Analysis of proposed solutions for poverty reduction PROS CONS Claude Snow First New Brunswick Summit On Poverty Moncton, October 27 and 28, 2006. 1
WE ALL AGREE ON THE NEED TO ASSIST THE NEEDY THROUGH THE SHARING OF WEALTH 2 VIEWS ECONOMIC INTERESTS voluntary sharing through individual solidarity («Good citizens do volunteer work») SOCIAL VALUES compulsory sharing through social solidarity «Guaranteed public services») 2
EVOLUTION OF SOCIAL ASSISTANCE IN CANADA 1960 1995 Canada Assistance Plan 1/2 - paid by Canada 1/2 - paid by NB CAN. s SHARE (100 M less) NB s SHARE (higher) Canada Social Transfer 3
7% OF HOUSEHOLDS GO TO FOOD BANKS (same percentage in NB as elsewhere in Canada) In NB : An average of 19,440 households per month. 4
HISTORICAL TRENDS IN THE SOCIAL FIELD 1960-1970 Louis Robichaud Equal opportunity to all. Guaranteed right to assistance to all those in need. Minister of Social Services obliged by law to assist people in need. Individuals are not required to work in order to draw social assistance. Assistance is paid for by public funds, according to federal standards. 5
1970-1987 Richard Hatfield Introduced the notion of fiscal restraints. Promised to reduce State intervention, particularly in the social sector. Appointed a Commission to find alternatives, i.e. social programs not paid for by the State. Made cuts in social spending Volunteer work became institutionalized. 6
1987-1997 Frank McKenna Reduced public assistance significantly to drive people to work. Believed that forcing people to work triggers their desire to work and breaks their dependency. Believed that people in need must first rely on family members and the community, and lastly, on the State. People often had go to Food Banks to eat. Some public services were outsourced to the private sector (e.g. detention centres). Income assistance rates were kept very low. Harsh policies, such as the "Economic Units", were adopted. 7
1997-2006 Bernard Lord Social programs are further cut or reduced. «Government must first be a good manager, then, it may attend to human needs.» Government boasts that it stays within budget and the number of people on social assistance is decreasing. Some social services are contracted out to Non Governmental Organizations. Government uses Public-Private Partnerships. Government believes that partnerships create the wealth required to finance social programs. 8
SOCIAL THINKING OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT Jean Chrétien, 1993-2003; Paul Martin, 2003-06; Stephen Harper, 2006-present Less fortunate people must turn to charity for assistance. Government will take care of the rest. Meeting one s basic needs is a personal responsibility. We must face the consequences of our choices. Government is too involved in the private affairs of citizens. It must be reformed. Since 1995, social assistance is no longer enshrined in a Federal law, as it was previously. First and foremost, government must be a good accountant. Some social programs must be reduced so that taxes can be cut and the money returned into the pockets of taxpayers. 9
VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTION CONSTITUTION 36 (1) Governments commit themselves to promoting equal opportunities for all Canadians, to providing the essential public services, and to encouraging regional economic development to reduce inequalities. 36 (2) The Federal Government is committed to give Provincial Governments sufficient funding so they can ensure public services at a comparable level of quality. POVERTY POCKETS IN CANADA SOURCE: Natural Resources Canada. 10
SOCIAL THINKING OF THOSE PROMOTING "VIBRANT COMMUNITIES" Since 2002... The McConnell Foundation supports those who search for lasting solutions to transform their communities through cooperative participation and leadership. The Tamarack Institute and the Caledon Institute finance long-range projects aimed at improving lowincome groups. In St. John, NB, a retired bank director and a lawyer are acting as leaders of community development. They attempt to reduce poverty through the strengthening of the community. They establish win-win partnerships. K. Pearson, McConnell Foundation and S. Holder, Tamarack Institute The business community pools its resources, talents, discipline and influence and combines this with the community s experience. 11 Leaders receive grants to support projects such as orienting families toward selfsufficiency by directing them toward paid employment.
SHOULD WE SUBSIDIZE COMMUNITY LEADERS OR HELP CITIZENS DEVELOP THEIR OWN PROJECTS? COMMUNITY LEADERS (Businessmen, professional elite, etc.) + Use their leadership, contacts and influence. Access Foundation funds + = Set up successful projects to influence the political process ORDINARY Get organized with CITIZENS + the help of + funds = community workers to define their problem and develop strategies. 12 Request through projects. Attempt to influence the political process in order to have their needs met.
THOSE WHO PUT SOCIAL VALUES FIRST The "Social" includes individual as well as social welfare. The State must defend the interests of minority groups. The emphasis must be placed on the joint responsibility of the State and of the citizens. Workers should benefit from the 48 billion $ surplus sitting in the EI coffers. To guarantee access to essential services, they should be enshrined in the law. Government should distribute resources fairly. All should strive to develop a social conscience, that is, become aware of the needs of others. 13
THE VISION OF SOCIAL GROUPS Social services must be paid for by taxes. All citizens have a right to an income which covers the basic minimum. We must struggle with those who are the hardest hit by public policies. The government must reduce the shameful poverty within our communities. We need an adequate income, guaranteed by the State, to cover basic needs, in other words, a citizenship income. Social assistance is a punishment tool rather than a program to assist and support people. 14 We must stop replacing public services by private ones, even at places such as laundries and cafeterias.
RESTRICTING THE INFORMATION WHAT IS SAID There is no law forcing government to provide information. Savings are made when citizens ignore their rights. WHAT IS OUR REACTION When government adopts a policy, it should be publicized. Failing to inform people about their rights shows a lack of compassion. SOLUTIONS PUT FORTH BY THOSE WHO PLACE INDIVIDUAL SOLIDARITY FIRST 15
REDUCING THE LEVEL OF ASSISTANCE WHAT IS SAID When income assistance rates are low, government saves. Companies do better when employment insurance deductions are lowered. WHAT IS OUR REACTION Being supported when in need is a fundamental right. It is the government s responsibility to support those who are less fortunate. 16
FORCING PEOPLE TO COME TO THE OFFICE WHAT IS SAID Forcing a social assistance recipient to come to the office in person is a good control mechanism. It is one way of eliminating fraud. WHAT IS OUR REACTION Such policies make it harder to access social assistance. There is a presumption that everyone is a potential abuser. 17
FORCING PEOPLE TO GO TO WORK WHAT IS SAID Keeping social assistance below the minimum wage encourages people to work. Working people are more independent than those on social assistance. Production should be rewarded. WHAT IS OUR REACTION Some disabilities are invisible and prevent from working. Low-paid part-time work leads to more insecurity. Everyone should get a decent income. 18
FAVORING THOSE WHO WORK WHAT IS SAID If we give less to those who refuse to work, it will encourage people to seek work. Those who work hard and save their money deserve more. WHAT IS OUR REACTION People who are not working should not be punished. The unemployable are also entitled to dignity. Various limitations may hinder participation. 19
FORCING NEXT OF KIN TO CONTRIBUTE WHAT IS SAID Parents must be forced to support their children, even unto adulthood. Government could thus save a lot of money. WHAT IS OUR REACTION This leads to the impoverishment of the parents. Quite often, the poor end up helping the poor. This may, at times, cause family discord. 20
FOCUSSING ON PARTNERSHIPS WHAT IS SAID The private sector and Non Governmental Organizations are more efficient than the State when it comes to delivering public services. Public-Private Partnerships make it possible to limit the number of public servants. WHAT IS OUR REACTION Non governmental aid is not handed out according to set standards. People cannot appeal. NGO s are not accountable to the general public. 21
FOCUSSING ON BUSINESS WHAT IS SAID When corporate taxes are lower, businesses do more community action. Community action is profitable to the government. WHAT IS OUR REACTION The goal of the private sector is to make profits and to offer services in the cheapest possible way. Volunteer work does not ensure uniformity. Public interest is not preserved. 22
CAPITALIZING ON VOLUNTEERS WHAT IS SAID Anyone acting as a volunteer feels useful and a good citizen. It is also a good way of fighting boredom and solitude. WHAT IS OUR REACTION Offering non-paid work is insulting to those who seek employment. Regions with fewer volunteers have less access to services. More volunteer work means less services provided by the State on the long run. 23
ANALYSIS OF THE INDIVIDUALIST VIEW Solidarity can be strengthened by focussing on the family and the community.the State is a last resort. We must do away with the belief that "You owe me everything". It is up to everyone to set money aside to cover personal needs and become self-sufficient. Wealth does not belong to the State but to those who create it. Corporations should pay less taxes because they generate work and help build communities. Repaying the debt is of utmost importance, even more so than equity. To have a good credit rating with the International Monetary Fund, salaries need to remain low. 24
ANALYSIS OF THE SOCIALIST VIEW We believe in solidarity as a basic value, but on a collective basis. The State has the duty to collect taxes and redistribute public funds. Self-sufficiency is a myth; assisted autonomy is more realistic. The State has the moral and legal obligation to assist the needy. All of society wins when people pay their taxes. Everyone is allowed to make profits, but all are entitled to live in dignity. Only the State can ensure an equitable sharing of wealth and public goods. Economics, as well as politics, must be at the service of people. 25
A greater number of social assistance recipients and of unemployed POSSIBLE SOLUTIONS: CUTS IN SOCIAL SPENDING? = Less income from taxes = BUDGET DEFICITS How to make up for the deficits? COMPRESSION OF SOCIAL SPENDING Source: National Council of Welfare, see : http://www.ncwcnbes.net/ 26
DENYING ACCESS? Reduction of Federal Transfers Province is deprived of millions of $ for social assistance CHOICE Allow a deficit? NO! Raise taxes? NO! Make more cuts? YES! New exclusion criteria put in place 27
SHOULD WE AVOID THE QUESTION? Reduction of E-I and of social assistance = MORE INSECURITY (and illness) In order to reduce insecurity = More voluntary action and charity initiatives are encouraged 28
MORE REPRESSIVE POLICIES? A system whereby $2 is added to the grocery bill. This money is then given to food banks to feed needy people. «Parents and grand-parents should contribute to the support of teenagers who become parents.» 29
STRENGTHENING SOCIAL SECURITY? LAW FINANCING SYSTEM + = Standards Federal Transfers Public administration 30
CONCLUSION Is putting everybody to work a good way of reducing poverty? No, because the capacity to work differs from one person to another. Moreover, many of those who are working are poor because the minimum wage is too low and therefore, they lack security. Is it better, then, to give grants to "Community leaders"? No, because their interests are often personal ones instead of those of the citizens. 31
CONCLUSION There is hope. Reducing poverty can become a reality if government starts reinvesting in social security. People would then have a decent income and support services. Social security even protects those who want it abolished. For example, the more fortunate are well protected, even more so than the low-income workers, by the Canada Pension Plan. 32