Thursday, March 02, 2006

On poor growth

So how many poor Ontarian children might be directly affected by the rumoured benefit clawback? The Star reports on the latest poverty numbers, and points out that despite all the talk about eradicating child poverty, the rate went up through the '90s and hasn't been reduced since:
The federal government promised in 1989 to eliminate child poverty by 2000. The child poverty rate in Ontario reached 16.1 per cent in 2003, compared with 11.6 per cent in 1989, today's study by Campaign 2000 found. The network of more than 90 organizations is devoted to ending child and family poverty in Canada...

Parents aren't "finding jobs that provide enough hours at a sufficiently high pay or any benefits to lift their families above the poverty line," Maund said. Thirty-three per cent of children living in poverty had at least one parent who worked full-time year-round in 2003, the study found.

Another reason the child poverty rate has remained steady is "huge holes to our social safety net have not been adequately repaired," Maund said.

Cuts to social assistance in the 1990s, combined with inflation, caused a 40 per cent decline in the past decade of what people on social assistance can afford to buy, the report said. "A family of four on (social assistance in Ontario) would receive a monthly benefit of $1,250 in 2005 — one-half of what a four-person family needs to purchase the basic necessities of food, clothing, shelter and transportation."
As the article notes, the money coming from the federal Cons would itself go only a small part of the way toward meeting the needs of Ontario's poor families...and indeed more child-care spaces, along with additional social housing, a higher minimum wage and better worker training, would go much further in giving families a chance to move out of poverty. But in the absence of funding to those ends, McGuinty's Libs will have a lot of explaining to do if they conclude that poor Ontarians shouldn't have the opportunity to improve their lot with Harper's (however slight) contribution.

No comments:

Post a Comment