You Voted For Change....You didn't Get It

Remember this when you go to the polls to elect a new provincial government.

An all-too familiar tune

The solutions for helping the poor are the same for the McGuinty Liberals as it was for the Harris Conservatives: raise assistance benefits and minimum wages and provide affordable housing and child care for the least wealthy, says Dennis Raphael

Toronto Star

Public policy under the Harris-Eves regime led to dramatic increases in misery, suffering, and pain among many Ontario residents. Now, more than three years after that government's defeat, in spite of mounting evidence concerning the health-threatening effects of poverty, the provincial government's response remains one of indifference.

Indeed, the number of, and the situation of the poor in Ontario – with its attendant health implications – are worse today than at the conclusion of the Harris-Eves rule.

Policies that create poverty are bad for health since poverty is the experience of material and social deprivation associated with food and housing insecurity, childhood deprivation, unemployment and insecure employment, and exclusion from Canadian life.

An accumulating literature details that living in poverty is a life characterized by material and social deprivation, the experience of stress, the experience of stigma and degradation, and an awareness that poverty grinds down one's health and well-being.

Poverty is the best statistical predictor of just about every indicator that describes Canadians' health.

Children's health is especially vulnerable to conditions of living in poverty. Chronic diseases such as coronary heart disease and type II diabetes are strongly related to living in poverty as is the incidence of respiratory disease, lung cancer and some other cancers.

The Ontario Liberal party campaigned on the premise that the economic and social policies of the Harris-Eves regime created unacceptable levels of suffering and misery among the most vulnerable Ontarians.

It noted the explosive growth in numbers of children and families living in poverty, living as homeless or home-insecure, and using food banks. The clawback of the National Child Benefit to families on social assistance would be repealed. Little has been done to fulfill these commitments.

And, not surprisingly, the latest 2004 poverty figures show that the situation in Ontario has actually deteriorated.

As of 2004, 14.7 per cent of all Ontarians were living in poverty. Among children under 18 years of age, the poverty rate was 17.4 per cent. Among female-led families with children, the poverty rate was 54.6 per cent.

These rates have risen since the election victory of the Liberals in 2003. Similarly, the 2004 data show an increase in the gap between the average income of people living in poverty and the actual poverty line.

On average, families living in poverty in Ontario have incomes that are $8,400 below the poverty line. Unattached individuals in poverty have an average gap of $7,600. People living in poverty are not just poor, they are very poor.

These numbers are consistent with what is known about the resources being provided to the most vulnerable in Ontario.

According to the National Council of Welfare, 2005 social assistance rates in Ontario fall well below the poverty line benchmark. A single "employable" person receives benefits that are 34 per cent of the poverty line, a person with a disability receives 58 per cent; a lone parent with one child receives 56 per cent, and a couple with two children receives benefits that are 50 per cent of the poverty line.

Just over 60 per cent of food-bank users in the Toronto GTA in 2005 were on social assistance or disability supports. Even with recent increases in minimum wages, the amount received for a single full-time employed person is only 64 per cent of the poverty line.

The percentage of the poverty line attained for a single parent working at these wage levels is dramatically lower.

The Liberal government has refused to honour its commitment to end the clawback of the child benefit to families on social assistance.

The refusal to provide desperately needed resources to the most vulnerable children in Ontario is at best negligent and at worst borders on child abuse.

The Ontario Ministry of Health Promotion has thrown itself with great energy into communicating the importance to health of eating fruits and vegetables, exercising, and reducing tobacco and alcohol use.

Considering what we know about the importance of material and social deprivation as a threat to health, and the unwillingness of the Ontario government to ease the plight of the most vulnerable in Ontario, such messaging is misleading and malicious. The Canadian Association of Food Banks, Campaign 2000, the National Council of Welfare, and others outline a consistent set of priorities – raise assistance benefits and minimum wages and provide affordable housing and child care – to promote the health of the least well-off.

These solutions are not being implemented.

There is no reason that in an era of unparalleled wealth that the most vulnerable in Ontario society are being forced to subsist on clearly health-threatening levels of social assistance and minimum wages.

Raising these levels would be just a first step in dealing with the related health crises being faced by so many Ontario residents.

These are the means by which health should be promoted in Ontario. Choosing "healthy lifestyles" will not do the trick.

Dennis Raphael is a professor of Health Policy and Management at York University. His book Poverty and Policy in Canada: Implications for Health and Quality of Life will be published in March.