[PEN-L:697] redefining the poor out of existence

[Robert Mac Diarmid]

This is a multi-part message in MIME format.

------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BE01B2.540C47D0
        charset="iso-8859-1"


Toronto Star - October 27, 1998





A flick of the pen, and presto, the poor disappear

Canada's always imaginative governments have a new cure for child poverty.
They are planning to define it out of existence.


By simply changing the meaning of the word ``poor,'' a federal-provincial
report obtained by The Star calculates, Canadian governments could
miraculously remove 1.8 million people - including 500,000 children - from
the country's poverty rolls.


No muss. No fuss. No cost. Abracadabra and - presto - the have-nots will
have.


It's an elegantly simple idea which will solve, at no cost to the taxpayer,
an embarrassing problem.


On the one hand, Canada has been ranked for five years straight by the
United Nations as the best country in which to live.


But on the other, it has just too many poor people.


Statistics Canada calculates that about 1.5 million children and 3.8 million
adults, about one-fifth of the population, are living below the low-income
cutoff - what the rest of us call the poverty line.


According to the National Council of Welfare, the percentage of poor
Canadians is rising.


What's a government to do?


One solution would be to devote more money to helping the poor.


But Ottawa and the provinces don't want to do too much of that.


Prime Minister Jean Chrétien and Finance Minister Paul Martin Jr. have
already lifted $19 billion from the unemployed. They did this by making it
impossible for almost two-thirds of the jobless to collect what is
laughingly called Employment Insurance.


Meanwhile, just to make sure the poor got properly hammered, Ontario Premier
Mike Harris slashed welfare rates by 21 per cent.


By and large, middle-class Canadians with jobs applauded.


They thought it was about time the poor got really screwed. After all, who
did those people think they were, glorying in their instant macaroni dinners
and free dentures?


The only problem was the kids. The middle classes felt just a little twinge
of guilt over all those poor children.


The astute federal Liberals picked up on this guilt. Last year, Junior
Martin announced a new national child benefit aimed at helping the offspring
of the working poor.


This year Ottawa is devoting $850 million to the project with a promise to
double that figure by 2000.


But critics said this wasn't enough. Some said $2 billion was the bare
minimum needed; others calculated that $20 billion would be necessary to
eliminate child poverty.


Worried social service ministers from Ottawa and the provinces got together
to find a solution.


They weren't willing to spend enough to solve the problem. So they decided
to redefine the problem to match what they were willing to spend.


Officials were ordered to form a working group. As the working group's March
report, entitled Construction of a Preliminary Market Basket Measure of
Poverty points out, the ministers were particularly irked by Statistics
Canada's Low-Income Cutoff, or LICO.


The LICO is what virtually everyone in Canada calls the poverty line. Its
method of calculation is too detailed to get into here. What's important is
that it is a relative measure: It compares the incomes of less well-to-do
families against those in the middle.


The right hates relative measures of poverty. Theorists of the right point
out that 100 years ago, a poor person was someone who ate only potato
peelings and mouldy bread scraps.


Since almost no one eats just potato peelings and mouldy bread scraps now,
these theorists argue, poverty has been eradicated; those who insist it
hasn't are communists.


The federal-provincial working group bought the right's basic argument.
Poverty, the officials decided, should not be measured relative to average
incomes. It should be measured against a constant standard: what people need
to survive.


But being officials who represented a wide array of governments, they were
reluctant to endorse the potato peeling and mouldy bread standard. So they
declared this to be one extreme.


Then they declared Statscan's LICO the other extreme. And they came up with
a definition of poverty that sat in the middle, based on what they thought a
poor family should eat, wear and spend on rent.


The specifics of this definition will probably change as more officials come
up with more ideas about how to determine which poor people aren't really
poor. Suffice it to say that the standards in the report are not rich.


But the aim is clear: it is to reduce poverty - especially the country's
politically troublesome child poverty - through statistical sleight of hand.


Politically, this is brilliant. Redefining poverty will remove the last
remnant of middle-class guilt. Now, when we pass someone sitting on a
hot-air grate cadging loonies, we will be able to ignore him with impunity.


For he will not really exist. How could he? In the new, reconfigured Canada,
there will be no poor.


------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BE01B2.540C47D0
        charset="iso-8859-1"

<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD W3 HTML//EN">
<HTML>
<HEAD>

<META content=3D"text/html; charset=3Diso-8859-1" =
http-equiv=3DContent-Type>
<META content=3D'"MSHTML 4.72.2106.6"' name=3DGENERATOR>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT color=3D#000000 size=3D2>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft><SPAN class=3D783035718-27101998><FONT color=3D#000000 =
face=3DArial=20
size=3D2>Toronto Star - </FONT></SPAN>October 27, 1998 </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>A flick of the pen, and presto, the poor disappear </P>
<P align=3Dleft>Canada's always imaginative governments have a new cure =
for child=20
poverty. They are planning to define it out of existence. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>By simply changing the meaning of the word ``poor,'' a=20
federal-provincial report obtained by The Star calculates, Canadian =
governments=20
could miraculously remove 1.8 million people - including 500,000 =
children - from=20
the country's poverty rolls. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>No muss. No fuss. No cost. Abracadabra and - presto - =
the=20
have-nots will have. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>It's an elegantly simple idea which will solve, at no =
cost to the=20
taxpayer, an embarrassing problem. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>On the one hand, Canada has been ranked for five years =
straight by=20
the United Nations as the best country in which to live. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>But on the other, it has just too many poor people. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>Statistics Canada calculates that about 1.5 million =
children and=20
3.8 million adults, about one-fifth of the population, are living below =
the=20
low-income cutoff - what the rest of us call the poverty line. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>According to the National Council of Welfare, the =
percentage of=20
poor Canadians is rising. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>What's a government to do? </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>One solution would be to devote more money to helping =
the poor.=20
</P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>But Ottawa and the provinces don't want to do too much =
of that.=20
</P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>Prime Minister Jean Chr&eacute;tien and Finance Minister =
Paul=20
Martin Jr. have already lifted $19 billion from the unemployed. They did =
this by=20
making it impossible for almost two-thirds of the jobless to collect =
what is=20
laughingly called Employment Insurance. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>Meanwhile, just to make sure the poor got properly =
hammered,=20
Ontario Premier Mike Harris slashed welfare rates by 21 per cent. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>By and large, middle-class Canadians with jobs =
applauded. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>They thought it was about time the poor got really =
screwed. After=20
all, who did those people think they were, glorying in their instant =
macaroni=20
dinners and free dentures? </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>The only problem was the kids. The middle classes felt =
just a=20
little twinge of guilt over all those poor children. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>The astute federal Liberals picked up on this guilt. =
Last year,=20
Junior Martin announced a new national child benefit aimed at helping =
the=20
offspring of the working poor. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>This year Ottawa is devoting $850 million to the project =
with a=20
promise to double that figure by 2000. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>But critics said this wasn't enough. Some said $2 =
billion was the=20
bare minimum needed; others calculated that $20 billion would be =
necessary to=20
eliminate child poverty. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>Worried social service ministers from Ottawa and the =
provinces got=20
together to find a solution. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>They weren't willing to spend enough to solve the =
problem. So they=20
decided to redefine the problem to match what they were willing to =
spend. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>Officials were ordered to form a working group. As the =
working=20
group's March report, entitled Construction of a Preliminary Market =
Basket=20
Measure of Poverty points out, the ministers were particularly irked by=20
Statistics Canada's Low-Income Cutoff, or LICO. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>The LICO is what virtually everyone in Canada calls the =
poverty=20
line. Its method of calculation is too detailed to get into here. What's =

important is that it is a relative measure: It compares the incomes of =
less=20
well-to-do families against those in the middle. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>The right hates relative measures of poverty. Theorists =
of the=20
right point out that 100 years ago, a poor person was someone who ate =
only=20
potato peelings and mouldy bread scraps. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>Since almost no one eats just potato peelings and mouldy =
bread=20
scraps now, these theorists argue, poverty has been eradicated; those =
who insist=20
it hasn't are communists. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>The federal-provincial working group bought the right's =
basic=20
argument. Poverty, the officials decided, should not be measured =
relative to=20
average incomes. It should be measured against a constant standard: what =
people=20
need to survive. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>But being officials who represented a wide array of =
governments,=20
they were reluctant to endorse the potato peeling and mouldy bread =
standard. So=20
they declared this to be one extreme. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>Then they declared Statscan's LICO the other extreme. =
And they=20
came up with a definition of poverty that sat in the middle, based on =
what they=20
thought a poor family should eat, wear and spend on rent. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>The specifics of this definition will probably change as =
more=20
officials come up with more ideas about how to determine which poor =
people=20
aren't really poor. Suffice it to say that the standards in the report =
are not=20
rich. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>But the aim is clear: it is to reduce poverty - =
especially the=20
country's politically troublesome child poverty - through statistical =
sleight of=20
hand. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P align=3Dleft>Politically, this is brilliant. Redefining poverty will =
remove the=20
last remnant of middle-class guilt. Now, when we pass someone sitting on =
a=20
hot-air grate cadging loonies, we will be able to ignore him with =
impunity. </P>
<P align=3Dleft></P>
<P>For he will not really exist. How could he? In the new, reconfigured =
Canada,=20
there will be no poor. </P></FONT></DIV></BODY></HTML>

------=_NextPart_000_0012_01BE01B2.540C47D0--