Sometimes when I leave early for my volunteer work, I see her on the bus. She’s pushing a stroller with two kids in it. She’s dropping them off at the Daycare, which she pays through the nose for. Then she’s off to her two part time jobs, trying to make enough money to pay the rent and keep her family together. Something’s wrong in “Boom Town”.

There are over 115,000 poor people in our city earning less than the Low-Income Cut Off. By any definition, this represents at least one quarter of the 400,000 poor in our province. Okay, I know – poverty is relative. Our poor are a hell of a lot better than Somalians, but so what? Many of them came to our country seeking a good life, a decent income, and a future. Many spend the rest of their lives working for close to a minimum wage doing the jobs that many of us so called “Real Canadians” won’t touch, and that’s wrong. Many are Aboriginal whom we seem to think we can buy cheaper. The majority are women.

I’m a senior citizen. After managing three hotels on the west coast, I had a nervous breakdown, helped by alcohol addiction and depression. I wound up working out of “Casual Labour” offices, often for minimum wage. Sometimes the “Jobbers” were making more per hour for my labour than I was. These still exist in our city.

A semi-decent income in our city (defined as a Living Wave by Vibrant Communities Calgary at a MINIMUM of $13.00 per hour) is necessary to afford any approach to a life that affords dignity and an opportunity to participate in one’s community. Many of us make that. Thousands of us don’t. We have the distinction of having the biggest gap between the rich and poor of any city in Canada … So much for “Great Place to Live”.

And when employers scream “If we paid that, we’d go bankrupt!”, the only answer must be: “If you can not pay your employees a salary that would allow them a modicum of human dignity – then you deserve to go bankrupt- and good riddance to you”. I would follow by asking the few companies still paying a minimum wage: “How do you feel about slavery?!”

I think we’re all smart enough to make money. The problem seems to me to be that we don’t quite know how to share it more equitably. In spite of all this, I still love this city, it’s people, it’s entrepreneurs, it’s drive and it’s beauty. We can do better and I know we will.

Best Wishes, Fred Robertson

Question #4: What promises did the PCs make during the election that I don’t want to see them break?

Certainly, the most important promise that Premier Redford made during her campaign was the commitment to create a 5-year plan to eliminate child poverty and a 10-year plan to reduce poverty in Alberta. This is a bold commitment, but one that tackles one of the most pernicious and persistent problems of our time, and that of many generations before. Somehow, the issue remains: we have yet to sufficiently moved the needle on poverty. At Vibrant Communities Calgary, we believe the only way this can be successfully done in any meaningful and lasting way is to establish a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy that addresses – no, attacks – the root causes of poverty. Premier Redford’s announcement to craft a 5 and 10-year strategy ought to do just that; take a long and thoughtful look at the face of poverty in Alberta and act upon it.

There are 400,000 people in Alberta living in poverty. That alone should be reason enough to reduce it, if not eliminate it in our lifetime. The benefit to a comprehensive and broad poverty reduction strategy is that it acknowledges the complexity and the interconnected nature of poverty. There are as many ways into poverty as there are ways out of it, and it is critical that the province be aware that no two stories are the same.

In our Poverty Costs report, co-published with Action to End Poverty in Alberta, we determined that poverty costs Alberta 7.5 to 9.1 billion dollars a year in health care, judicial system and intergenerational costs alone. And that’s a conservative estimate. A recent report from Canada Without Poverty placed the national cost of poverty at 72 to 86 billion dollars annually!

More often, we hear about ending child poverty. Let’s be clear that for every poor child, there’s a poor family. We know that poverty is intergenerational. And we know that a child cannot be helped without helping the family from which she came. However, we know that reducing poverty amongst children may be an easier task, and may have some of the biggest returns. The impacts of poverty on children are undeniable, and the lifelong effects are deep. Literacy, health, social participation, nutrition, employment opportunities and access to education are all negatively impacted by a child’s formative early years when lived in poverty.

Premier Redford has made good on her promise to initiate a Social Policy Framework and has created the Human Services Ministry in which a Poverty Reduction Strategy would fit. Alberta is one of the last provinces to implement such a strategy, and it is critical for all of us, but particularly for those 400,000 Albertans living in poverty, that it move forward.

Question 2: What are your concerns or expectations about service cuts?

Primarily, our concerns about any service cuts are that they impact frontline services accessed by vulnerable Albertans. We are concerned that there will be a slowdown in the processing of paperwork and applications as a result of increased workload for caseworkers. It is critical that cuts have a minimal if any impact on Albertans who rely on those services for their survival. Poverty can have a vicious grip, so anything that decreases the length of time that a person is trapped in the cycle is an improvement. Conversely, anything that lengthens the time exacerbates the reality and complicates an exit from the cycle.

If Premier Redford holds true to her promise that cuts will not be felt by those receiving them, then my concerns lie in the stalling of changes which, though initially may cost, could present long-term benefits, cost-savings and efficiencies. The implementation of a common intake and a single data source come to mind. These are processes that are technologically intensive and time-consuming to implement, however in the long run would have tremendous impact in reducing the silos between departments, in streamlining processes and in establishing a single point of entry for Albertans entering the Human Services system. In fact, budget cuts may reverse efficiencies; increasing departmental silos as a result of internal change and self-preservation.

Question 3: What changes do you think should be made to address Alberta’s deficits?

Adopting a model of poverty prevention could represent astronomical savings for the government. Vibrant Communities Calgary estimates savings is in the range of 7.5 to 9.1 billion dollars per year. The implications of poverty on health, criminality and intergenerational costs cannot be overstated, and if the root causes of poverty were meaningfully addressed, the savings would be significant, to say the least.

From a revenue perspective,when considering Albertans living in poverty, a sales tax is not the answer. Even a sales tax rate of 2 or 3 percent would have a negative impact on poor Albertans. And a sales tax credit, which has been suggested by many in the community and the legislature is simply an inadequate reimbursement. It assumes an eligible recipient has a fixed address, a current tax return and a bank account. More importantly, it assumes that a person can afford to spend the money in the first place, then wait for it to be reimbursed. What we should strive to do is leave more money in the pockets of poor Albertans to begin with, rather than ask them to spend it today with the promise that it will be returned down the road. It seems to me that we would be borrowing from the people who are in no place to lend. As an alternative, we would recommend a progressive income tax and a higher corporate tax rate. If we are talking about increasing revenue through taxes, let’s look at sources who can afford it.

For most of us, it is challenging to consider not being fairly paid for our time at work. But many work just as hard, if not harder, than we do and are not paid enough to pay rent. Or after their 8-hour shift, they have to go and line up at the food bank because there’s no money left for groceries. This is the case for thousands of Albertans working for minimum wage. Minimum wage may technically not be a service, but is instead a crucial piece of legislation with an impact that cannot be overstated.

Secondly, income replacement for those who cannot work is another important service. However, if the Government of Alberta recognizes that there is a group of people in this province who cannot earn employment income, and the government further recognizes that they have a responsibility to provide them with replacement income, then let’s really commit to that responsibility. It is not something that we can do half-way. I would argue that Barriers to Full Employment through Alberta Works, and to a lesser degree, AISH, is completely ineffectual because it simply doesn’t go far enough. It provides an individual with some income, but in the case of the former falls embarrassingly short of the Low Income Cut Off. A single individual with no children eligible for Barriers to Full Employment Alberta Works Income Support receives $583 per month. If we’re going to provide income to people – who the Government admits cannot work – let’s ensure they have enough money to live with basic dignity and the opportunity to participate in society.

Lastly, an important service that the government provides but which leaves significant room for improvement is the provisioning of affordable childcare. Childcare may be the greatest impediment to full-time employment and points dramatically to the disproportionate number of women, and single mothers living in poverty. The impact of a fully subsidized childcare program in Alberta may be the single most effective way of reducing poverty amongst families. It reduces a household’s expenditures and provides reliable and safe care for children to allow their parent(s) to fully participate in the workforce, thereby breaking the cycle of poverty. Women would be afforded the ability to develop autonomy and financial freedom and would contribute to their own CPP and EI premiums, serving to empower them with resiliency, adaptability and self-sufficiency.

For the 400,000 people in Alberta struggling to afford the basic necessities every month, an additional tax represents a very real cost for people living in poverty. It is simply an added expense that many cannot afford. True, there may be a promise of a tax rebate once a year, but this ‘solution’ is based on a number of unfair assumptions. It assumes a fixed address, a bank account, and a tax return. It also assumes that people who live in poverty can wait that long. What matters most is that these Albertans are able to have more money in their pockets every month, not to have them spend more every month with the promise of getting some of it back come tax time. A sales tax also has a disproportionate impact on Albertans living on Income Support such as AISH and Alberta Works. This income is not currently treated as taxable income. However, with a sales tax model, these individuals would be paying tax on their purchases. Is it reasonable to ask someone earning $583/month on Alberta Works to pay a sales tax on the few goods and services they can afford each month? Is this a group of Albertans that can fairly be deemed a revenue source?

Premier Redford has made it clear that a sales tax is not imminent, far from it. A sales tax could only be implemented following a provincial referendum anyways. There are alternatives to a regressive sales tax; a progressive income tax model that taxes money coming in to a household rather than when it gets spent, and a far more modern and assertive corporate tax system. If we think increasing revenue through taxation is the solution to our budgetary woes, it seems only fair to tax people who can afford it.

I was talking with friends last night about the poverty reduction plan. Some of them are volunteering with PovertyTalks and the Women’s Centre, and they are also quite involved in planning the plan. They are good women with some really good ideas that we need to listen to.

We all agreed that at first we did not have too much hope for the plan. There are a lot of suits on the planning committee who probably don’t want to look at why we really have poverty. They might not like the real changes they will have to make. Also, many of the real causes of poverty are not really the job of the municipal government to deal with. And in all my yeards, I have seen anti-poverty work come and go and I thought that this would just another example. But this time, things could be done that really help not only people who are poor, but also all other low-income Calgarians. I think the Mayor is honest and wants ideas.

So here are some of my ideas:
1. Free public transit would help all Calgarians and the environment too. (I wrote about this in my last blog if you want to read it).
2. Free recreation at the City of Calgary’s pools and recreation centres would be good as well.
3. The City could save poor people a lot of money by making it easier to have secondary suites that are safe and affordable in all parts of Calgary.
4. They could also make more subsidized housing for the Calgary Housing Company.
5. They could have rent controls.
6. Enmax could be cheaper.
7. Mayor Nenshi could also tell Premier Redford to increase the minimum wage to a living wage.

There are a lot of things that could help people. But one of the reasons why this might not happen is politics. Some Aldermen represent the pretty Richie areas and some are from pretty low-income parts of the city. Because of this, they have different ideas about what poverty means in Calgary and what could be done about it, if they are interested at all.

But we can change this. I have a few ideas that could help make it less political. We could get rid of the ward system and have all aldermen elected by all voters, the same as the mayor. The top fourteen vote-getters would go on to City Council. The people would have to campaign with all Calgarians and would need to have a bigger view of Calgary.

Or, if people still want to keep area politicians, we could change the way that the wards are designed. I remember a long time ago talking to a funny and fat Dutch social work guy who thought that the wards should be made like pizza slices. Each ward would go from the edge of the city right to downtown. That way, every alderman would have new suburbs, older communities and parts of downtown. They would have all kinds of people in their wards. They would have all kinds of issues in their wards as well. Then the aldermen would have to listen to all types of ideas and opinions from their voters. If they had to listen to all voters, the aldermen might be interested in hearing some really good solutions to poverty and this will help the poverty reduction plan actually work. It sounds like a good idea to me.

The report was tabled, coming back to committee in December, which gives us approximately a month to find ways to make sure that people on AISH, youth, and others who are living below the Low Income Cut Off can access the Low Income Transit Pass. Community groups and individuals have been working hard for months on recommendations to make transit affordable for all Calgarians. VCC encourages the committee to support the following amendments at the next Community Protective Services meeting in December:

• Until broader changes can be made, adopt an interim solution: that all people earning 100% of LICO or less and between ages 7 – 65 are made eligible for the Low Income Transit Pass beginning January 2013. The subsidized rate of the Low Income pass should be set at 75% to align with the current subsidy for recreation.

• Expand the program to apply discounts to single ride tickets, effective when connect cards become available in 2013.

• Fair Calgary to report back to Council, in alignment with the 2015-2017 budget cycle, with the details of a sliding scale pilot program.

We will keep you posted as developments arise – in the meantime, you can follow the conversation with Fair Fares.

The much-anticipated report going forward to committee on Wednesday, November 7, contains no specific recommendations for moving the city closer to being fair; delays any changes for at least a year; and leaves many low-income Calgarians ineligible for a low-income transit pass. In concrete terms, if the report is approved on Wednesday, it means that 9500 Calgarians on AISH will not qualify for a low-income transit pass, youth will continue to be ineligible for the Low Income Transit Pass, and access to city services will remain challenging for many on low-incomes.

Please come to the Engineering Traditions Room in Old City Hall at 9:30 tomorrow morning and let your voice be heard. People on low income need access to public transportation and we cannot wait any longer.

Do welfare rules provide a route out of poverty in Alberta?

As someone from ‘out of town’ (Ontario) with 37 years of experience with welfare programs both inside and outside government, I was invited to comment on Alberta Works by Vibrant Communities Calgary.

Those of us with long memories know that cuts to social assistance in Canada first occurred in Alberta in 1993. Not to be outdone, Ontario joined in the smackdown with an almost 22% decrease in benefit levels in 1995. These cuts were harsh and were implemented largely in reaction to the highest numbers of people receiving assistance since the Great Depression. There was also a widespread impression that life was just a bit too comfortable for recipients of these programs.

Tough rules and low rates did bring down caseloads across Canada. And they have stayed down comparatively speaking all throughout the greatest economic downturn since the Depression. But are lower caseloads the only outcome we want to achieve? One of the unintended consequences of focusing on caseload numbers is that we trade a basic needs model of assistance for a destitution model. In so doing, we lose sight that the main purpose of social assistance is to get recipients out of poverty.

Over the past many years, I have been asking ordinary Canadians what they think poor people ought to do to escape poverty. It’s my own straw poll but the answers I get will surprise no one. Read More

PovertyTalks! is an independent, collaborative initiative created to support broad and equitable inclusion in the political process, and to raise public awareness of poverty issues. PovertyTalks! is ramping up its output of blogs, essays and written material, by individuals and on behalf of the group as a whole, and today’s submission is provided by Daniel Johnson. Daniel Johnson is a writer and social critic who is the Deputy Executive Editor of salem-news.com. Vibrant Communities Calgary provides administrative and organizational assistance to PovertyTalks!

Read the submission here.

Currently too many communities have bylaws in place that effectively criminalize poverty. One example is the punitive bylaws and fines for fare evasion on public transit. While fare evasion (people using public transit without paying the fare) is a concern for major municipalities, currently the punishment for such an infraction is especially hard on people living in poverty. Subsidies and bus tickets may be available but often only through onerous and time-consuming processes where the outcome is far from assured. It is no surprise then that some people living in poverty will choose to ride transit without paying a fare and take their chances. The consequence of being caught is a ticket for hundreds of dollars. Now, if they are unable to afford the $2.75 fare price they are highly unlikely to pay the fine associated with the ticket. Many of these individuals continue to use public transit, as it is the only way that they can afford to get to work or to look for employment. People caught evading fare payment a second time are arrested and charged.

This may sound reasonable to some but it is important to consider the consequences of this action on the lives of people living in poverty and more broadly in our communities. Take the example of a single mom, working to make ends meet at a minimum wage job. Being arrested for not paying a $2.75 fare twice can lead to losing her job, leads to not having money to support her family, which could lead to Child Welfare taking custody of her children. Avoiding the above scenario is in everyone’s best interest. Instead of expensive and time consuming fare evasion policies, people living in poverty and communities would be better served by finding mechanisms to support low income transit passes for all people living in low income.

Municipalities can encourage business development that contributes to the well being of our communities and reduces poverty. A small local business that feeds our local economy and creates quality jobs that pay fair wages are businesses that we should all be supportive of in our communities. Businesses seen to be an asset to the community should be given consideration around applications for zoning and in the calculation of business and property taxes. On the other hand, businesses that are unequivocally negative for our communities, such as payday lenders, pornographic entertainment shops and possibly liquor stores should be strictly regulated to ensure they cannot enter neighborhoods that have a high percentage of people living in poverty.

The province can support municipal efforts by creating mechanisms and incentives for municipalities to engage in poverty reduction.

Recommendation One: Create a provincial body with responsibility for allocating funds to move the provincial 5 year child poverty elimination and 10 year overall poverty reduction plans forward and for tracking the impact of the funding with measurement and evaluation criteria.

One valid criticism about long-term collaborative planning and large-scale community change efforts is that shared and explicit goal setting and outcome measurement is difficult. With this concern in mind a provincial body should be established that is responsible for the distribution of funds as well as developmental evaluative frameworks and outcome tracking. These important principles need to be ingrained into the funding model with very clear expectations. This provincial entity can take one of many forms; a secretariat, as is the case with homelessness in Alberta, or a crown corporation as is the case of poverty reduction in New Brunswick.

There are some hard truths to be faced here, truths that will challenge all of us that work in the social services sector. One is that the things we are currently doing are not working; it is not that they are unimportant, ill conceived or non-essential to poverty alleviation. The difference between this type of programmatic response and poverty reduction work is the level on which the activity takes place. We need to shift from primarily working “on individuals” to working “on systems” that contribute to individuals living in poverty. To say this plainly, some of the activity that we have been doing for many years, activity that we believed would decrease the number of people living in poverty needs to stop, and solutions that fit within the context of a collaborative comprehensive poverty reduction strategy need to be undertaken. A secretariat or crown corporation could ensure funding is given to initiatives that address “root causes” through comprehensive and collaborative approaches to poverty.

Recommendation Two: Designate provincial funding to develop municipal poverty reduction plans that fit within the objectives of the province’s poverty reduction strategy.
Individuals and families living in poverty would benefit from all orders of government working together to generate solutions to eliminate poverty. Comprehensive poverty reduction strategies and buy-in from all orders of government could be achieved if the phrase “poverty is everyone’s issue” resonated with elected officials in the same way as “there is only one tax payer” does.

The province has had success in engaging numerous municipalities in their creation of plans to address homelessness. Seed monies from the province could assist municipalities in the creation of local poverty reduction strategies.

Conditions for receiving provincial funding could include:
• a requirement that municipal councils formally “approve” their community’s poverty reduction plans;
• a requirement that plans be “cross-sectoral” – they involve representation and buy-in from all orders of government, non-profit and private sectors as well as people with experience living in poverty; and
• that they identify how sustained local commitment will be maintained.

The ideas will come in the form of policy recommendations to help move forward on the provincial commitment to create a 5 year plan to end child poverty and a 10 year plan to reduce poverty (this commitment will likely be embedded within the Social Policy Framework, currently under development).

We will be providing broad and systemic recommendations, drawing on expertise and experience with other provincial poverty reduction strategies, drawing on work underway in Alberta municipalities, and drawing on expertise in prevention, measurement, evaluation, and cost/benefit analysis. These systemic recommendations are intended to lay the foundation for an overarching approach to poverty reduction in Alberta.

We will also be providing specific policy recommendations using the policy framework suggested by Sherri Torjman in her paper Poverty Policy (2008). Torjman, one of Canada’s best social policy thinkers, outlines ten areas where provinces can create or enhance existing policies. We will solicit recognized experts in each area Torjman identifies to create policy recommendations that relate to the provincial plans to eliminate child poverty and reduce poverty overall respectively.

In order to generate interest, to increase transparency, and to provide an opportunity for feedback, we will publicly release policy recommendations in each area. The recommendations will be posted on Vibrant Communities Calgary’s blog and uploaded to the Social Policy Framework library beginning in September 2012, continuing on to late fall. Each of these posts will form the basis for a full paper, expanding on the recommendations and including more detailed analysis.

In the winter of 2012 and possibly into 2013, we will collate all the papers submitted into one final document that will contain no less than 10 papers with recommendations from the best policy minds in Canada as well as several additional papers addressing broad systemic issues within the province.

As we go along in this process we ask you to get involved. Keep your eyes on the VCC blog for forthcoming recommendations and help us end poverty in Alberta. Whether you simply read the ideas, share them in your networks, discuss them with friends and family, or actively share your reactions, comments, suggestions and ideas of your own, we appreciate your time in getting engaged.

September 12, 2012
Letter to the editor, Calgary Herald
Re: Increasing the minimum wage won’t help Alberta’s poor, Calgary Herald, September 10, 2012

We applaud the editorial board of the Herald for joining the conversation about ending poverty in Alberta. It’s important to note that we are trying to eliminate poverty, not to “ease the plight of the poor” since we think that Alberta can do better than simply trying to make poverty less devastating to families and communities. Second, while the editorial made an attempt at balance on the role that minimum wage plays in poverty, we would like to ensure there is no confusion on a few salient points.

The most recent minimum wage review, held by the Government of Alberta in the spring of 2010, saw a well-funded, well-organized national restaurant and foodservices organization lobby the all-party review committee for a two-tier minimum wage. The committee received 130 form letters from this organization. (It might be interesting to note that the same organization is lobbying in Newfoundland and Labrador as that province undertakes its own minimum wage review this fall.) Meanwhile, at the Calgary consultation in 2010, the overwhelming majority of individuals and organizations were asking for an increase to minimum wage and stated that a two-tier wage was regressive and ill-advised.

The committee’s resulting recommendations to the Minister of Employment and Immigration included an increase to minimum wage and that the province adopt a poverty reduction strategy. The response from the Minister at the time was to institute a two-tiered minimum wage and to ignore the poverty strategy recommendation. Thankfully, nearly two years later we are seeing some movement on the recommendation for a provincial poverty strategy and we can only hope that we will soon see another review of the minimum wage.

The conversation on income and poverty has certainly advanced since the minimum wage review in 2010 – more people are engaging in the debate, including the editorial board, which preceded their editorial with a poll asking if minimum wage in the province is fair. The results came in a resounding “No” at 66% of 773 people who say that we can’t expect people to live at the current minimum wage.

According to the province’s minimum wage profile, more than 50% of minimum wage earners are over the age of 25, about 65% are women, and more than 65% have high school or greater education. Facts do not support misconceptions that people earning minimum wage are all teenagers, uneducated, or aren’t working hard enough. Most minimum wage jobs offer little flexibility, limited vacation, few or no benefits, shift work, and often a fight to get enough hours to cover the bills. We must insist on better for our province – we must be prepared to pay people enough to live with dignity.

As noted in the editorial, Alberta has the lowest percentage of minimum wage earners compared to other provinces but this fact doesn’t tell us much other than the percentage of Albertans who make minimum wage. It certainly doesn’t tell us anything about low-income earners in general since we know that low wage earners are a much larger category than those earning just minimum wage. Using Calgary as a base, earners would need to make $14.50/hour just to meet the Low Income Cut Off (a frequently used measure to gauge a level of poverty). $14.50/hour is certainly a far cry from $9.75/hour and there are more than 340,000 individuals in Alberta making less than that, for further context, there are more than 250,000 people making less than $13.00.

Alberta’s average wages don’t provide much relevance as a stand-alone indicator for the average person; median incomes are generally accepted as a better indicator. Averages do however provide some useful information when comparing the lowest income earners with the highest. In Alberta, we see that those in the bottom 20% of earners make $17,600, those in the second lowest make $40,900 and those in the top 20% make $164,900. Income disparity is increasing in Alberta and a huge segment of the population continues to fall further and further behind.

Many refer to minimum wage as a blunt instrument against poverty; even if that’s true, we shouldn’t be hasty to dismiss it. Subscribers to a particular brand of economics often refer to the negative effect that raising minimum wage will have on employment overall but there are just as many economists who subscribe to another theory that suggest raising minimum wages have a positive effect, and, both sides can produce evidence to support their positions. This debate detracts from the crux of the issue: income and poverty are (obviously) related and low wages cause people to live in poverty. Simply raising incomes is not a complete solution to poverty but it is effective in tandem with other strategies and is an essential component of a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy.

We’re much more interested in debates that can build on strategies that lead to an Alberta that doesn’t include poverty. What kind of future do we imagine for the province? What kind of legacy do we want for our children, our loved ones, and our communities? The sooner we realize that decent and fair incomes, including minimum wage, play an important role in reducing poverty, the quicker we can get to an Alberta where everyone succeeds.

Alexa Briggs and Dan Meades
Vibrant Communities Calgary

Letter to the Editor, the Calgary Herald
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.

Susan Brooke, Chair
Joe Ceci,Calgary Social Workers for Social Justice

Recently Dan Meades, the urbane, brilliant and generally witty 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”.

Timothy Wild, RSW

my story
It was only a few short years ago that I needed child care for my two young children, so that I could complete a 600 hour unpaid practicum and finish my Master’s degree. I had just finished my maternity leave, and had a one and three year old. I wanted to finish my degree before returning to work. Unfortunately I was turned down because subsidies are based on previous year’s income as opposed to current income. It took months of faxing, photocopying, letters of appeal, frustration, and phone tag; but I was finally able to access the subsidy, find a licensed day home (not in the same town I lived in however, those two were full), complete my practicum, and finish my degree. Looking back now, I doubt that I would have been able to access it had I not had my own computer, fax, phone, vehicle, and English as my first language. Already a Registered Social Worker with an Undergraduate degree, my well written and articulate appeal letter to the Minister with words such as “social justice”, “barriers for women” and “inaccessible social programs” may have also helped my eventual success with the subsidy process.

My biggest barrier to accessing the subsidy was providing adequate proof of income, and also the lack of available licensed spaces. Although this was my story, many women in Alberta and across the country share parts of it. Some don’t qualify for subsidies because of income, others who do quality cannot find a space in a licensed day home or centre, and many women, especially single mothers earning very low incomes still cannot afford child care even with a full subsidy.

the situation
First, here’s how Alberta’s subsidy program works. If parents qualify and are approved for a subsidy (based on their income), child care must be in a licensed child care centre (or licensed day home). Therein lays another problem. There are far fewer licensed child care spaces than there are children who are eligible for subsidy. This limits choice, and creates huge barriers as parents are forced to wait on long waitlists, or travel long distances to reach a licensed centre. Additionally, even a “full” subsidy still leaves low income parents spending a high percentage of their income on the costs of child care.
Let’s take a look again at the budget for a single mother, who is accessing the subsidy. The budget below clearly illustrates the inadequacy of Alberta’s minimum wage, and the room for improvement regarding subsidy amounts and what is considered “full” subsidy.

If you’re unable to view the embedded table, please click here to download: Women_and_LW_blog_table.pdf

the solution
Working for less than a living wage, means that people are living in poverty with income levels well below the Low-Income Cut Off (essentially what we use as a poverty line). Poverty is a complex social problem and as such requires coordinated and integrated solutions. Just as we cannot end poverty in Alberta through housing solutions alone, wages and childcare are other important issues that social policy needs to address. Living wages, more subsidized child care spaces, and subsidy levels deep enough to make child care truly affordable and accessible for women and families are important pieces of this puzzle.

In April 2012, the Government of Alberta demonstrated understanding and a commitment to accessible and affordable child care by raising the income threshold for child care subsidy from $35,100 to $50,000. This means that more families are now eligible for the subsidy program. However, as you see in the budget above, receiving a full subsidy still leaves most parents having to spend a huge portion of their monthly income on child care. In fact, next to housing, child care is the second largest expense for most families.

Raising the minimum wage in Alberta to a Living Wage means that as a province we value choice and quality of life for all Albertans. In my opinion, a person working for 40+ hours a week, should at least receive enough income to meet their basic needs (including child care), and fully participate in their communities and lives. Low and inadequate wages means that women cannot access quality child care, and limits the economic and social independence of themselves and their families.

At minimum, we continue to need subsidy programs, and we continue to need more spaces in quality licensed and accredited child care facilities. However, within our current subsidy model, if women are not earning living wages, or being paid enough money to meet their basic needs and fully participate in their communities, then we’re not doing enough for our children and for the women who are trying to provide opportunities for them to thrive and lead healthy lives free of poverty.

VCC contributor, Rose Ing, and Federal MP, Elizabeth May, Leader of the Green Party

Just maybe the future leader of the Federal Liberals?? VCC’s Alexa Briggs and Janet Eremenko with Liberal MP, Justin Trudeau

VCC’s Alexa Briggs receiving a warm welcome from Liberal MLA, Kent Hehr

July 10th at the Women’s Centre’s Stampede Lunch.

Great turnout!

July 12th at the First Calgary Financial Stampede Breakfast

Alexa and Janet with First Calgary Financial’s Dani DeBoice, Director of Corporate Citizenship and long-time friend of VCC

July 14th with Community Natural Foods’ “Greenest Stampede Breakfast in Town”

Celia Lee, Research and Community Liaison with VCC,

Bruce Martin, flapjack-flipper and General Manager of Community Natural Foods

Thank you to all those who put in so much work to make these events a success. We were thrilled to attend so many breakfasts, and we’re all looking forward to next year!

We also have years of work, experience, and research to build on. This collective knowledge allows us to start from some points of agreement, some things we know about poverty that mean we can differentiate among important concepts as they relate to poverty. A conceptual framework might sound daunting (and, let’s face it, a tiny bit boring) but it is hugely important as we work on complex issues like poverty to get us heading down the right road and generally in the right direction.

To begin, we need a definition of poverty. A definition gives us the parameters of an issue – what does the term mean and how do we make sense of it? Our definition of poverty is the following:
Poverty is the condition of a human being who does not have sufficient economic resources to live with the dignity, choices and power that support full participation in society.

A definition is where we can really explore nuance. We can wordsmith. We can toy with the order of the ideas that we want to include. We can emphasize certain aspects. In the end, what we have is ideally a clear statement that accurately reflects the issue.

A measurement of poverty is far less straightforward than a definition of poverty. Measurement is always tricky since as soon as we quantify something and call it a measure we have given it importance. Insufficient economic resources are at the core of poverty and as such base measures should include an income component. In Canada, we do not have an official poverty line. We use proxy measures of low-income set by Statistics Canada – Low Income Measure, Market Basket Measure, and the Low Income Cut Off; all valid measures of low income and all have their strengths and weaknesses. Now let’s be clear that these measures are just that – they provide us with a baseline to know if we are making progress. Measures don’t reflect the complexity of an issue, nor are they intended to.

Effects of poverty are a way to reflect about the complexity of poverty. Poverty can negatively impact health and well being of individuals and communities in a complex interplay of cause and effect. But, none of these effects themselves can be used as measures or definitions of poverty since we know that there are other things besides poverty that impact individuals and communities. It is important to distinguish between poverty itself and the ways it manifests in people’s lives, or, in other words, the effects of poverty. While we can and should fully recognize that individual experiences of poverty vary greatly, the definition and measure of poverty are a way to isolate and begin to tackle the issue.

Indicators, often used synonymously with measures, fill the role of telling us if we are achieving the goals we have set. So, for example, we know that simply increasing income to lift people out of poverty isn’t necessarily the end goal. Through reducing poverty, we hope to achieve better outcomes, not just for people living in poverty but also for everyone. As such, we look to other policy interventions and service improvements, tracking associated indicators, to give us a road map for following the consequences of policy and service changes.

Definition, measurement, effects, and indicators – all very important concepts to have a firm handle on before we can hope to make a dent in a complex issue like poverty. It might seem a bit tedious to go through the exercise of forming this kind of conceptual framework but without it we don’t have a clear sense of the direction we are headed in, why, and what we hope to achieve.

Last week, we posted about Strategic Direction Five; below, we expand on the sixth and final Strategic Direction with: Actions, Existing Infrastructure and Resources, Additional Supports Needed, and Measures of Success for each action. As always, please continue to give us feedback and share your ideas at info@vibrantcalgary.com.

Strategic Direction Six:
Identify unintended consequences of bylaws for people living in poverty.

For example, a current bylaw states that no person shall put his feet on the top or surface of any table, bench, planter or sculpture placed in any public place. For a person who may be sleeping on a table or bench, this bylaw results in a fine that s/he cannot hope to pay. The inability to pay leads to legal action and possible arrest causing undue penalties for being poor.

Actions:
1. Establish a committee to report directly to Bill Bruce, Director of Animal and Bylaw Services, on unintended consequences of bylaws for people living in poverty and recommendations for changes. The committee should be chaired or co-chaired by a person living in poverty in Calgary and must include at least 50% representation of people living in poverty, a city councilor, and someone with appropriate legal expertise.

Existing Resources and Infrastructure:
• Previous bylaw review processes and procedures
• City administration

Additional Supports Needed:
• Funding to provide honoraria to committee members living in poverty.
• City resources to support the committee.
• Will to review and implement committee findings and recommendations.

Measurements for Success:
• Abolishment of identified bylaws and/or implementation of non-punitive responses to by-law infractions.

See the full plan below!

a) Underlying Principles
1. Work with existing infrastructure and initiatives where possible, identify clear roles and responsibilities, and advise where additional funding and supports are needed; 2. Identify solutions to poverty that focus on a preventive model targeted to systems; and 3. Encourage shared responsibility and ownership of a Poverty Reduction Plan by creating a multi-sectoral working group responsible for oversight and innovation.

c) Strategic Directions
1. Joint action with other municipalities to encourage the province to adopt an Alberta Poverty Reduction Strategy; 2. Support and reward poverty prevention activities across sectors; 3. Review services and subsidies, across city units and corporations, for equitable access and affordability. Identify valuable services as well as gaps; 4. Create opportunities for positive interactions with regulated financial institutions; 5. Explore innovative models for creating affordable housing and infrastructure; and 6. Identify unintended consequences of bylaws for people living in poverty.

Last week, we posted about Strategic Direction Four; below, we expand on the fifth Strategic Direction with: Actions, Existing Infrastructure and Resources, Additional Supports Needed, and Measures of Success for each action. As always, please continue to give us feedback and share your ideas at info@vibrantcalgary.com.

Strategic Direction Five:
Explore innovative models for creating affordable housing and infrastructure.

Actions:
1. Report on ways the following options can best create affordable housing in Calgary for people in low-income:
• Land Trusts
• Co-operative Housing
• Secondary Suites
• Housing Associations

2. Mandate that new developments must include at least 10% affordable housing options.

Existing Resources and Infrastructure:
• The 10 year plan to end homelessness in the city and the province
• Calgary Housing
• Existing co-operative housing models and housing associations

Additional Supports Needed:
• Political will to facilitate the creation of safe affordable housing options.

Measurements for Success:
• An increase in a variety of affordable housing stock in existing and new neighbourhoods.
• An increased ability for people living in poverty to spend less on safe housing.

See the full plan below and stay tuned for expansion on Strategic Direction 6!

a) Underlying Principles
1. Work with existing infrastructure and initiatives where possible, identify clear roles and responsibilities, and advise where additional funding and supports are needed; 2. Identify solutions to poverty that focus on a preventive model targeted to systems; and 3. Encourage shared responsibility and ownership of a Poverty Reduction Plan by creating a multi-sectoral working group responsible for oversight and innovation.

c) Strategic Directions
1. Joint action with other municipalities to encourage the province to adopt an Alberta Poverty Reduction Strategy; 2. Support and reward poverty prevention activities across sectors; 3. Review services and subsidies, across city units and corporations, for equitable access and affordability. Identify valuable services as well as gaps; 4. Create opportunities for positive interactions with regulated financial institutions; 5. Explore innovative models for creating affordable housing and infrastructure; and 6. Identify unintended consequences of bylaws for people living in poverty.