduled to rise to $10.25 in May 2012. (Source)
  • $18.81
    Hourly pay needed to make a living family wage in Vancouver. (Source)
  • 25
    Percentage of couples with children in Greater Vancouver who earn less than the living wage income. (Source)
  • Three Number of financial institutions in Canada that pay a living wage: VanCity Credit Union, Community Savings Credit Union and CCEC Credit Union. (Source)
  • One Number of municipalities in Canada to adopt a living wage policy for all city staff: New Westminster, B.C. Other municipalities are considering following suit. (Source)
  • $11
    Minimum hourly wage in Nunavut. The highest in Canada. (Source)
  • $10.25 Ontario’s minimum hourly wage. The second highest in Canada. (Source)
  • $16.60 Hourly wage needed in 2008 for couples with two young children living in the Greater Toronto Area to earn a living wage. (Source)
  • 140 Number of municipal living wage policy/bylaws passed in the U.S. since 1994. (Source)
  • One Number of Olympic games committed to pay a living wage: the London Olympics 2012. (Source)
  • One Number of provinces or territories that index minimum wage to inflation every year: Yukon, for the city of Whitehorse. (Source)
  Download related materials:
  • Hennessy’s Index: Minimum vs Living Wage (June 2011) PDF File, 86 KB

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
 
MINIMUM WAGE INCREASE DOES LITTLE TO HELP WORKING POOR
 
CALGARY: JUNE 1, 2011 – Minister Lukaszuk announced an increase of 60 cents to Alberta’s minimum wage today. “While we appreciate Minister Lukaszuk’s recognition that Alberta’s Minimum Wage has been too low, and thank him for the increase, we need to ask ourselves how many of the 300,000 working poor Albertans will be lifted out of poverty as a result of this increase - sadly, the answer is none.” Dan Meades, Director, Vibrant Communities Calgary.
 
The all-party review committee heard first-hand how Albertans working full-time earning minimum wage need to access the food bank and make difficult choices each month between food, diapers, transportation, and rent. Vibrant Communities Calgary and many other organizations provided evidence for a minimum wage that allows for a decent, safe standard of living. Vibrant Communities Calgary recommended a plan to phase in a minimum wage over the next two years that will at least reach the Low-Income Cut Off; $12.25/hr. The Alberta Minimum Wage Profile, compiled by the Government of Alberta, shows characteristics of these earners. Over half of minimum  wage earners are over the age of 25 and approximately 60% are women. More than 50% have more than 5 years work experience, and have earned at least a high school diploma.
 
“A two-tier wage system is an unfortunate development for those employees who will now even more heavily rely on the mood of their customers to stay above the poverty line.” Dan Meades, Director, Vibrant Communities Calgary. “Alberta already ranks last on several economic indicators for women, particularly troubling is the disparity between wages where women in Alberta make 66% of what men make, the worst wage disparity between men and women in the country. More women are poor in this province than men and 2/3 of minimum wage earners are women. This province has further marginalized women with this announcement today, I feel particularly insulted for the women who shared their experiences of living on low wages with the minimum wage review committee while trying to feed their children, pay for childcare, and housing.” Alexa Briggs, Associate Director Strategy and Research, Vibrant Communities Calgary. 
 
Albertans in poverty kept waiting for a Provincial Poverty Reduction Strategy
 
As part of the minimum wage review, the all-party review committee unanimously recommended that Alberta undertake a Provincial Poverty Reduction Strategy. “We are disappointed that the Minister did not mention the unanimous recommendation for an Alberta Poverty Reduction Strategy from the all-party review committee. Hundreds of thousands of Albertans continue to live in poverty without any indication that the government is going to take action”. Dan Meades.
 
Vibrant Communities Calgary is a non-profit organization that works collaboratively, with various stakeholders and partners, seeking to engage Calgarians and to advocate for long-term strategies that address the root causes of poverty in Calgary.  For more information on this initiative or Vibrant Communities Calgary, visit www.vibrantcalgary.com.

For more information or comment, please contact:
 
Dan Meades, Director
Vibrant Communities Calgary

Where and when does accountability for decision-making set in at City Council? What exactly is the role of a City of Calgary Alderman? Turns out we aren’t the first ones to wonder what exactly is in the job description, according to a blog on calgarypolitics.com, there isn’t one.

We’ve been wondering about the role of Aldermen after watching the Land Use, Planning, and Transportation Committee in action on Wednesday. Secondary Suites was on deck – again - recall that this is the committee that deadlocked over what to do with the report commissioned to examine the issue. The very same report that indicated overwhelming public support, overwhelming evidence to support a blanket bylaw, and clear policy options for secondary suites in Calgary. The whole thing went to a full Council meeting for debate, where none of the policy options were chosen but instead council opted to explore options for giving the issue back to the public for consultation. The shuffling continued this week, when the LPT was presented with three options for consulting Calgarians on secondary suites, and, you guessed it, the committee sent it back to full council again.
 
It is possible that the reality of indecision is setting in; the financial cost of meaningful public consultation as presented yesterday is going to be very high, and recall, that the public has already been consulted via the original report. We know these decisions aren’t easy and that there is a lot to consider, which we’ve commented on in the past but I cannot help but wonder how much more information could be needed to make this decision. 
 
We didn’t agree with council’s decision in April to engage in a public consultation, since we think the evidence to support a blanket bylaw is clear and so is public opinion, but if a full public consultation is the only way that council will be able to make a decision then that path has to be taken with decisiveness. Consult the public and be ready to act on the results, please don’t be surprised when we discover what we’ve all heard in other consultations through the PlanIt process, in the previous consultation around suites, and in the recent election – Calgarians want complete communities, diverse neighbourhoods, and want to end poverty in this city – and we want council to act decisively in making these things happen.
 
We may not always agree with the decisions council makes, we do our best to encourage them to consider the needs of low-income Calgarians in their decision-making and are very appreciative of the thoughtfulness that is given to this vulnerable population but no decision is a disservice to us all. It is a particular disservice to Calgarians who are eagerly awaiting affordable housing solutions, to those who are living in sub-standard or unsafe suites, and to homeowners who are keen to build suites. Calgary has waited long enough - let’s have the tough conversations but let’s also make some decisions to get the issue addressed.

I confess to being a data geek. I’m okay with it. I accept it. I am calling on all my fellow data geeks to unite around our love of good data.  Regardless of how any of us use the data, how we interpret it, or what actions we think should be taken as a result of data, we can all agree that we need reliable, valid data to form the basis of our arguments, which we then revel in debating over with other data geeks.
 
Census forms are being delivered as we speak. The short-form is still mandatory but the long-form has been replaced with a voluntary National Household Survey (NHS), in a controversial decision by the Federal Government that was based on rhetoric rather than facts. Statistics Canada is doing everything they can to ensure that the NHS data are going to be useable, but the data geek in me is anxious - and I am not the only data geek who is feeling this anxiety. We all have unanswered questions: How will Statistics Canada be able to ensure that the NHS is representative of the Canadian population? How will we be able to track trends with data from a new survey? How can we be sure that this survey will integrate with other data from other Stats Canada surveys?
 
I am particularly anxious about making sure Canadians living on low-income are accounted for and that we are reporting accurate rates of poverty, in addition to other valuable data about poverty in the country. If not, then come 2012 we will not have an accurate picture of poverty in this country and therefore will have limited knowledge about the best policies and programs to reduce it.  Poverty is now figuratively a hidden problem; without good data, it will soon be literally hidden.

We know that people living in poverty are less likely to voluntarily complete a survey of this nature, for various perfectly valid reasons. As such, I am quite troubled that we may see a trend indicating declining poverty rates, when in fact, all we have seen is a decline in response rate from people living in poverty.  I’d be overjoyed if we significantly reduced poverty but I don’t want to celebrate a false victory arising from faulty data.
 
Statistics Canada is doing everything they can to make the NHS a valid and reliable form of data collection but the reality is that even with all of their efforts this will not be enough. Indeed, most researchers, policy analysts, and users of census data agree that the NHS is not likely to produce a source of data that inspires the same kind of confidence as the long-form of the census. Unfortunately, our collective uproar failed to make even the smallest dent on the decision to scrap the mandatory long-form.
 
For now, please complete the census, complete the NHS, and encourage everyone you know to do so. The NHS is being sent to 1/3 households and completing it is very important to getting responses that are truly reflective of Canadian society. If you are feeling particularly feisty, please use the comments to let Statistics Canada know you are a proud data geek and you want the long-form census back.

This analysis completes the review we did of the party platforms with a specific view of how they stack up on poverty reduction initiatives. This final analysis takes a look at the Conservative Party of Canada platform.
 
While the document is nearly 70 pages long the word “poverty” is not mentioned, so we will focus on the initiatives in the platform that are directly related to Canadians living in low-income.
 
Job creation is a main feature of the CPC platform.  While we applaud the effort to increase employment for Canadians, there is some question as to the efficacy of one of the CPC’s major strategies to do so, reducing corporate taxes, which this platform boasts will soon be the lowest in the G7. Economists seem to have mixed reviews on whether or not this strategy actually creates employment. We wonder if employment will in fact be created in Canada and whether it will offer wages that allow people to live out of poverty. The Hiring Tax Credit For Small Business seems to have more merit in ensuring that job creation takes place locally, although we feel this also needs to be paired with assurances that wages are high enough to keep people out of poverty.
 
The platform refers to several initiatives that the CPC has taken to provide skills training opportunities for students but it is somewhat unclear as to what the plans are to continue these programs. The effectiveness of the programs was also unclear in terms of how many students were aided, how much of the debt load was decreased, and the increased employment of students.  While we recognize the link between education and ending the cycle of poverty, it is difficult to evaluate these programs’ potential impact for people in low-income because of the lack of detail.
 
The “Family Tax Cut” section of the platform highlights initiatives for low-income Canadians more so than any other section. This section reviews past initiatives that have seen the tax burden decreased for low-income Canadians. In addition to maintaining these tax cuts, the CPC platform proposes income-splitting for spouses with dependents under the age of 18. This initiative is unlikely to yield much benefit for low-income Canadians. The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives wrote a piece explaining the limitations of income-splitting for low-income families here: http://www.policyalternatives.ca/newsroom/updates/robin-hood-reverse-real-numbers-behind-income-splitting
 
The CPC plan also proposes to increase the Guaranteed Income Supplement for approximately 680,000 seniors, which is a laudable aim. We would suggest going even further, since this proposal increases the GIS but not at a level that would lift all seniors out of poverty.
 
The CPC will also enhance the Wage Earner Protection Program, to support people who lose employment as a result of an employer going bankrupt. This is a good step to providing income security, if only for a short period of time, to Canadians who would be otherwise relying on benefits to get by.
 
This platform stands out in the reliance on job creation, tax credits, and tax breaks as means to impact the lives of low-income Calgarians. While these are important measures, there does seem to be a lack of social safety net responses as well as significant investment in post-secondary education and skills training initiatives. It is worth noting that all the other party platforms include a national housing strategy and increased women’s equality, who are more likely than men to live in poverty as a result of wage disparity.

Three more days til we go to the polls, and VCC is wrapping up its review of the poverty platforms.  So far, the Liberals and the Greens have provided solid approaches to reducing poverty in Canada; what about the NDP?
 
Several of their objectives overlap with the Greens and Liberals– such as their commitment to an Affordable Housing Initiative, increased funding for social housing, rebates on an Eco-Energy Retrofit, and improved family and maternal leave benefits. 
 
Differentiating them from the other parties is their particular commitment to the elderly demographic – committing to end poverty for seniors through an increased Guaranteed Livable Income, to double old age benefits, to improve at home health care, to develop Forgivable Loans allowing seniors to remain in their houses, and provide Inter-generational Home Retrofit Program to help families create suites for elderly family members.  Like the Liberals, the NDP would also include compassionate care leave for relatives nearing the end of their lives, and provide Caregiver Benefits for those looking after elderly or dependent family members.  
 
Perhaps the most exciting piece of their platform, which has not been addressed by any other party and which would very substantially benefit low-income individuals, is their proposed crackdown on excessive credit card rates and banking fees, including fees on payday loans.  Bravo NDP for this proposed piece of legislation!
 
The NDP is quite specific with regard to its childcare and post-secondary education goals, committing to create 25,000 more spaces each year over 4 years, contribute $800 million federally to lower tuition fees, $200,000 more to the Canada Student Grants Program (particularly targeting accessibility for Aboriginal Students, disabled students, and low-income students), and raise the education tax credit.  They also commit to creating a Child Benefit that builds on and increases the Universal Child Care Benefit, as part of a strategy to lift children and families out of poverty.    
 
Like the Greens, the NDP suggests re-instating a Federal Minimum Wage, though they do not propose a figure; as we stated in our review of the Green Party platform, we strongly advocate for regionally-based Living Wages, and would encourage them to take this into account in their discussions for a Federal Minimum Wage.  The NDP would also increase the effectiveness of employment insurance by eliminating the waiting period, decreasing the number of hours of employment required to receive benefits and increasing the amount of EI received
 
The NDP proposes a number of ways of stimulating employment, most of which are very sound; however their commitment to ensure that combined provincial/federal corporate tax rates are always lower than in the U.S. is questionable at best.  While this might provide an incentive for companies establish themselves in Canada and create jobs, it could, if strictly followed, motivate a race to the bottom and result in substantial losses in government revenue.  If we want to continue to provide much needed services without taxing the individual unduly, a substantial portion of our taxes will also have to come from corporations.  That said, the NDP currently advocates for a corporate tax rate that is higher than our current one, so they seem, in practice, to be moving away from any “race to the bottom”.
 
Like the Greens, the NDP commits to reduce the costs of prescription medication; again, however, we would also encourage them to discuss better coverage of prescriptions, particularly for those on low-income or with disabilities.  The NDP has, however, committed to creating a National Plan to Implement the UN Convention of Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which will improve their access to opportunities and services.  Like the Greens, the NDP is also committed to promoting the inclusion of all Canadians in social life in part by making broadband accessible to all Canadians, and prohibiting usage-based billing for the internet.
   
Finally, the NDP, if elected, will ensure that due action is taking with regard to Women’s Equality, including immediate implementation of pay-equity laws and policies.
 
The NDP provides a solid approach to addressing poverty in Canada, particularly with regard to children and the elderly.  We would encourage them to consider integrating affordable transit and provisions for those with mental health issues more prominently in their platform – two very strong elements of the Green platform – but emphatically applaud their efforts to ban excessive fees on loans and credit cards.  We encourage the other parties to rally around such a piece of legislation.
 
Thank you NDP!   You can read the full NDP platform here.  Conservatives – you’re up next!