Ontario Government Targets Poverty
Government of Ontario Sets Out to Reduce Poverty in Five Years
During the last provincial election, the Ontario Government promised to consult with the public and then define and set targets to reduce poverty in this province by the end of 2008. After 2008, the Government will then presumably work to develop appropriate programs and strategies to toward the reduction of poverty in Ontario.
At the present time, only the provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland/Labrador have developed a poverty reduction strategy. The countries of Ireland and Great Britain have done so as well. After five years under the strategy the British government started, poverty among the British has been reduced by approximately 23%, only 2 percentage points short of its government’s target. Ireland has seen similar results as well.
During Ontario’s election campaign, a coalition of organizations known as the Twenty Five in Five Network lobbied and continues to lobby the re-elected Ontario Government to develop a strategy that would reduce poverty by 25% in five years and then continue to reduce it in half in ten. However, since its re-election, these promises by this government have been more modest. The Network’s demands were re-stated at its April 14th, 2008, conference of over 500 community leaders, activists and low-income individuals.
Deb Matthews, Ontario’s Minister responsible for Children, Youth and Families, and also appointed Chair of Cabinet’s Committee for Poverty-Reduction Strategy was present at this conference. In response to the Network’s demands, she asked, “25 per cent of what? How are we going to measure our progress? How are we going to measure poverty? This is one of our big challenges. We have to know what it is that we are defining.” While the Minister does have a point, anti-poverty groups are concerned the Government may spend this time defining poverty out of existence.
But, it is noteworthy that Canada does not currently have an “official poverty line”. For years, community organizations relied upon LICO (Statistics Canada’s Low Income Cut Off), whereby if a household is spending an additional 20% or more of their annual income than the average Canadian household on housing, food and clothing is poor. Using LICO as a measuring stick, 1.3 million Ontarians are living in poverty, including 1 in 5 children. While LICO serves a purpose, it does not capture all of what constitutes poverty, nor does it reflect differences in household needs across regions and household composition (such as households including persons with disabilities or elderly).
One measure that worked in Ireland is the adoption of the Low Income Measure (LIM), which defines any household that has an income that is 60% or less than that of the median income of families in their respective communities as “at risk of poverty”. They further defined those as being in a state of “constant deprivation” any household unable to afford to purchase at least two items from an eleven-item list of goods that an average Irish family could afford. These are strategies the Ontario Government may adopt.
However, the jury is still out on how well this plan will go. Consultations in thirteen communities across Ontario have been roundly criticized as they were held by invitation only and mostly with community representatives that were not low income themselves. Media attention to these so-called ‘secret meetings’ have loosened the rules a bit to allow some low-income leaders to contribute, as well as broaden consultations to include other communities by having local Members of Provincial Parliament set up their own.
However, anti-poverty groups are frustrated because prior to these consultations, the said Cabinet Committee already decided their primary focus will be on children and families living in poverty and not seniors, single people or persons with disabilities. While child poverty is a serious problem in Ontario (and it is the highest percentage of all provinces across Canada), poverty is also significant among persons with disabilities and the elderly. Supports to both groups of people, who are largely childless, have significantly declined over the past fifteen years, leaving many of them in dire financial circumstances.
