According to Campaign 2000, child poverty in Canada remains a major issue.

On Tuesday, Campaign 2000 released its annual report on child poverty in Canada, and propounded an alarming statistic. According to the organization’s estimates, ten per cent of Canadian kids currently live in poverty. Among First Nations children, this figure is even more disturbing: one in four.

The statistics represent a lack of progress over the last 20 years, according to Campaign 2000, in terms of combating child poverty in Canada.

The report also mentions that the disparity between rich and poor appears to be widening in our country, as since 1989, the average income of families with children in the wealthiest tenth of the population increased by 33 per cent compared to an increase of just 16 per cent for those in the poorest tenth of the population.

Campaign 2000 places particular emphasis within the report on the plight of Canada’s Aboriginal people, stating that the Canadian Aboriginal population has increased by 45 per cent since 1996, compared to eight per cent in the non-Aboriginal population. Meanwhile, Aboriginal people face higher rates of unemployment and sub-standard living conditions than their non-Aboriginal counterparts.

The recommendations of the report include increased funding for social programs especially as they pertain to child welfare, and the establishment of a universal child care program and child benefits in Canada.

First of all, some background on Campaign 2000 is necessary.

On November 24, 1989, the Canadian parliament passed the unanimous resolution to rid Canada of child poverty by the year 2000. Campaign 2000 was founded in 1991, out of concern for a “lack of government progress” towards this goal. Since then, Campaign 2000 has issued an annual report card on child poverty, much like the one released today.

While most Canadians would agree that the elimination of child poverty in our country is a worthwhile cause, it is important to note certain failings of the most recent Campaign 2000 report.

The definition of poverty:

Of course, without an adequate and unanimous definition of the term, there is no way to accurately measure poverty in Canada, and our country has no quantifiable and universal “poverty line.” Instead, Campaign 2000 relies heavily on Statistics Canada’s Low Income Cut-Off (LICO) measure, which predicts the level of income required by the average family—accounting for number of children and size of community—to remain above the poverty line. Strangely though, the LICO measure, in its estimate of the poverty line, does not account for disparities in elements like the cost of rent. As we are all aware, to presume that a family’s rent will be equal whether that family lives in Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto or Montreal is extremely problematic.

Aside from this shortcoming, Chris Sarlo, writing on behalf of the Fraser Institute, describes a number of other problems related to the LICO measure, including the fact that the LICO line and overall living standards have risen at differing rates, so that a family or individual would be more readily classified as “low-income” today than in 1960. In other words, a typical “low-income” person today, according to Sarlo, is better off than a “low-income” person was 39 years ago.

Recent events not accounted for in the Campaign 2000 report:

One very significant factor absent from the report’s statistics is the global economic crisis. Campaign 2000 does make mention of the crisis and admits that the data which forms the basis for the child poverty report is too dated to account for the crisis’ effects. The fact that is comes up in the report is hardly surprising, since the possibility of elevated poverty levels associated with the economic crisis favours the organization’s argument for increased government aid to mitigate child poverty.

However, the Campaign 2000 report, in raising the issue of universal child care in Canada, neglects to mention that the Conservative government did establish a universal child care benefit in 2006, and as such allows for no discussion as to whether or not the measure has been effective. Furthermore, Campaign 2000’s data (an Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development report from 2006) on the subject predates the implementation of this new benefit.

Also note that the website of the OECD is in fact www.oecd.org, not www.oecd.com as Campaign 2000 states.

Overall, the report contains a number of valid points. The findings that the disparity between rich and poor is widening in Canada, and that Aboriginal Canadians face more frequent poverty and unemployment issues than their non-Aboriginal counterparts, are both worthy of consideration. Child poverty in Canada also remains a significant issue.

But as for the extent of the issue? Let’s just say stats can lie.

Related posts:

1. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney: No Apology for Abuse of Home Children Canadian Immigration Minister Jason Kenney has made a statement that...
2. What Do Nov. 9 By-Elections (Yawn) Mean for Child, Youth, and Family Advocates? We may have escaped a general election this fall, but...
3. Activating our Youth; A Healthy Environment for Children As a teenager, I took a trip with my family...
4. Child Labour: Not in Canada, You Say? Who in Canada is not familiar with the work of...
5. Has the Canadian Government Become one of the Largest Backers of Risky Mortgages in the World? There’s a familiar joke in my province that “B.C.” stands...

Tags: campaign 2000, canada, child poverty

This entry was posted on Wednesday, November 25th, 2009 at 12:01 am and is filed under Federal Government, Our Country. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.