Jason Mann
Communist Party of Canada
Prince George Collective
The Fraser Institute is a conservative economic policy think tank based in Vancouver BC (http://www.fraserinstitute.ca). The institute conducts studies to show the benefits of a free market economy in trade, law and fiscal policy. The group attempts to change public opinion and lobby governments in the interests of those who would benefit from such a free market economy. The institute supports, and is supported by conservative minded governments, large corporations and the majority of major Canadian newspapers. During the last 14 years, Christopher Sarlo from the Fraser Institute has been pressuring governments to adopt a “basic needs” approach to measuring poverty that he promotes in his book, Poverty in Canada. Social critics point out that many of the approaches Sarlo takes regarding poverty are short sighted and do not have the needs of poor people in mind. The basic needs approach to poverty measures the absolute minimum that is required to keep a person alive in Canada as opposed to the Low Income Cut of Lines developed by Statistics Canada which also take a standard of living into account. Mr Sarlo takes the stance that poverty has been eliminated in Canada (Sarlo 2). How he and the Fraser Institute reach this conclusion is not clear. The Fraser Institute’s position on poverty is based on misused statistics, changed definitions, and conservative propaganda, therefore the conclusions reached by the organization on poverty and basic needs are irrelevant.
Sarlo in his book, Poverty In Canada, claims that Statistics Canada inflates its Low Income Cut Off lines to double the amount that poverty justifies. He points out that Statistics Canada places its Low Income Cut Off at $22,371 for a family of four living in a community between 100,000 and 499,999 people. He estimates that the actual poverty line that would meet the needs of the family is somewhat closer to $13,140. Janine Brodie, head of political science at the University of Alberta, accuses Sarlo of “slick statistical manipulation that distorts reality and reduces social accountability” (Hagan). Sarlo, on the other hand, accuses Statistics Canada of inflating Low Income Cut Off lines because of the influence of social welfare activists (Sarlo 40). There is a basic contradiction in this argument proposed by Sarlo. The Fraser Institute’s mandate is to influence government to the benefits of a complete free market economy. Thus, arguably any study released by the institute would support views favoured by conservative governments and the institute itself. In addition, Sarlo received his funding from the Fraser Institute to conduct his research; this could very definitely lead to a bias in his findings. Statistics Canada on the other hand, is a federal organization that is independent from political think tanks and governments that has a mandate to provide objective statistical information to serve the whole of Canada (http://www.statcan.ca/english/about/overview.htm).
Christopher Sarlo with his basic needs calculations proves, in 1992, that very few people fall into the category of poverty by his definition. It is quite clear that when a poverty line is based on the absolute minimum for a person to be able to survive that anyone below this line, without the basic necessities in life, does not remain in it for very long. His book, Poverty in Canada, is full of case studies of fictitious people in a variety of situations proving his point.
CASE 4: IS THIS SINGLE MOTHER AND HER FAMILY POOR?
Single mother of two children living in Toronto.
She is not working and is not currently looking for work because she feels her time is better spent caring for her children (ages 3 and 6) and because, with limited skills, her market wage would likely be lower than her current welfare benefits. She separated from her husband two years ago and he has provided no financial support. Her total 1990 income from family benefits, family allowance and tax credits (both federal and provincial) is approximately $13,000. This puts her and her family fully $9,000 below the poverty line. She is in a rent subsidized housing unit and pays only $2,500 including utilities. She is a good cook and ensures that her family eats nutritiously. Shopping wisely and buying no junk food, her total annual expenditure on food is $4,500 and this includes a treat every two weeks (pizza, Chinese food, take-out chicken, etc.). In addition, she spends $1,000 on clothing, $1,000 on furniture, appliances, maintenance and other household items, $500 for transportation, $500 for laundry and dry cleaning, $500 for personal care items for herself and her children, $300 for telephone service, $500 for cable T.V. and newspapers, and $500 for entertainment (mainly videos, beer and an occasional baby-sitter). She spends her final $1,000 on ways that enrich herself and her children. Such things as concerts, trips to the Science Center, the zoo, the ballpark, the circus, the planetarium, and picnics on Centre Island are, in her view, healthy and educational diversions. Is this family poor? I would argue that they are not poor because they can purchase all of their basic needs as well as a number of amenities. There is no extravagance here, but neither is there destitution.
Fortunately for this woman, she was able to find social housing in Toronto as many people cannot get into these programmes due to limited space and cut backs. If she was not able to find subsidized housing she would be looking at a rent of approximately $700 a month or a $400 a month increase in expenses, not including heat and electricity (Sarlo 12). The fact that the women used social housing in this case study is ironic because conservative minded people and the Fraser Institute point out that welfare benefits and subsidized housing are programmes that encourage people to stay on welfare instead of finding a job. The conservative Globe and Mail, in its November 13th 1997 issue, stated that much is being done in Canada to fight poverty such as “unemployment and welfare benefits have been cut and eligibility tightened, not to "punish the poor," but to ensure that the balance of self-interest lies in working in preference to collecting state cash”. One might also question how this family eats nutritiously and even has extra money for treats every two weeks. $4500 over 365 days is approximately $4.11 per person per day or $1.36 a meal. According to the Canada Food Guide published by Health Canada, which is the guide to healthy eating in Canada, this family would require in total 16 servings of grain products, 17 servings of fruit, 6 servings of dairy products as well as 6 servings of meat products in a day. According to Sarlo’s basic poverty line, the mother in this situation is able to afford these nutritional requirements with only $1.36 to spend on each meal. Sarlo also fails to take into account the cost of medical expenses in Ontario as well as prescription drugs. With such a financial hardship, the mother will have trouble in the coming years when her children enter school; there will be many increased costs to worry about. How can the Fraser Institute argue that we as Canadians should have no concern with this family when it cannot budget for even Christmas presents or birthday parties. Do normal Canadian children grow up without Christmas or birthdays?
The reality of children in poverty is not as wonderful as the Fraser Institute makes it out to be with their fictitious case studies. This case study does not fit in well with the argument made by the federal government of Canada with its report, “Poverty Profile 1998”, which states that approximately 50% of single mothers live in poverty. A case study of an actual in Toronto was presented in the September 17, 2001 issue of Maclean's magazine. This article studies Caroline, Time and John, three children from Toronto.
Continued on next page