land
i!«L?| ^
• •».:•*!
^ p ^pa lask Force on the
and Measurements Wriy'&i Canada
The Meaning and Measurement
of Poverty in Canada
Accounts of fathers proudly absenting themselves from the dinner table
because there was not enough food for even the children, and of middle-aged
women living on $5 a day after rent was paid — an amount of money many
of us pay for parking each day...
These sad situations were just two of many described to a national task
force on poverty which held public meetings in eight locations across
Canada. Not Enough: The Meaning and Measurement of Poverty in Canada,
the task force's report, asserts that "serious deprivation does exist in
Canada." Information presented in the report backs up the claim:
•2.3 million or 26 per cent of Canadian households live below the
poverty line;
• poor households are, on average, $4,000 under the poverty line;
• over 100,000 families subsist on incomes of $5,000 or less;
• social assistance rates in 1983 were 50% below the poverty line.
Not Enough provides a range of detailed information, charts and graphs
dealing with the extent, depth and length of poverty in Canada. The report
reveals that the cost of a typical "market basket" of items (food, clothing,
personal needs, household supplies) varies little from St. John's to
Vancouver or in urban or rural areas. This confirms the validity of using a
national poverty line standard for measuring poverty.
"Feminization" has become poverty's outstanding feature. Forty-three of
every 100 lone-parent mothers live in poverty. For every 100 unattached
women over the age of sixty-five, 62 are likely to be poor. The report
documents the difficulty women and persons with disabilities face in
attempting to live dignified lives on severely restrictive budgets.
ISBN 0-88810-346-8
Canadian Council on Social Development
The Meaning and Measurement
of Poverty in Canada
Report of the GCSD National Task Force on the
Definition and Measurement of Poverty in Canada
Copyright c 1984 by the Canadian Council on Social
Development. All rights reserved. No part of this
book may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by
any means, electronic or mechanical, including
photocopying, or by any information storage or
retrieval system, without permission in writing from
the publisher.
ISBN 0-88810-346-8
Canadian Cataloguing in Publication Data
CCSD National Task Force on the Definition and
Measurement of Poverty in Canada
Not enough: the meaning and measurement of poverty in
Canada
Bibliography: p.
ISBN 0-88810-346-8
1. Poor—Canada. 2. Poverty—Research—Canada
I. Canadian Council on Social Development
II. Title.
HV105.C47 1984 362.5'0971 C84-090111-9
The Canadian Council on Social Development
55 Parkdale Avenue
Post Office Box 3505, Station C
Ottawa, Ontario K1Y 4G1
Printed and bound in Canada
6 5 4 3 2 1 84 85 86 87 88
Disponsible en francais sous le titre:
Trop peu: Definition et evaluation de
la pauvrete au Canada.
Contents
PAGE
FOREWORD I
TASK FORCE MEMBERS III
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES V
INTRODUCTION 1
LESSONS FROM THE PUBLIC MEETINGS 3
THE PURPOSES SERVED BY POVERTY MEASURES
THE MEANING AND MEASUREMENT OF POVERTY 9
THE HUMAN FACE OF POVERTY 13
FOUR MEASURES OF POVERTY 25
THE ADJUSTMENT FACTORS 33
THE DIMENSIONS OF POVERTY: 53
EXTENT, DEPTH AND LENGTH
FINDINGS OF THE TASK FORCE 63
RECOMMENDATIONS 69
APPENDICES 72
SELECTED BIBLIOGRAPHY 87
Foreword
The Board of Governors of the Canadian Council on
Social Development, prior to the publication of its
poverty line and The Canadian Fact Book on Poverty
1983, considered several challenges to the method
whereby CCSD's poverty line was established and the
assumptions upon which the method was based. The
current definition used by the CCSD was developed in
1973 and consists of an income line based on one-half
of the nation's average family income. The only
adjustment made to this income line accounted for
differences in family size. The Board consequently set
up a task force, chaired by board members Alan Backley
and Anne Usher to examine questions which challenged
this method of defining poverty.
On behalf of the Council, I should like to thank
all of those members of the task force who labored long
over the many drafts of this report, the
co-chairpersons who presided over its meetings and
contributed so much to the production and refinement of
the material, and to the task force staff, who guided
the work and attended to the many details that made
this project possible. Finally, a special thank you
and note of appreciation to all the individuals and
groups who took the time and interest to submit briefs
and to make presentations at the public hearings.
Michael Clague
President
Canadian Council on Social Development
The Canadian Council on Social
Development Task Force on the
Definition and Measurement of
Poverty in Canada
Co-Chairpersons
W. Alan Backley
Partner
Woods Gordon
CCSD Board Member
Ottawa, Ontario
Anne Usher
Community Worker
CCSD Board Member
Montreal, Quebec
Task Force Members
Sam Blakely
Director of
Social Services
City of Calgary
CCSD Board Member
Calgary, Alberta
Debbie Hughes
Community Liaison
National Anti-Poverty
Organization (NAPO)
Ottawa, Ontario
Andre Joyal
Directeur
Module d'Economique
Universite du Quebec
Trois-Rivieres, Quebec
Jean Panet-Raymond
PLURA, Community Worker
Montreal, Quebec
Penelope M. Rowe
Executive Director
Community Services
Council
CCSD Board Member
St. John's, Nfld.
Joseph Ryant
Professor
School of Social Work
University of Manitoba
Winnipeg, Manitoba
III
Darlene Marzari
Businesswoman
CCSD Board Member
Vancouver, British Columbia
Jean Moore
Representative of Coalition of
Provincial Organizations of
the Handicapped (COPOH)
Kingston, Ontario
Task Force Staff
Eleanor Swainson
Credit Counsellor
Credit Counselling
Service of Kingston
Kingston, Ontario
Peter
Assistant to the
President
Ontario Public
Service Employees Union
Toronto, Ontario
David P. Ross
Coordinator
Lise Lutz
Secretary
Nancy Colborne Perkins
Researcher
Kathleen Warden
Support Staff
IV
Tables and Figures
DIAGRAM 1 Schematic View of Well-being 9
TABLE 1 Likelihood or Incidence of Poverty 23
in Canada, 1981
TABLE 2 Percentage Distribution of Low 24
Income Families and Unattached
Individuals in Canada, 1981
FIGURE 1 Annual Social Assistance Benefits 27
and Other Transfers, by Province,
for Single-Parent Family with
1 Child, 1983
FIGURE 2 Annual Social Assistance Benefits 28
and Other Transfers, by Province,
for Two-Parent Family with Two
Children, 1983
FIGURE 3 Average Provincial Family Income, 34
as a Percentage of National Average,
1971 and 1981
TABLE 3 Inter-city Indexes of Retail Price 36
Differentials, as of September 1983,
for Selected Groups of Consumer Goods
and Services
TABLE 4 Task Force Budget Summary, 38
National Cost of Living Comparison,
February/March 1984
FIGURE 4 Index of Total Family Expenses, 1983 39
TABLE 5 Summary of Family Expenditure, 41
by Size of Area of Residence in
Canada, 1978
V
FIGURE 5 Total Financial Assistance Available 44
to An Unattached Individual With
Disability, Including
Annual Social Assistance Benefits and
Provincial Tax Credits, by
Province, 1983
TABLE 6 Household Net Worth 48
FIGURE 6 The Depth of Poverty - Distribution 55
of Income, All Families, 1981
FIGURE 7 The Depth of Poverty - Distribution 56
of Income, Unattached Individuals, 1981
FIGURE 8 The Depth of Poverty - Distribution 57
of Income, Family Size Three, 1981
TABLE 7 The Poverty Gap 58
TABLE 8 1973 Destination of 1972 60
Wage-Earning Poor Families
APPENDIX A Social Planning Council of 72
Metropolitan Toronto Budget Outline
APPENDIX B Task Force Budget - National Cost 73
of Living Comparison
APPENDIX C National Cost of Living Comparison 76
Questionnaire
APPENDIX D Summary of Family Expenditure, 80
by Size of Area of Residence in
Canada, 1978
APPENDIX E Distribution of Income, All 82
Families, 1981
APPENDIX F Distribution of Income, Unattached 83
Individuals, 1981
APPENDIX G Distribution of Income, Family 84
Size Three, 1981
APPENDIX H Percentage of Unattached Individuals, 85
By Region, Living Below CCSD Poverty
Lines, calculated on the basis of
Average National Family Income, 1981
VI
APPENDIX I Percentage of Families, by Region,
Living Below CCSD Poverty Lines,
calculated on the basis of Average
National Family Income, 1981
86
VII
ANTOINE DESILETS, DES IMAGES PLUS
VIII
Introduction
Fundamental to any definition of a poverty line is
its purpose. For the task force's purposes, the
objective of being able to measure the number of poor
households in Canada and to observe the trend of these
numbers was paramount.
The task force examined the leading definitions of
poverty, including that employed by the CCSD, to obtain
some guidelines as to the standards of living or levels
of well-being associated with various income levels.
The next step was to determine what income level
corresponded to an adequate basic living standard.
The task force discussed the two basic approaches
for determining a basic income line — the absolute and
relative approaches. The absolute approach presumes
that there is some fairly objective means for
determining the absolute minimum a household requires
for food, clothing and shelter. This minimum
subsistence level is not much influenced by the
standard of living that other households in society
enjoy. On the other hand, the relative approach
presumes that poverty can only be defined by looking at
the standard of living enjoyed by the community in
general. In this view, poverty can only be defined
relative to prevailing community standards.
Having defined a basic income level, should
adjustments to this living standard be made for
differences in regional incomes and costs of living or
for rural and urban residency? What distortions are
caused in the poverty figures if wealth holdings are
excluded from the income definition? Should
adjustments be made for individual or household
characteristics, for example, to accommodate the extra
costs borne by persons with disabilities? Should
adjustments be made to account for the availability (or
lack) of subsidized public services?
Traditionally, poverty has been measured by
establishing an income line and then making small
adjustments for one or more of the factors mentioned
above. This enables a measurement of the extent of
poverty, that is, the number of households which fall
below the line. The task force also examined two other
dimensions of poverty that are often ignored, its
"depth" and "length". Since many households have
incomes far below the poverty line, should a measure of
poverty describe how many and how far households fall
below the line? And, since some households suffer low
incomes for extended periods of time while others do so
for only a short period, is it the length of time spent
in poverty and the suffering of low incomes for long
periods which produces the conditions of poverty?
In reaching its conclusions, the task force was
guided by existing documents, statistics and the views
of "experts". Additionally, a series of eight public
meetings held across the country were designed to allow
Canadians from all walks of life to share their views
of what constituted poverty. Many participants were
able to provide first-hand experiences of a life in
poverty. A section of the report presents information
gained from these public meetings as well as anecdotal
and statistical descriptions of poverty in Canada in
the 1980s.
The task force now presents its major findings on
these questions and issues, and bases its
recommendations on these findings.
Lessons from
the Public Meetings
Public meetings were held in eight locations
across Canada — Vancouver, Calgary, Winnipeg, Toronto,
Hamilton, Montreal, Trois-Rivi§res and St. John's —
which attracted approximately 400 participants. About
50 written briefs and comments were received during and
after the meetings. Representative of the individuals
and groups participating in the meetings were welfare
rights groups, people on welfare, people with
disabilities, government administrators, politicians,
women's groups, human rights advocates, unemployed
workers, social workers, church groups, academics and
researchers.
Needless to say, these diverse groups saw
different purposes being served by poverty lines,
advocated different income support levels and
approaches, and offered frank and contrasting views on
the usefulness of the whole exercise. The meetings
followed a general but not inflexible format;
participants were given time to present a brief if they
wished, following which task force members and other
participants and observers asked questions and made
comments. The atmosphere of the meetings was informal.
The task force learned that many of the
participants did not want the Council to abandon its
relative poverty approach, based on average Canadian
income. Some believed it could be adjusted more
precisely to account for regional income variation; but
others saw regional adaptation as sanctioning lower
regional incomes and therefore perpetuating the status
quo. Other groups were not so committed to the idea of
a national poverty line but wanted help in defining a
line that would reflect local conditions and thus be
more acceptable to the community.
The task force was reminded of the importance of
accounting for free or subsidized services in
determining the income poverty line. For instance, in
B.C. many services are being cut back. Without these
services, low-income people will need more money in
order to cope. We learned that the disabled are
constantly short of services and facilities, expecially
those that foster independent living, such as an
adequate transportation system, and aid in gaining
access to employment opportunities.
The task force also heard that many so-called free
services are not free. User charges for health care,
the need for many rural users to travel great distances
to avail themselves of "free" services, and the extra
and mounting costs associated with "free" education,
all act to restrict accessibility to these services.
There were many instances where mothers on welfare were
forced to keep their children at home on school days
when a special event such as "hot-dog" or "sports" day
was held because it required a fee, even though the fee
may seem small to average-income families.
Women explained how their monthly welfare budgets
were determined. On paper, everything appeared to work
out fine: dollar allocations were made for a great
variety of goods and services, adjustments were made
for the number and ages of children, and certain
special needs were recognized. But the harsh reality
of these "paper" budgets was that shelter costs
invariably ate up most of the budget. Consequently,
allotted food money went to pay for the rent and
allotted clothing money had to go towards food. In
this way, mothers were forced to choose between
providing one essential or another.
These women wondered why, if they were not going
to be given enough money to live on or have a realistic
assessment made of their needs, welfare administrations
should bother constructing any budgets? Why not just
give them the meagre amount and let them get on with
it? It was often felt that failure to live on these
budgets implied that the recipients were bad
homemakers. There was a tacit assumption that welfare
mothers should be "super-moms" capable of stretching
inadequate sums of money a long way. In city after
city, shelter cost emerged as the key variable in
establishing adequate incomes.
What the task force learned about most of all was
the existence of poverty itself. The low-income people
attending the meetings did not wish to talk about the
subtleties of poverty definition and measurement. They
simply wanted to talk about the miserable and
humiliating circumstances in which they found
themselves. Some had been living this way for many
years, but a few had only recently fallen into poverty,
and some of these from a very adequate income level.
These newly arrived poor now wondered why they had paid
taxes for so many years and had contributed to what
they thought was an adequate social security net. Now
that they required assistance, they were appalled and
distressed to find that the net was almost on the
ground, that it was barely capable of allowing them to
exist.
All of these people relying on social assistance
were so far below anybody's poverty line that
discussion of poverty was a futile exercise to them.
Most wanted to know how they could get another $50 a
month to put food in the fridge. Stories were told of
fathers proudly absenting themselves from the dinner
table because there was not enough food for even the
children; of middle-aged women who live on $5 a day
after rent is paid (an amount of money many of us pay
for parking each day), out of which they had to pay for
all their life's needs. When learning of the
Statistics Canada poverty line, one woman exclaimed
that it would represent "exotic living" for her family.
These people were certainly not asking for the sky.
Their despair stems not just from a lack of money.
There is also a feeling of being unwanted and of being
shunned by mainstream society. Time and again,
participants would come forward and begin their
II I
comments with, "I really shouldn't
I'm going to make a fool of myself,
know why you would want to listen to
talk to you, you are not going to do
situation anyway...". Some women
embarrassment at coming because they
out" from other people. A few were
there were other people in like
harbouring the same feelings.
be here", "I know
but... ", "I don't
me", "Why should I
anything about my
openly expressed
felt they "stood
surprised to find
circumstances and
None of the meetings reached a consensus on how to
define or measure poverty. But one thing was learned
— serious deprivation does exist in Canada. Whatever
new definitions are developed are not going to define
away the problem.
The task force believes that action, not further
discussion, is now required.
The Purposes Served
by Poverty Measures
One difficulty the task force had in arriving at a
definition of poverty was the existence of the
different purposes served by poverty lines.
At least four different purposes were isolated.
The first centres on the desire to measure poverty.
It is easy to discuss the wide range of social,
psychological, political and economic factors that
define poverty but difficult to quantify these factors
in a way that is useful for measuring the numbers
living in poverty. While it is important that poverty
lines permit measurement, this objective also limits
the definition.
A second purpose in defining poverty is to provide
information and stimulus to those people administering
programs, receiving assistance or advocating for
change. As well, the way poverty is defined and
measured can strongly affect the way the public views
poverty and it can influence the desire of society to
do something about it.
A third purpose of a poverty line is to establish
a budget or expenditure level for those relying on
public assistance or earning very low incomes. There
is a natural temptation when confronted by households
who are seeking public support to ask, What do these
households need to survive? This leads immediately to
budget-setting and to making judgements regarding the
necessary items to be placed in the "market basket" of
goods and services. Once the contents of the basket
are chosen, it can be priced, and the cost becomes de_
facto a poverty line. In effect, welfare
administrations across the country use poverty lines
for the purpose of establishing subsistence levels of
living.
A fourth purpose of defining poverty is to
establish a goal or longer-term objective for income
security policy. The original purpose of the CCSD
income line, first developed in 1973, was to set a
standard against which the alleviation of income
disparity could be measured over time. This standard
was based on an income of at least 50 per cent of the
Canadian average, adjusted for family size. The issue
here is not so much one of defining a survival budget
but one of deprivation. The basis for the standard is
the belief that households with less than one-half of
average income are unable to participate fully in
society — either economically, socially or
politically. The purpose behind this definition of
poverty is to establish a measurable income goal
against which social and income policy can be measured.
The Meaning and
Measurement of Poverty
The need to measure poverty and to develop some
objective social indicator that reflects the standard
of certain Canadian households is paramount to the
mandate of the task force. Hence, the measurement of
poverty determines to a large extent how we define it.
Unfortunately, objective indicators such as income
levels, numbers, and the length of time spent living
below a certain income level can never adequately
define poverty. While a brief discussion of other
dimensions of poverty is presented, there is in this
report a preoccupation with defining poverty in a way
that provides for its measurement but that admittedly
is not comprehensive. A subsequent section on the
"human face" of poverty attempts to overcome this
shortcoming by portraying the multi-faceted nature of
poverty.
Diagram-1
Schematic View of Well-Being
WELL-
ECONOMIC
Three important dimensions of well-being are
depicted in Diagram 1: economic, psycho-social and
political-participation. Below a certain level of
well-being, one can talk about the poverty of income,
the poverty of spirit, and the poverty of power. One
reason the task force did not pursue the psycho-social
and political-participation dimensions is that criteria
to define them are difficult to agree upon and to
translate into objective terms. The other reason is
that poverty is traditionally associated with a lack of
income, which in turn is frequently associated with the
poverty of spirit and of power. The three dimensions
are highly inter-related. If a basic level of economic
well-being is not achieved, the other aspects of
well-being can seldom be fulfilled either. This is not
to say that having a basic measure of economic
well-being guarantees a happy and fulfilling life, but
it is in most cases a necessary condition.
Within the category of economic well-being there
are several other important factors in addition to
level of income. One of these other factors is
security of a given income level such as is provided
through pensions, unemployment and sickness insurance,
savings, wealth, and a steady job. Having a basic
income above the poverty line is not an adequate
guarantee for well-being if there is little security to
that income. For low-income households, the
psychological stress and the way it impairs economic
well-being may be compared to living each day on a
razor's edge: one is always wondering whether some
sudden misfortune is going to reduce or take away the
income.
Economic well-being almost certainly is influenced
also by the source of income. For example, dependency
on income transfers may be regarded as inferior to an
earned income because of the stigma frequently
surrounding certain forms of public assistance. An
earned income gives a greater feeling of economic and
social participation. Also, the capacity to earn an
income usually provides greater choice of action,
whereas state assistance is usually heavily
circumscribed by regulation.
10
A survey conducted by "Single Mothers Against
Poverty", a Hamilton group composed mostly of single
mothers on social assistance, provided interesting
results. Of 145 women who filled out a questionnaire
that asked the family benefit recipients to "list the
ways in which they have felt discriminated against", 73
per cent replied they were refused credit; 61 per cent
replied they were judged as "welfare bums"; 51 per cent
felt they were being judged on how they spent their
money; 45 per cent perceived a "superior" attitude of
the bank teller cashing their cheque; and 25 per cent
responded that they were discriminated against when
applying for a job.
Another aspect of economic well-being derives from
the expectation of upward change and the potential for
economic advancement. If the possibility for
advancement is lacking, such as in many low-paying
jobs, hopelessness is generated and detracts from
economic well-being. College students invariably have
low-incomes, but since upward change is almost assured,
this temporary low-income state is seldom regarded as
poverty.
While hard data are lacking, it is commonly
understood that households with low incomes also
generally have little security, receive the majority of
their incomes from state assistance, and have little
prospect of economic advancement. People in other
income groups may also occasionally suffer from one or
more of these circumstances, but not to the same degree
or with the same persistence as low-income persons.
What these different: aspects of income poverty convey
is that people with persistently low-incomes do not
simply live scaled-down versions of the lifestyle of
middle-income people; they are in fact required to lead
markedly different lives. Poverty is a "package" of
economic conditions of which low income is only
one — security, source and prospects of income also
strongly condition this package and the lifestyle that
results from it.
11
'- ' " '7-J %,:« ••••..• ^
NATIONAL FILM BOARD — PHOTOTHEQUE
12
The Human Face of Poverty
The task force feels strongly that statistics or
income lines cannot adequately describe the plight of
those living on low incomes. The following stories are
thus presented to illustrate a variety of life
situations across Canada.
From Vancouver, a woman wrote down her feelings
for the task force:
"You asked: What does poverty mean to me?
Well, to me poverty means not being able to
buy food that is nutritional, instead of spaghetti
and potatoes with the occasional two pounds of
hamburg. I don't go to the food bank because I
don't want to take food from someone who may need
it more than me.
Not having that all-important job to go to.
Not being able to buy even the cheapest
clothes to put on my back.
Doing the laundry in the, bath tub because I
can't afford to go to the laundromat.
Making sure that I make my phone calls before
I leave home. I can't afford to give B.C. Tel.
any of my precious quarters.
Not being able to buy someone you know the
odd cup of coffee.
Losing people you called friends because
you're now a bum and not of the fit and proper
working class.
Having absolutely no sense of security and
worrying about what will happen if you get sick or
die at home. In my case, no one would know for a
week or more.
Wanting to sell some of your personal effects
and knowing that if you do, they will simply
13
deduct it off your next cheque.
Feeling like dirt, now that I'm broke.
Having the government always cut back on the
poor and not on themselves. The rent, phone,
hydro, food, etc., goes up continually, but my
spending capital in fact goes down with each raise
in expense.
Dreading every time you have to go to the
welfare office, walking slow before you get there,
then making a dash for the door, hoping no one
sees your face as you go in to beg again".
And from Alberta:
Ms. B. is a single-parent woman, 34 years of age,
with two school-age children (8 and 10). Ms. B. is
physically handicapped and requires prescription drugs.•
As of July 1, 1983, this family's shelter allowance was
$505 per month. Their three-bedroom apartment in the
inner city, including utilities and one parking spot,
is $700 a month. The casework supervisor has
authorized an additional $150 a month in excess of the
shelter allowance since the oldest child is doing well
in the neighborhood elementary school and the apartment
owners allow children. Their food and tobacco
allowance as of July 1, 1983, is $361 a month. A
single-parent family in Calgary with two school age
children would spend approximately $350 per month in
order to eat nutritiously but simply, that is, no baked
goods or frozen pre-cooked foods. The family's
clothing and household allowance is $129 a month.
Since a "no-frills" pair of denim slacks for boys is
approximately $15, the two boys wear hand-me-downs.
Ms. B. does some sewing, but the machine is worn and
there is no money left at the end of the month for
incidentals, such as having the sewing machine fixed.
An application to the Burns Memorial Fund for Children
has been submitted in order to send the boys to summer
camp. In summary, after necessities, that is, food,
clothing and shelter, there is no discretionary income.
14
>oo
|Ofl
+ « pace? /wt' *c^-u — • - ^
f(
v\pLfc
Od
Another case in Calgary involves a male
quadraplegic, 21 years old. He was injured in an
accident in 1979, employed at the time of the accident
as a truck and auto body worker.
Before cutbacks were announced, he was
independent, living in a one-bedroom apartment with
stores, a bank, a barber, a restaurant, a post office,
medical offices, etc., in the same building and was
receiving paramed in-home assistance. He was taking
correspondence courses with the possibility of
post-secondary education in the future, and enjoyed a
good social life. He was independent with Handi Bus,
was coping well with shopping, and was able to obtain
needed special protein food. In general he was happy
and content with his lifestyle.
15
Cutbacks in social services made it necessary for
him to move into shared accommodation with three adults
and two children in a rented house in a rural area of
Calgary. There is no guarantee that he can stay there
longer than one year. The cost of moving and changes
are his personal responsibility.
An ambulance will now be required for any medical
attention whereas before, a VON or paramedic could make
a house call. Paramed service required for dressing
assistance is not available from the rural health unit
and although Paramedics are willing to come, they
cannot do so without charging. His social life is now
restricted. He is unable to pack and move on his own.
Dependency on friends caused him anxiety. He is having
difficulty getting special diet food, and shopping is
very difficult. Handi Bus does not go beyond the city
limits so transportation difficulties discourage future
attendance at educational institutions.
This man receives public assistance of $744 a
month. After paying for paramed services and rent, he
has $190 left for basic needs, diet requirements and
Handi Bus transportation.
The husband of a married couple with a 6-year-old
daughter was laid off in June 1982. The wife is also
unemployed. They received a social assistance subsidy
of $127 until UIC benefits expired in June 1983.
Social assistance was cut off the following month
because neither adult had found a job. Both filed an
average of 35 job searches a month as instructed by
their case worker. When cut off, they were unable to
pay the rent, and so moved into a travel trailer parked
in a relative's yard and sold all their assets except a
van and the trailer. They reapplied for assistance two
months later and were given an appeal date for later in
the month, along with one emergency food voucher. A
breakdown in family relations saw this couple and their
child roaming the city in the trailer for nearly a week
pending their appeal. They were given one night's
emergency accommodation in a motel. The appeal
reinstated benefits for two months only.
16
And from Toronto, several histories drawn from the
files of a social agency:
- A young mother subsisted on water and cookies
from our nursery for the last week of the month
before her welfare cheque arrived. Her rent
was $224 a month out of a welfare cheque of
$404.
- An eight-month-old infant consumed two 8-ounce
bottles of milk within 30 minutes of arriving
at the nursery because the mother had no food
at home. When taken to the doctor, the child
was found to have an ear infection, but he had
not cried with pain because of extreme
lethargy. The mother's rent was $200 a month
out of a welfare allowance of $369.
- A mother with a year-old child, unable to
afford better accommodation, keeps the light
burning in their bedroom all night because it
keeps away most of the cockroaches from the
sleeping child. Out of an income of $403 she
pays $269 rent.
A pregnant teen depends on Scott Mission for
food during the last week of every month - it
is the only way to subsist after paying monthly
rent of $225 out of her $305 welfare allowance.
- An 18-year-old woman with a child had the
courage to leave her abusive husband but has
been living in a hostel for Z\ months, unable
to find employment or accommodation.
From rural and smaller town Ontario:
"Between the age of 8 months (when I contracted
polio) and 18 years, I spent at least one session
a year in the hospital. My parents could not
afford to pay the doctors all at once so monthly
doctor bills were the rule until I began to work
at 18 and finished them off myself.
My braces and special shoes were paid for by
the Ontario Society for Crippled Children. Poppa
worked two jobs most of the time to cover the
medications and extras I needed.
17
To keep my secretarial job, I worked longer
hours and much harder to balance out the fact that
I couldn't walk long distances at the block-long
building, nor could I hurry. About one-third of
my pay went for medicines and special shoes
because I was now too old to be covered by
existing assistance programs.
After I married, my pregnancies (three) were
much more complicated, so they cost more than
normal. As my health deteriorated, a tubal
ligation was suggested and agreed to. Dental care
was non-existent because medical care had to be
looked after first.
At 40 I was put back into a full leg brace for
which we had to pay $350.
I imagine this sounds like a soap opera and
that some will say we are better for the struggle;
however, life could have been much more enjoyable
if organizations in the past were more aware of
the needs of the handicapped."
Jim and Gloria are 29 and 28 years old and have
two daughters aged 7 and 2. Jim was formerly
employed as a skilled worker in an industrial
plant. He enjoyed modestly good wages, with which
he was able to buy a small house.
A year ago, Jim was permanently laid off, along
with many other workers from the same industry.
Shortly after, Jim and Gloria lost their home and
managed to find a cheap apartment in a housing
development run by a religious charity.
Eventually Jim obtained employment pumping gas at
a local filling station. Since his wages were
less than his UIC entitlement, he was subsidized
until his benefits ran out. Now he and his family
must live solely on his wages of $4 an hour, which
results in a gross income of $704 a month (net of
$620) plus a family allowance of $58 for a total
of $678 a month.
18
This is how Jim and Gloria spend their money:
rent
telephone
cable
laundry
life insurance
food
church
transportation
$260
10
7
20
19
320
20
20
$676
They have $2 left to cover clothes, prescriptions,
dental care, entertainment, etc. They neither
drink nor smoke, and their social life revolves
around the church. They still can't make it.
Jim is very bitter. He comments: "The government
says it is involved with job creation and that
Canadians should accept any kind of work — well I
have, and look where it's gotten me — I can
hardly feed my family. I'd never go on welfare,
but I can sure understand the people who do."
From Montreal; an admission clerk, 29 years old with 17
years of schooling:
"You feel the pressure and the stress all the
time. But you tell yourself that you're not out
on the street, that you have enough to eat, that
your kids are healthy except that you find you're
getting poorer, that you're not getting ahead.
I'm very disappointed. You don't even dare to
dream. I had dreams three years ago but don't
anymore."
A young couple, 22 and 25 years old have a
combined income of $15,100 a year. Formerly a
shipping clerk, he is now unemployed. She works
in a shoe factory but lost her seniority when she
was unemployed two years ago. They were living
with her parents to try to save money for their
own home, but conflicts developed, and all their
savings were depleted when the husband became
19
unemployed. They have cut back on most purchases
of clothing, food, cigarettes and gas and must
stay at home for vacations.
A couple with 3 children, the husband, 47, works
as a guard; his wife, 41, works as a beneficiary
clerk in a hospital. Their combined income is
$26,515 a year. Their salaries are "frozen"
because of government cutbacks with no advancement
possible, yet they cannot risk job changes without
losing 9 and 10 years of accumulated seniority.
They must organize their work schedules so that
they avoid babysitting costs for their 5-year-old
child. The husband had a second job, but ill
health will no longer permit this. Their budget
must be tightly controlled for there is no safety
margin and they are finding it increasingly
difficult to keep up with inflation. They have
quit smoking and cut down on the use of the car to
save money.
And from Newfoundland:
An elderly couple in their 70s were living in a
shed with no running water. It was heated by a
woodstove for which wood had to be hauled. The
gentleman was blind. Both of them were receiving
old age pensions and had enough money to live on,
but they were not physically or mentally capable
of looking after themselves. They had no
bedclothes and no dishes, and they were being
exploited by some of their neighbours. It took
over a year of advocacy on the part of our
association [Provincial Human Rights] to convince
the social services people that this couple should
be put in a situation where they could receive
proper homemaker services and be allowed to live
at a level of dignity.
The high cost of drugs and medical aid is
something that our Provincial Human Rights
Association is very concerned about. We are
20
finding that people are neglecting their health
needs because they cannot afford to pay for
medical and dental services or their drug
requirements.
Another case involves a single-parent female
who is presently forced to live in the bedroom of
a friend's house. She has two children, one of
whom is in a wheelchair with cerebral palsy to
such a severe degree that the child cannot move.
Yet the woman cannot get a house from provincial
housing authorities because she is not a priority
on the waiting list. They do not say what their
priorities are, but poverty or loss of dignity
cannot possibly be one of them.
Yesterday we [Newfoundland Status of Women
.Council] spoke with a 22-year-old single-parent
mother of two, aged 5 and 3. Alice was pregnant
and married at 15. She knew nothing about birth
control and had quit school at Grade 10.
Eighteen months of marriage left her a victim
of domestic violence with two babies and a drastic
change in her financial status. Alice, however,
has managed to complete high school through night
courses and one year of clerical training at
Trades & Technology ... without any financial
support from the father of her children. As a
mechanic he made good money but refused to pay
maintenance and the courts can't find him.
Over the past five years, Alice has combined
social assistance with cleaning jobs, babysitting
jobs and office work. She is presently
maintaining two part-time clerical positions and
taking home $832 monthly. She would like not to
have to wash clothes by hand, but she can't afford
a washer or the laundromat. She would like to buy
new clothing as opposed to second-hand. She would
like to afford more nutritious food for her
children, for example, milk rather than coloured
Freshie. But her status as a single parent denies
her and her two children access to a decent
standard of living.
21
The majority of the preceding case histories
involve women. This is not accidental. Poverty in
Canada today does indeed have the face of a woman, and
feminization is poverty's outstanding feature. Poverty
also deeply affects persons with disabilities, as the
case histories demonstrate. However, because income
and employment statistics on the disabled are not
systematically collected, it is not possible to
identify and document the extent of their poverty.
To set these case histories in the perspective of
over-all poverty, Table 1 illustrates the likelihood of
people with different characteristics falling into
poverty. For example, single-parent mothers have a 43
per cent chance, lowly educated family heads a 19 per
cent chance, and women over the age of 65 and living
alone face a 62 per cent chance of being poor.
The information in Table 2, rather than illustrat-
ing the likelihood of being poor, shows the
distribution of all poor people by certain
characteristics. The information shows that 30 per
cent of all poor families are headed by women and that
52 per cent of all poor families have the family head
in the labour force. Among unattached individuals,
those over 65 years of age constitute 44 per cent of
the poor (the majority being elderly women).
22
Table 1
Likelihood or Incidence of Poverty in Canada, 1981
CHARACTERISTIC
Estimated Number In Canada [X 1000)
Canada
By Region:
Atlantic
Quebec
Ontario
Prairies
British Columbia
By Age:
Under 24 Years
25 - 34 Years
35 - 44 Years
45 - 54 Years
55 - 64 Years
Over 65 Years -- Male
— Female
By Education Level :
0 - 8 Years
Som e High School/No Post-secondary
Som e Post-secondary
Post-Secondary Diploma
University Degree
By Number Of Children Under 16 Years:
None
One
Two
Three
Four Or More
By Family Structure:
Married Couple Only
Married Couple With Single Children
Married Couple With Children And/Or
Other Relatives
Single Parent Family -- Male
Single Parent Family -•• Female
FAMILY
768
%
12.0
16.6
14.8
9.9
11.3
9.4
22.7
12.6
10.7
9.0
10.5
12.9
24.7
18.9
11.6
8.4
7.0
4.7
8.7
13.9
13.7
20.4
25.1
8.3
8.9
8.0
13.8
42.8
UNATTACHED INDIVIDUAL
962
%
37.8
43.3
48.5
34.3
31.0
34.1
38.4
18.2
22.4
30.3
40.9
48.4
62.2
62.9
33.3
34.2
22.8
17.3
37.8
Source: Statistics Canada, Income distributions by size in Canada, 1981,
and National Counc-'l of Welfare, Sixty-five and Older, 1984.
23
Table 2
Percentage Distribution of Low Income Families and Unattached Individuals in
Canada, 1981
CHARACTERISTIC
Estimated Number In Canada (X 1000)
By Region:
Atlantic
Quebec
Ontario
Prairies
British Columbia
By Size Of Area Of Residence:
500,000 •*•
100,000 - 499,999
30,000 - 99,999
Under 30,000
Rural Areas
By Age:
Under 24 Years
25 - 54 Years
55 - 64 Years
Over 65 Years
By Sex:
Male
Female
By Employment Status:
In Labour Force
Not In Labour Force
By Weeks Worked:
None
1-1 9 Weeks
20 - 39 Weeks
40 - 48 Weeks
49 - 52 Weeks
By Number Of Earners:
None
One
Three Or More
By Family Structure:
Married Couple Only
Couple With Single Children
Couple with Children And/Or
Single Parent Family -- Male
Single Parent Family -- Female
Al1 Other Families
FAMILIES
POO R ALL
768 6418
%_ %
12.0 8.6
33.0 26.7
29.9 36.0
16.2 17.2
9.0 11.5
39.4 41.9
14.7 14.5
8.7 8.3
15.8 15.5
21.5 19.7
10.6 5.6
60.8 66.5
13.3 15.2
15.2 12.5
66.2 89.4
33.8 10.6
52.3 79.1
47.7 20.9
43.5 16.9
11.7 3.3
11.9 7.7
5.2 5.1
27.7 66.9
35.9 10.8
43.2 28.9
lf i Q At R
4.1 16.5
19.7 28.6
40.1 53.8
? 7 A 1
1.6 1.4
qn n a A
5.8 3.7
UNATTACHED
POOR
962
%
7.2
32. 7
31.3
16.1
12.7
54.3
14.8
8.4
14.2
8.3
19.7
22.9
13.0
44.4
33.0
67.0
32.5
67.5
63.9
8.8
10.5
3.2
13.7
65.0
35.0
INDIVIDUALS
ALL
2544
%
6.3
25.4
34.5
19.7
14.1
52.8
15.8
8.2
14.0
9.3 ;
19.3
40.0
12.0
28.6
43.8
56.2
60.2
39.8
36.0
5.0
9.1
4.9
45.1
35.9
64.1
Source: Statistics Canada, Income distributions by size in Canada, 1981.
24
Four Measures of Poverty
Estimates of income lines derived from four
different approaches follow:
- the implied poverty lines of provincial
welfare administrations
- the Toronto Social Planning Council budget
guidelines
- the CCSD poverty lines
- Statistics Canada's low income cut-offs.
1983 POVERTY LINES
Social Assistance
(Average of long-term
provincial rates):
Social Planning
Council of
Metropolitan
Toronto (estimated
budgetary
requirements);
Canadian Council
on Social Development
Statistics Canada's
Low Income
Cut-offs:
(rural-urban)
Family of One
$3,956
$10,145
$8,625
$7,052-$9,538
Family of Four
$9,860
$20,455
$20,125
$14,268-$19,397
25
SOCIAL ASSISTANCE RATES
The social assistance rates paid by the different
provinces vary considerably (see Figures 1 and 2). It
may not be entirely correct to refer to social
assistance levels as poverty lines; certainly the
provinces do not. But effectively, and after the fact,
they do represent what the different provinces consider
to be the minimum amount below which people will not be
allowed to fall. It is supposed to be a basic needs
level.
This belief is further strengthened by the fact
that all administrations do establish budgets for
social assistance recipients, based on minimum
subsistence market baskets they develop themselves.
These budgets pay scant attention to needs other than
food, shelter, and clothing, except in special cases
usually involving health problems. Participants in the
public meetings gave us graphic evidence of the
unrealistic nature of some of these budgets.
Social assistance rates are based on a market
basket chosen almost without regard to what other
people in the community have in their baskets. The
approach tries to estimate an absolute level, unrelated
to community standards, that is considered necessary to
feed, shelter and clothe members of a household at the
absolute minimum level. At all the public hearings,
the task force was told by people who are experiencing
life on social assistance that administrations succeed
in finding the lowest minimum. There can be no doubt
that, for most, life on social assistance is unhealthy,
nerve-wracking and humiliating.
In a brief submitted in Winnipeg by the Manitoba
Anti-Poverty Organization, which provides assistance to
low-income persons, the following extract describes the
shortcoming of subsistence budget approaches:
"During the one-year period August 1982 to June
1983, approximately 800 files were opened for
assistance with welfare problems. One of the major
concerns expressed by welfare people was "trying to
make ends meet" on the welfare budget. Most people
26
Figure 1
Annual Social Assistance Benefits and Other Transfers, by Province, for Single
Parent Family with Child, 1983
INCOME $
15000'
12000.
9000
4000
3000
n
1983 CCSD Poverty Line for a Family of Two ($14,375)
I
\
•.".•.•« j
-
NFLD.P.E.I. N.S. N.B. QUE. ONT. MAN. SASK. ALTA. B.C.
PROVINCES
EM: SHORT-TERM SOCIAL ASSISTANCE RATE
: LONG-TERM SOCIAL ASSISTANCE RATE, AVAILABLE ONLY
IN N.S., ONT., MAN., and ALTA.
fcii3 : ANNUAL INCOMES AS A RESULT OF ADDING IN FEDERAL
CHILD-RELATED TRANSFERS AND PROVINCIAL TAX CREDITS,
WHER E APPLICABLE, TO THE PROVINCIAL SOCIAL
ASSISTANCE RATES
NOTE: SHORT-AND LONG-TERM RATES ARE DEFINED BY RELEVANT
PROVINCIAL ACTS/REGULATIONS.
Source: Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto,
Infopac 1983, Vol. 2, No. 4
27
Figure 2
Annual Social Assistance Benefits and Other Transfers, by Province, for a
2-Parent Family with Z Children, 1983
INCOME $
21000.
16800
12600.
8400
4200
0 J
198: 1 CCSD Poverty/ Line for a Family of
m
:•:•:;: ;
:
our ($20,1
??
25)
NFLD. P.E.I. N.S. N.B. QUE. ONT. MAN. SASK. ALTA. B.C.
PROVINCES
U : SHORT-TERM SOCIAL ASSISTANCE RATE
: LONG-TERM SOCIAL ASSISTANCE RATE, AVAILABLE ONLY
IN N.S., N.B., MAN., SASK., and ALTA.
tad : ANNUAL INCOMES AS A RESULT OF ADDING IN FEDERAL
CHILD-RELATED TRANSFERS AND PROVINCIAL TAX CREDITS,
WHERE APPLICABLE, TO THE PROVINCIAL SOCIAL
ASSISTANCE RATES
NOTE: SHORT-AND LONG-TERM RATES ARE DEFINED BY RELEVANT
PROVINCIAL ACTS/REGULATIONS.
Source: Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto,
Infopac 1983, Vol. 2, No. 4
28
complained that the allowances received from
welfare for basic necessities — food, clothing,
household supplies and housing — were just too
low.
As an example, one of our clients, a female head
of the household with three children — a
six-year-old boy and two girls, 13 and 14 —
receives the following budget from welfare each
month:
Food Clothing Personal Household
1 Adult
14-year-old
Girl
13-year-old
Girl
6-year-old
Boy
90.50
101.40
101.40
68.00
23.
30.
30.
20.
60
00
00
00
Needs
27.90
NIL
NIL
NIL
Supplies
8.10
2.70
2.70
2.70
$361.30 $103.60 $27.90
Employed adults may add $16.70 for clothing.
$16.20
The total food budget of $361.30 a month for a
family of four is not adequate, according to the
much acclaimed Canada Food Guide. The cost of
purchasing the basic food staples outlined in the
Guide, such as meat, fish, poultry, cheese, juice
and milk for a family of this size far exceeds the
food allowance provided by welfare. The monthly
food allowance budget of $90.50 for one adult is
particularly meagre."
TORONTO SOCIAL PLANNING COUNCIL GUIDELINES
The Toronto Social Planning Council (SPC) also uses
an approach based on a market basket, but as the
figures show, the income result is considerably
different. The fact that two market basket approaches
can lead to much different results clearly shows that
one approach is based on a bare subsistence concept and
the other on a relative poverty concept.
29
The Toronto Social Planning Council develops its
budget with the help of experts and advisory panels
drawn from the community, and since 1949 the broadly
based basket that has been developed partially reflects
what other members of the community have in their
baskets. One could call it a relative market basket
approach (see Appendix A for a broad listing of items).
Living on the Toronto SPC budget cannot be
considered "fancy living" by any means. It could be
more appropriately described as "scraping by", as
compared to social assistance short-term "minimum
subsistence". It is the judgement of the Toronto SPC
that the budget they describe is exceeded by 70 to 75
per cent of all Toronto households; that is, it is an
extremely modest budget. The Toronto SPC also develops
special budgets for single parents and the elderly,
recognizing the special needs of these groups.
The Toronto SPC approach has a drawback in that it
is specific to Toronto, and from a national perspective
this may present a problem, although it has been
adjusted for use in at least three other cities —
Vancouver, Hamilton and Winnipeg. The Social Planning
and Research Unit of the Vancouver and Lower Mainland
United Way has published sets of low-income basic
budgets for 1982.
CCSD POVERTY LINE
Since 1973 the Canadian Council on Social
Development has employed the relative income approach,
then it set its poverty line at 50 per cent of average
Canadian family income.
The CCSD line is constructed quite simply, based on
the prevailing value of the average Canadian family
income as estimated by Statistics Canada. The income
figure represents pretax income. In 1983 the average
Canadian income figure was considered to represent the
income of a family of three (the average Canadian
family size). The poverty line for a family of three
is calculated as 50 per cent of the average income
30 ~ " ' "
figure. Adjustments are then made for different-sized
families on the basis of family income units (a family
income unit is considered to be the annual amount
necessary to sustain a dependent). Family-size
adjustments are then scaled •— a family of one is
granted three income units; a family of two has five
units; a family of four has seven units,, and so on.
STATISTICS CANADA LOW INCOME CUT-OFFS
The closest Canada comes to an "official" national
definition of poverty, that is, the definition adhered
to by the federal government, is that developed by
Statistics Canada. This method is best described as a
relative expenditure approach. Whereas the Council
bases its line on average income in the community,
Statistics Canada bases its line on average expenditure
in the community.
The Statistics Canada lines are based on surveys of
household expenditures, the latest conducted for 1978
when it was estimated that the. average Canadian family
spent 38.5 per cent of its income on the basic
necessities of food, clothing and shelter. Statistics
Canada then made the judgement that any household
required to spend more than 58.5 per cent of its income
O'n these basics would have so little discretionary
income remaining that it would be living in "straitened
circumstances". Since these surveys also reveal that
the fraction of income spend on basics declines as
income rises, Statistics Canada is able to locate the
low-income level at which a typical household spends
58.5 per cent or more of its income on basics. This
income level then becomes the "low income cut-off"
after adjustments have been made for different family
sizes and urban/rural residency. The line is then
adjusted annually by the full amount of change in the
consumer price index.
SUMMARY
The value of either of the market basket or budget
approaches is that they translate into terms or images
31
highly recognizable and understandable to the public.
They are also based on local costs. Consequently,
basket approaches are capable of fulfilling several of
the purposes of poverty lines. The Toronto SPC, but
certainly not the social assistance approach, also
provides a reasonable objective for income policy.
The other two general approaches to defining
poverty, adopted respectively by the CCSD and
Statistics Canada are national in scope and are based
on the incomes and expenditures of all Canadians. The
CCSD approach is based solely on the country's income
distribution. This relative income comparison defines
poverty, or deprivation, in terms of whether a
household has considerably less income than others.
This method views low income as entirely relative to
other incomes in the community. The relative income
approach springs more from the principle of equity than
it does from a concern simply to provide for the basic
necessities of life.
The shortcomings of national lines are manifold.
First, they lack imagery. As statistical lines they do
little to convey the hardship of living on the stated
amounts as our earlier case histories show. Pure
dollar figures have little impact. Second, local
groups do not always see these lines as applying to
their communities for purposes of developing budgets;
the lines are seen more as "national averages". Third,
there is a certain amount of arbitrariness embodied in
their construction. Why does the Council choose 50 per
cent of average income? Why does Statistics Canada
include only food, clothing and shelter in its basket
and then choose a 20 per cent mark-up on the average
expenditure on these three items?
The strengths of the lines are also manifold.
First, they are simple to calculate and understand.
Second, they provide unvarying standards that lead to
fairly easy measurement of the low-income population.
Third, they establish national, as opposed to local or
regional goals or objectives that we can pursue as a
nation.
32
The Adjustment Factors
The Council's Fact Book on Poverty, 1983 presented
several factors for which a national income standard
could conceivably be adjusted. Consideration of the
appropriateness and/or feasibility of making
adjustments (beyond family size) for different factors
was a major preoccupation of the task force. It
considered the following factors: geographic income
differences; regional cost of living differences;
rural/urban expenditure differences; extra costs
associated with disability; family wealth; and
subsidized public services. The following sections
summarize what the task force learned about these
factors.
GEOGRAPHIC INCOME DIFFERENCES
Family incomes vary by province and by rural-urban
setting. Figure 3 illustrates provincial income
differences for 1971 and 1981. As a percentage of
average national family income, the provincial shares
ranged from 76.1 per cent in P.E.I, to 113.5 per cent
in Alberta. During the period 1971-81, the Atlantic
provinces improved their shares considerably with the
biggest improvements being registered by Newfoundland
and P.E.I. In fact, with the major exception of
Alberta, which moved from below to above the national
figure and to a minor extent, Quebec, which edged
slightly downwards, all provinces moved towards the
national average.
Incomes also varied within the provinces depending
on whether the household was located in an urban or
rural area. As the following data show, the
rural-urban income differences are substantial, and
33
Figure 3
Average Provincial Family Income, As a Percentage of National Average, 1971 and 1981
PERCENT
125 *
100
75
50
25
0
1
1 2
1
£;:;:;!=
£i &
1
i
Pd
i
IB
I
I
!> <
t
E ••.:
^
IK
NFLD. P.E.I . N.S. N.B. QUE. ONT. MAN. SASK. ALTA. B.C.
PROVINCES
LJ J : 1971 AVERAGE PROVINCIAL INCOME
5 2 j 1981 AVERAGE PROVINCIAL INCOME
Source: Statistics Canada, Income distributions by size
i n Canada, 1971 and 1981 '"'
34
this has prompted Statistics Canada, in developing its
poverty lines, to adjust to rural-urban income
differences.
Size of Area of Residence Family Income (1981)
Urban areas with population
exceeding 100,000 $33,001
Urban areas with population
between 30,000-99,999 $28,543
Small urban areas under 30,000 $27,536
Rural areas $26,190
For comparison with our largest cities, 1981 average
family income was as follows: Toronto, $35,616;
Montreal, $30,383; Vancouver, $35,344; Edmonton,
$37,275; Winnipeg, $29,384; and Halifax, $28,791.
While the task force acknowledges geographical
differences in incomes, it does not necessarily follow,
as Statistics Canada presumes, that the cost of living
varies in a corresponding fashion. The cost of an
adequate market basket would seem to be the key issue
to explore or on which to base variations in poverty
lines. To accept and adjust poverty lines downward for
lower incomes in the Atlantic provinces and in rural
areas seems only to institutionalize these low incomes.
The key question is the extent to which the cost of
living varies across the country.
COST OF LIVING DIFFERENCES IN URBAN CENTRES
What is the purchasing power of a given level of
income across Canada? Is it markedly cheaper to live
in certain regions or provinces? Do low incomes and low
costs go hand in hand? These are the basic questions
relative to poverty-line adjustments.
Surprisingly, there is little comprehensive data on
a representative market basket for all provinces. We
have consequently resorted to several sources that can
be used to give an impression, these sources being
Statistics Canada consumer price indexes for a limited
market basket and for cities only; a Conference Board
35
Table 3
Inter-city Indexes of Retail Price Differentials, as of September 1983, for Selected Groups of Consumer Goods and Services
(combined city average = 100)
COMPONENTS
Food purchased from stores
Household operations,
furnishings and equipment
Transportation
Health 8 Personal Care
Recreation, Reading
& Education
Tobacco & Alcohol
ST. JOHN'S
NFLD.
107
105
101
102
106
129
CHARLOTTETOWN
PEL
98
101
96
95
104
102
HALIFAX
N.S.
94
105
95
104
108
99
ST. JOHN
N.B.
101
107
95
100
106
108
MONTREAL
QUE.
100
98
107
98
98
101
OTTAWA
ONT.
94
100
98
100
101
100
TORONTO
ONT.
101
102
100
102
102
101
WINNIPEG
HAN.
95
97
92
97
97
101
REGINA
SASK.
101
97
91
94
98
102
EDMONTON
ALTA.
101
96
92
106
98
93
VANCOUVER
B.C.
105
104
100
104
101
103
Source: Statistics Canada, Consumer prices and price indexes, Oct-Dec. 1983
of Canada market basket survey; and a special survey
conducted for the task force, with items selected from
a representative low-income market basket but primarily
for urban areas.
Table 3 presents the results of a Statistics Canada
pricing survey for 11 cities (clothing; and shelter are
not included in the survey). Taking 100 as the index
for the weighted price of all cities, we see, for
example, that with respect to purchased food, prices
ranged from a high of 107 in St. John's to 94 in
Halifax and Ottawa. The weightiest item in this
survey, transportation, varied from a high of 107 in
Montreal to 91 in Regina.
The only specific impression gained from these data
is that St. John's would seem to have higher overall
costs than the prairie cities. But the general
impression gained is how close all the indexes are to
the average value of 100, with the exception of low
transportation costs on the prairies, and the high cost
of alcohol and tobacco in St. John's. The cost data
are marked by more similarities than differences.
The major shortcoming of this Statistics Canada
survey is that the items cover only about 60 per cent
of a family's market basket (as noted, the most
conspicuous absences are clothing and shelter). To
overcome this, the task force conducted, with the
generous assistance of volunteers, a market basket
price survey of a more representative sample of items.
Partial results of this survey are contained in Table
4, with more detail provided in Appendix B and the
questionnaire that was utilized in Appendix C.
Again, as with the Statistics Canada data, the
overall impression is of similarity rather than
difference across the cities. While specific items may
cost more in some cities than others, the difference
tends to be cancelled out by the price differential on
other items. The task force does not deny that
differences exist, but we are struck by the small
degree of price variation, and by the fact that there
is no substantial and systematic variation in urban
37
00
Task Force Budget Summary National Cost of Living Comparison, February/March 1984
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
ITE M
FOOD:
HOUSEHOLD SUPPLIES:
PERSONAL CARE SUPPLIES:
HOME FURNISHINGS:
ALCOHOL & TOBACCO:
READING, RECREATION. EDUCATION:
MEDICINE CHEST SUPPLIES:
CLOTHING:
HOUSING:
TRANSPORTATION:
REGIONAL
ST. JOHN
NFLD.
45.16
10.83
6.37
1066.73
46.81
135.90
9.64
370.49
789.00
44.46
COSTS $
'S CHARLOTTETOWN
PEL
40.70
10.14
5.77
1045.42
32.70
160.73
11.35
379.73
710.00
*
GLACE BAY
N.S.
38.73
6.10
4.70
879.91
29.39
148.10
7.67
382.84
662.50
*
ST. JOHN
N.B.
39.07
10.05
5.47
1383.70
36.27
168.85
10.10
363.24
576.00
*
MONTREAL
QUE.
46.39
11.50
5.62
1183.91
26.69
162.90
13.52
388.91
564.35
46.74
KINGSTON
ONT.
46.36
12.37
5.90
949.68
30.59
129.15
7.88
378.87
657.00
55.99
OTTAWA
ONT.
39.19
10.12
4.23
1184.87
31.25
153.48
8.97
361.95
735.00
67.79
SASKATOON
SASK.
40.75
11.54
6.28
1144.67
31.24
150.80
10.34
371.39
625.00
*
CALGARY
ALTA.
42.29
10.40
4.68
1146.66
29.09
121.00
10.96
385.33
874.00
*
VANCOUVER
B.C.
41.83
11.18
5.58
1140.90
31.89
161.43
8.74
379.99
917.00
78.86
Public transit is not available In all locations. See detailed cost of living comparison in Appendix B.
All items priced were exclusive of sales tax except the Alcohol S Tobacco items.
An attempt to assess a cost of living comparison for Winnipeg was unsuccessful.
living costs to which a national income standard could
feasibly adjust.
Finally, the results of a survey conducted by the
Conference Board of Canada tend to reach the same
conclusion. In contrast to the task force survey, the
Conference Board survey assumed a rather higher
lifestyle market basket associated with an income level
of $45,000. The results summarized in Figure 4 show a
marked similarity among the cost-of-living indexes —
being almost identical in St. John's, Montreal, Toronto
and Vancouver.
Figure 4
Index of Total Family Expenses, 1983, (index, Montreal = 100)
no-
re
S-
4J
V
a.
r-
C
i —
3
rc
cn
i—
re s
O
S-
>
13
O
o
>
Source: Adapted from The Conference Board
of Canada
39
The difference in total living costs (including
income taxes) between the lowest cost city, Winnipeg
($41,643), and the highest cost, Montreal ($43,655), is
only $2,012, or less than 5 per cent.
RURAL-URBAN EXPENDITURE DIFFERENCES
All of the above three sources of cost of living
information deal with urban areas, and unfortunately,
comprehensive information on the cost of living in
rural areas can only be gained impressionistically from
Statistics Canada expenditure data, last gathered for
the year 1978.
Income data presented earlier showed that rural
incomes are 78 per cent of family incomes in the three
largest metropolitan areas and that Statistics Canada,
in making allowances for its low income lines allows a
73% difference between rural low-income lines and those
for the largest cities. From these figures, the
conclusion could be drawn that life is considerably
cheaper in rural areas. Certainly there is a popular
view that rural dwellers are more self-sufficient and
have lower costs. But expenditure data for 1978 show
that in total dollar terms, rural dwellers spend 88 per
cent as much as urban dwellers, even though their
incomes are much less than that in percentage terms.
On the basis of this finding, one is drawn either to
the conclusion that country dwellers simply spend more
or else that they are required to pay higher prices for
those items they do purchase. A detailed look at their
expenditures for 1978 supports the latter conclusion.
The information in Table 5 shows that even with
considerably lower incomes, rural dwellers (must) spend
markedly more dollars than urban dwellers on
transportation, shelter repairs, water, fuel and
electricity, household appliances, children's clothing,
and prescribed medicine. Few of these items could be
considered discretionary or non-essential. Items that
40
Tablefl
Summary of Family Expenditure, by Size of Area of Residence in Canada, 1978
EXPENDITURE AVERAGE DOLLAR
ITEM URBAN
(Pop. 500,000+)
1. Food
2. Shelter
- Repairs & Maintenance
- Water, Fuel &
Electricity
3-. Household Operations
4. Household Furnishings
& Equipment
- Furniture
- Appliances
5. Clothing
- Women 14 yrs+
- Girls 4-13 yrs
- Men 14 yrs+
- Boys 4-13 yrs
- Children (under 4 yrs)
6. Personal Care
7. Medicine & Health Care
- Dental Care
- Physician
- Prescribed Medicine
8. Tobacco & Alcohol
9. Transportation
10. Recreation, Reading &
Education
11. Miscellaneous Expenditures
12. Personal Taxes, Security
& Gifts
- Personal Taxes
- Life Insurance Premiums
- Retirement and Pension
Fund Payments
- Gifts and Contributions
13. Savings
3408.9
3424.3
261.2
536.1
814.7
868.3
298.4
168.1
1308.3
678.2
52.8
493.3
53.8
29.9
342.7
400.2
119.0
10.6
45.7
654.3
2356.9
1244.5
449.1
5174.5
3818.5
190.5
500.7
465.6
986.4
EXPENDITURE
RURA L
(Farm/Non-Farm)
3010.5
2414.3
324.9
794.8
727.2
837.7
234.0
191.2
1162.8
508.7
71.3
416.3
65.1
38.6
254.6
353.7
82.2
5.4
57.1
530.7
2689.0
971.8
490.1
3331.3
2314.6
149.9
313.8
417.3
247.4
RURA L EXPENDITURES
AS A % OF
URBA N
88.3
70.5
124.4
148.0
89.3
96.5
78.4
113.7
84.2
75.0
135.0
84.0
121.0
129.1
74.3 |
88.4 !
69.1
50.9
124.9
81.1
114.1
78.1
109.1
64.3
60.6
78.7
62.7 I
89.6 1
25.1
Source: Statistics Canada, Family expenditure in Canada, 1978, vol.3.
41
some may consider somewhat more discretionary are those
that rural dwellers stint on: furniture, women's
clothing, personal care, dental and medical care,
tobacco and alcohol, and recreation. Thus these
expenditure patterns would strongly suggest that rural
dwellers have considerable difficulty in maintaining
essential expenditures with their lower incomes.
The information suggests that in addition to less
spending on more discretionary items, four factors
permit rural dwellers to spend a greater proportion of
their incomes on the necessities of life: lower taxes;
less expended on security items such as life insurance
and retirement funds; less savings, and lower shelter
costs. In interpreting the above expenditure data it
should be noted that rural family size exceeds urban
family size by about one-half a person. Consequently,
some expenditures would be expected to be slightly
higher.
The impression gained from this brief examination
is that the rural cost of living, as represented by
expenditure data, is not cheaper — except for shelter
(see Appendix D for more detail). Even the lower
shelter expenses may not reflect cheaper dwelling costs
as much as they do lower quality and smaller homes.
With the knowledge already gained concerning the lack
of significant differences in cost of living across the
provinces in urban areas, and in the absence of
convincing data to the contrary, there is little reason
and no statistical basis for adjusting a national line
to place of residence. For low- to moderate-income
families, it is not substantially and systematically
cheaper to buy the basic items that constitute an
adequate market basket in rural areas or in certain
provinces. The notion that basic living is less costly
in rural areas would appear to be just that — a
notion.
However, while remaining unconvinced of substantial
and systematic geographical differences in the cost of
living, the task force does believe that some groups in
society face substantially higher costs than most
42
Canadians just in order to function at basic economic
and social levels. One such group consists of persons
with disabilities.
Unfortunately, while there is a common
understanding that persons with disabilities do
systematically face higher costs, there is little
comprehensive or reliable information on the extra
costs associated with disability. One of the problems
is that there are many forms of disability, each with
its own particular needs. Other factors, such as the
availability of specialized services and whether or not
family or friends are available to assist, will greatly
alter financial needs.
Figure 5 illustrates the extra amount that is
granted to single persons with disabilities. The
average for all provinces is $134 a month. The amounts
provided do not necessarily reflect the true additional
costs faced by these persons but simply that provincial
authorities already recognize substantially higher
costs. In some provinces, the provision of specialized
services is used as a means for giving assistance to
persons with disabilities.
To stress the need to recognize the extra costs
associated with disability, two illustrative case
histories are presented. The first concerns a woman
confined to a wheelchair and requiring a special diet:
Being in a wheelchair, J.M. is unable to buy life
insurance and take part in most pension plans; she
therefore invested in income property while still
working and able to meet mortgage payments and have
maintenance done. Since she is unable to do any odd
chores, maintenance bills are high unless friends
volunteer their time. Fifteen years of property
management have taught J.M. that tenants often try to
take advantage of a landlady, especially one in a
wheelchair. While the income property is a valuable
asset, it could not be liquidated without completely
disrupting her lifestyle. In her own home J.M. has
rewired, put in new plumbing, and had other major
43
Figure 5
Total Financial Assistance Available to an Unattached Individual with Disability,
including Annual Social Assistance Benefits and Provincial Tax Credits,
by Province, 1983
INCOME $
9000.
7200.
1983 CCSD Poverty Line for an Unattached Individual ($8,625)
5400
mk
?
3600
1
3 i
1 i
l 1
\<
1
m>:
NFLD. P.E.I . N.S. N.B. QUE. ONT. MAN. SASK. ALTA. B.C.
PROVINCES
: UNATTACHED INDIVIDUAL
E 2 : UNATTACHED INDIVIDUAL WITH DISABILITY
Source: Adapted from the Social Planning Council of
Metropolitan Toronto, Infopac 1983, Vol. 2, No. 4
44
renovations done to accommodate her disability.
Because she was employed, the Ontario Ministry of
Community and Social Services bought her a wheelchair
lift and door-unlocking mechanism, but because of her
salary at the time ($18,500), no other financial help
was available. The Department of Community and Social
Services also bought her a motorized wheelchair and has
paid for several repairs on it, and as well has paid
for 10 hours a week of homemaking. If much of her
attendant care was not volunteered by family and
friends, this would cost a monthly minimum of $40.
Other expenses include a Blue Cross premium ($26
monthly), food (being diabetic, J.M. requires a
well-balanced diet), and clothing (when working J.M.
requires professional attire and because of her
wheelchair, there are additional cleaning bills as well
as the increased vulnerability caused by frequent
laundry procedures). Some of her clothing, like
pantyhose, is subject to more strenuous wear, and thus
requires more frequent replacement. J.M. wears
orthopedic shoes, which cost a minimum of $115 a pair.
While Blue Cross does pay 80 per cent of prescription
drugs and non-motorized wheelchairs, the residual 20
per cent fee is often considerable, and the insurance
does not cover extra requirements like wheelchair
cushions ($50-$300, depending on the kind prescribed).
Since it is time-consuming and much more of an effort
for her to write, her telephone bills are higher. J.M.
maintains an electric typewriter ($124 annually)
although IBM donated the typewriter itself (this is not
common to person with disabilities). J..M. does not own
a car, but travels by bus for the handicapped and gets
rides with family and friends. If the bus for the
handicapped is not available, taxi-travel is the only
alternative.
J.M. finds her recreation mainly through
entertaining family and friends in her home. Almost no
wine or alcohol is used, and no cigarettes. Much of
the food is donated. She enjoys live theatre, but
financial constraints make it a rare treat. Outside
entertainment also incurs transportation costs where in
many cases the able-bodied could have walked.
45
J.M. finds herself in the position of having to
accept financial hand-outs despite extensive scrimping,
and an Honours BA.
The second history has been provided by a social
agency:
George is 40 years old. Born with congenital
deformities, he has spent his entire life in a
wheelchair and will continue to do so. He has some use
of his hands and arms and can live in moderate
independence as long as he has the assistance of a
homemaker several days a week. Because he requires a
ground floor easy-access apartment, he is housed in a
senior citizens' apartment complex, in which and from
which he can move about with relative convenience.
Prior to this arrangement, he was a resident in a
nursing home for the elderly.
George has a Grade 12 education plus additional
interest courses. He reads widely and speaks
optimistically if not realistically about finding a job
and working his way off public assistance. He has no
patience with those on assistance who are not actually
physically disabled, is politically conservative, and
is dedicated to the principle that anyone can find a
job if he looks hard enough. He is cheerful about his
condition, his future and even his meagre income.
George is on a disability pension of $364 a month
provided by the provincial social services department.
rent
food
$ 66 (geared to income)
150
telephone
transportation
drug store items
haircut
newspapers, magazines
cable TV
membership fee
entertainment
church
cigarettes
laundry
25
15
5
4
10
7
7
15
36
12
12
$364
(because of a hearing
disability, an extra
gadget is needed for
the phone, which increases
the rate)
46
If George has to purchase an item of clothing, he runs
behind on other budgeted items. He owes about $1,000,
comprised entirely of debts in the $10 to $20 range; to
a number of friends, and is frustrated and ashamed at
his inability to pay it back.
MISCONCEPTIONS OF FAMILY WEALTH
It is sometimes stated that low income cut-offs, or
poverty lines, are not sufficient for measuring poverty
because they do not account for wealth. How relevant
is this concern?
From the point of view of statistics gathering,
"wealth" is defined as net worth (assets minus debts).
The data show that any such wealth holdings among
low-income households are primarily in the form of real
assets such as houses and vehicles. Overall, the
poorest 20 per cent of households in Canada in 1977
(most recent year for which comprehensive data are
available) held only 9 per cent of the country's
wealth and their position deteriorated between 1970 and
1977. On the other hand, the top 20 per cent of
Canada's households held 44.3 per cent of the nation's
wealth in 1977.
Concentrating on net worth (wealth) in Table 6,
low-income homeowners (under $7,000 income group) had
on average net worth of less than $50,000 (in 1977),
and for non-homeowners it was less than $5,000.
Although it is not shown in this table, it is known
from expenditure surveys that this home ownership is
heavily concentrated among the aged and among rural
dwellers. For the middle-income group
($10,000-$20,000), the net worth of homeowners is only
about $5,000 more than that of low-income homeowners.
But the non-homeowner counterparts in this
middle-income group have greater wealth. By
comparison, the highest income group, those with an
income of $25,000 and over, had wealth holdings of up
to $215,001 for homeowners and $45,711 for
non-homeowners.
47
oo Table 6
Household Net Worth
NET WORTH (WEALTH) OF FAMILIES AND UNATTACHED INDIVIDUALS, BY TENURE AND BY INCOME GROUPS, SPRING 1977
1976 Income Groups
Under $3000 $5000 $7000 $10000 $15000 $20000
Average Net Worth $3000 - 4999 - 6999 - 9999 - 14999 - 19999 - 24999
$25000 Over
- 34999 $35000
All Families and
Unattached
Individuals
Home Owners
Non-Home Owners
16
47
2
,656
,278
,182
23
52
4
,338
,395
,592
24
49
4
,077
,265
,606
31
61
6
,001
,676
,219
33
55
7
,511
,891
,864
40,612 46,567
54,800 55,327
10,213 15,017
67,939 205,859
75,739 215,001
45,711
Source: Adapted from Statistics Canada, Income, assets, and indebtedness of families in Canada, 1971
Although it is not presented in the table, the
average amount of liquid assets (such as money, stocks
and bonds) held by low-income households was only worth
about $3,700, and this figure does not take into
account any debt obligations. Middle-income households
held an average amount of liquid assets equal to
$6,000. Households with incomes exceeding $35,000 held
over $24,000 worth of liquid assets. But it should
also be pointed out that with respect even to the
moderate $3,700 worth of liquid assets held by
low-income households, 50 per cent of these had
holdings of less than $700. Consequently, because of a
concentration of holdings among a relatively few
households in this low-income group, the average figure
quoted above of $3,700 is quite misleading. The
majority of low-income households in fact have
virtually ri£ liquid assets, and the lack of wealth is
yet another aspect of their lowly lifestyle. Moreover,
in most cases, any wealth they do hold is in the form
of their house or equity interest in their farms or
businesses (tractors, trucks, tools). To transform
these assets into cash would detract considerably from
their already lowly and fragile lifestyles. To put it
differently, low-income households do not hold their
small amounts of wealth in easily converted stocks and
bonds and other securities like wealthier households
do •
In conclusion, there is little validity to the
claim that income measures of poverty significantly
overstate the number of low-income households because
poor people have substantial wealth holdings. As a
result, the task force does not think it is a serious
shortcoming to continue to ignore making any wealth
adjustments in a national poverty line.
49
SUBSIDIZED PUBLIC SERVICES
One of the objections to a national income line is
that it does not accurately reflect standards of living
because of variations in the availability of subsidized
services across the country. While the task force
feels this to be an important issue, it is not an issue
that can be systematically adjusted for at the regional
or provincial level, for two reasons.
First, it is hard to ascertain any systematic
differences in the basic provision of health, education
and social services across the country. There are
certainly more similarities in basic provision than
there are differences. This is primarily due to a
common understanding among Canadians that these
services are public and that they receive basic funding
from the federal government. Consequently most
services have been required to meet certain basic
standards. And it is basic standards we are concerned
with here.
Second, while there are no substantial differences
in the basic provision of social services across the
provinces, there are undoubtedly differences with
respect to access to such services by individual
households. But this varies within provinces,
counties, municipalities and even within cities. It is
well known and the task force heard frequently that
factors such as distance, family responsibilities,
disability or minimum user fees can effectively render
subsidized services inaccessible.
To come back to the adjustment problem, how can a
poverty line that is to be useful beyond any individual
household take into account that subsidized medical and
education services exist in certain localities but that
there may be many who cannot gain access to them or who
have to pay a heavy price to receive them?
Thus the task force came to the conclusion that
adjustment for free or subsidized services at regional
or provincial levels is not required because marked
differences do not exist on any systematic or
50
substantial basis. Differences do exist across certain
households, and it would technically be possible but in
practice very difficult to ask householders to estimate
the dollar value of subsidized services received by
them and to add this amount to their incomes. Thus
some households who may be judged "poor" on the basis
of money income alone, may cross over the poverty line
when the value of "in kind" social services is added
on, and conversely, households that had to pay large
sums to avail themselves of services might drop below
the line.
The task force has not adopted this type of
approach because it is not practical and because it
would make little difference to the number being
classified as poor each year.
NATIONAL FILM BOARD — PHOTOTHBQUE
51
The Dimensions of Poverty:
Extent, Depth, and Length
Current statistical measures of economic poverty
concentrate only on the extent of poverty. For
example, each year both Statistics Canada's low income
cut-offs and the CCSD's poverty line contain estimates
of how many families live below their respective lines.
The resultant number, taken as a percentage of all
Canadian families then becomes the poverty rate or the
extent of poverty in Canada. The task force is
convinced that this single measure of the state of
poverty in Canada is inadequate and possibly
misleading. Both for the purpose of expressing the
hardship of poverty and for developing appropriate
policy responses, the depth and length of poverty are
also required information. Fortunately, it is
relatively easy to prepare indicators to express the
depth of poverty, and the task force develops some of
these below. Unfortunately, it is not possible to
advance the length dimension very far because of the
lack of data.
THE DEPTH OF POVERTY
The task force has frequently encountered the
belief that poor people live jit_ the poverty line. When
the Council releases it poverty line estimates each
year, people are heard to say, "Well, that seems like
enough money to live on. Why are poor people
complaining?" In fact, very few of the poor live at or
even near the line. And the hardship of poverty grows
with the depth.
Figures 6, 7 and 8 show for different family sizes
that compared to the CCSD poverty line in 1981, many
53
families and individuals are far below the line, some a
bit below, some around it, and most well above it.
Appendices E, F and G present income distribution data
for different family sizes that reinforce the concern
that many people are far below the existing poverty
lines.
One way of transforming the illustrative approach
employed in Figures 6 to 8 into an objective indicator
to represent the depth of poverty is to calculate the
average payment per unit that would be necessary to
raise all families and unattached individuals to the
CCSD poverty line. Having made this calculation for
the years 1971 and 1981, in 1981 dollar terms the
"average depth" of poor households was $3,450 in 1971
and $4,000 in 1981. Over the decade, the average depth
has grown.
To further elaborate the depth dimension,
Appendices H and I present data on a regional basis
showing the share of a region's population falling
below the CCSD line. The share falling below one-half
of the poverty line is also shown to emphasize the
depth dimension. This information shows, for example,
that over 20 per cent of the families on the prairies
fall below the CCSD poverty line, and 5 per cent fall
below one-half of the poverty line.
THE POVERTY GAP
One way of transforming the extent (rate) and depth
measures into an objective indicator is by using a
measure known as the poverty gap. The poverty gap is
simply the product of the depth and extent, which
measures the total (not average) amount of money
required to bring all low-income households up to the
poverty line, that is, to close the poverty gap.
Calculations for 1971 and 1981 are contained in
Table 7 and show that in terms of 1981 dollars, the gap
has increased from $5.8 to $9.3 billion over this 10
year period. It is also evident that the growing gap
is caused both by a larger number of families being
54
Figure 6
The Depth of Poverty — Distribution of Income, All Families, 1981
('
55
Figure 7
The Depth of Poverty - Distribution of Income, Unattached Individuals, 1981
{OCO
O © so
AMP
1
1
1
1
VZ5M£ PIS*
••'•••' 1 ' r
)
56
Figure 8
The Depth of Poverty - Distribution of Income, Family Size Three, 1981
IOOO
1
1
700 I
Wo 1
55O I
ADO 1
*CO 1
1 J
1 1
r ~i
1 1
r 1
1 l
1 ccep
r ~i
1 1
r ~i
1 i
r 1
1 !
r ~i
1 1
O
ANP
IN
57
below the poverty line, and by them being further below
the line.
In terms of the country's capacity to finance a
closing of the gap, this has remained relatively
unchanged, requiring nearly 3 per cent of gross
national product or 4 per cent of total household
income in 1981. Thus, while the poverty gap has
increased, the ability to eliminate or close it has not
changed.
Table 7
The Poverty Gap
Household poverty
rate
Number of households
below CCSD poverty
line 1
Gap between actual incomes
and poverty line
(1981 dollars) $
Gap as percentage
of GNP
Gap as percentage of
total household
income
1971
24.7%
,685,000
5.8 billion
2.6%
4.1%
1981
25.7%
2,307,000
$ 9.3 billion
2.8%
4.0%
58
THE LENGTH OF POVERTY
How long do specific individuals or households
endure their low-income status? Throughout our
lifetime is it roughly the same 20 per cent of
households who are poor (thus possibly generating a
poverty trap for succeeding generations), or is there a
constant changeover of households? Curiously enough,
although this dimension of poverty is at least as, if
not more, important than the extent and depth
dimensions, there is virtually no information for
Canada beyond anecdotes and conjecture. Fortunately,
the initial results of a longitudinal study involving
around 5,000 families over a 10-year period in the U.S.
are now being made public (the results may not reflect
Canadian experience).
Briefly, the results show that
many of the commonly held stereotypes of
"typical welfare cases" and "the poor" really
apply to the exception rather than the norm;
of families who had ever drawn welfare over the
10- year period, fewer than 1 in 12 (8 per cent)
had relied heavily on welfare for more than
seven years, and almost one-half received
welfare for no more than one or two years over
the 10-year period;
- one in every four Americans lived in a family
that received some welfare income over the
10-year period.
These are only a few of the more general
observations resulting from the study. What they show
is that less than 2 per cent of the U.S. population
had a long-term dependency (more than seven years) on
welfare. There is a considerable degree of changeover
in the poverty population with people entering and then
escaping it. This is attested to by the high number
(25 per cent) of individuals who had lived in families
receiving some welfare payments.
The only data available for Canada covers income
changes between two years, and although the results
59
must be treated with extreme caution, they do suggest
some turnover in the poverty population over a one-year
period. Also, the families being examined here are
"working poor" and not those dependent on welfare
assistance.
Table 8 presents the results of this study, which
traced changes in the income status of "working poor"
households between 1971 and 1973. Of the 1972 "very
low" income group, 48 per cent remained in that status
in 1973, while 24 per cent and 27 per cent moved up to
"supplementation" and "higher" income levels
respectively. Thus about three-quarters of the very
low income group remained as wage-earning poor.
Of the 1972 supplementation (moderately low income)
group, 43 per cent remained at that income level, 12
per cent fell into the very low income group, and 45
per cent advanced to the higher income group. Thus
slightly more than half of the supplementation group
remained as wage-earning poor. Of the 1972 higher
income group, 96 per cent retained that income status
in 1973 with only 4 per cent falling into the
wage-earning poor category.
Table 8
1973 Destination of 1972 Wage-earning Poor Families
1972 Income
Very low
income
Supplemen-
tation
Higher
income
Group
Very low
48.1
11.9
1.0
1973 Income
Wage-Earning Poor
Supplementation
24.5
42.7
2.9
Higher
27.3
45.4
96.2
Group
Total
100
100
100
60
During this two-year period then, there is some
evidence of an escape from poverty, but the depth of
poverty seems important, with the very low income group
showing the greatest likelihood of remaining in
poverty. Although the poorest of the wage-earning poor
have only one chance in four of advancing to a non-poor
status, the moderately low wage-earning poor have
almost a fifty-fifty chance of moving out of their
poverty status for at least one year. Data limitations
prevent any further speculation with regard to these
families beyond 1973.
Do all families that advance into the higher level
group remain there permanently, or do they fall back
into poverty either temporarily or permanently? The
data on the 1972 higher income group initially tend to
suggest that they stay there, only 3.4 per cent falling
into poverty. But because the higher income group
represents such a relatively large share of Canadian
families (around 80 per cent), 4 per cent of this group
constitutes a very large fraction of the 1973
low-income families. After adjusting for this in 1973,
for example, 27 per cent of the supplementation
families consisted of formerly higher income families.
Consequently, the possibility of slipping back into
poverty appears greater when adjustments are made for
the relative sizes of the groups.
These data, however, almost certainly overstate the
potential to escape poverty for all low-income
households. The above data pertain only to the working
poor and not to those on longer-term social assistance.
The elderly, persons with disabilities, the chronically
ill, and many single-parent mothers have less
likelihood of escaping poverty or do so only after a
long spell.
The task force is unfortunately unable to conclude
its examination of the length of poverty dimension with
any useful adjustments to present poverty measures.
The length dimension is, however, an important
variable in understanding the hardship associated with
low income as well as the appropriate policy response.
In fact it is quite likely that the length a household
61
suffers low income marks the difference between "low
income" and "poverty". While "having a low income" and
"being poor" are often used interchangeably (although
not by Statistics Canada), the difference, when it
exists, can likely be attributed primarily to length.
If a household records a low income for a period of a
few months or even a year (depending on past savings
and future prospects) it will not necessarily consider
itself poor in the sense of having a life marked by
extreme economic hardship and lack of social amenities.
It is when the low income persists that the resulting
enforced way of life may be described by the word
poverty.
Obviously, it is highly significant both for policy
and advocacy purposes whether the households classed as
having low incomes are only temporarily poor or have
been or will be poor for many years, or forever. Few
members of the public are going to be concerned about
poverty if there is a belief that the turnover is high.
And from a policy standpoint, short-term poverty
primarily requires a focus on income maintenance,
whereas long-term poverty requires a focus on
education, social services, employment policy and
manpower services. Statistical surveys in Canada give
only a "snap-shot" of the incomes of those covered by
the survey. What we need are long-run surveys like the
one being conducted in the United States. How
households fare in the years immediately preceeding or
following the survey year is not recorded in Canada.
As a result, the task force is able to convey little
more than an impression of the importance of this
dimension of poverty.
62
Findings of the Task Force
1. Basic poverty and deprivation still exist in
Canada. Many households are living unhealthy,
hazardous and humiliating lives because they lack
income. This may be a reflection of the inadequacy
of poverty measures in that the present approaches,
by being too abstract or difficult to understand,
do not convey or convince other Canadians of the
hardship suffered by people on low incomes.
2. In the public hearings and as expressed by the
official poverty data, poverty is becoming
overwhelmingly associated with women — younger
single-parent mothers and the elderly widowed. In
1981 Statistics Canada estimated that of all poor
families, 30 per cent were headed by single-parent
mothers and that the likelihood or incidence of
poverty was 43 out of every 100 for this type of
f amily.
Of all poor unattached individuals that year, 44
per cent were over 65 years of age, and the
National Council of Welfare estimated that 57 per
cent of the elderly were female. For every 100
elderly women, 62 were likely to be poor.
3. Although the elderly in general have shown
continued improvement over the years, their low
income position is now being taken over by the
young and by persons with disabilities. Young
individuals or family heads and persons with
disabilities are finding it increasingly difficult
to receive permanent and well-paying employment.
Over one-half of those defined as "poor" today are
known as the working poor. These are people who
rely for their major source of income on earnings
63
from the labour market. In recent years this type
of poor person has become more prominent among the
low-income population. Unfortunately, official
income data does not specify persons with
disabilities, however from the evidence presented
at our public meetings, it is apparent that
disability and low-income status are often related.
One of the main purposes of a national poverty
line is to set a goal towards which social and
income policies can be measured. It is a standard
by which progress can be judged, a standard to
ensure that Canadians across the country have
access to at least a basic and similar minimum
standard of living. This basic standard should
not be developed in terms of subsistence living.
Rather, it should be developed so that persons and
households are able to feel they are a part of
their surrounding society's activities and able to
participate fully in them without stigma and
without "standing out".
The task force was unable to find, either in its
public meetings across the country or in the
available data, any reason to accept a national
poverty standard based on geographic income
variations. Because of this, the task force has
not adopted adjustments for differences since this
could be interpreted as condoning the present
unequal geographic distribution of income. One of
the main purposes of a national poverty line is to
set a national standard for reducing, not
maintaining, wide income disparities.
The task force found that a representative basket
of goods and services in total, costs nearly the
same wherever a person resides in Canada. In this
respect, the commonly held belief that rural
living is markedly cheaper than urban living is a
myth. Rural incomes are less, and this leads to a
reduced standard of living, but to turn this
around and then claim that it is cheaper to live
in the country has no real basis in fact. All the
64
evidence suggests that country dwellers skimp
considerably on less important basics, are able to
attain little economic security, and likely endure
lower quality housing in order to satisfy more
urgent needs. The provision of public services in
rural areas is often absent or insufficient, and
where services are available, residents frequently
must travel longer distances and at greater cost
than their urban counterparts. The cost of a
package of basic goods and services does not vary
significantly between urban and rural areas.
Where there are favourable cost differences in
particular items, they are offset by unfavourable
differences in other items.
7. In looking at adjustment factors beyond
geographical variations In incomes or cost of
living, the task force concluded that other
variations were primarily of a personal nature.
To begin to adjust the poverty standard to
individual circumstances would require perhaps
nine million poverty lines — one for each
Canadian household. It would also require making
a large number of questionable value judgements.
For example, would an efficient, well-organized
household be required to accept a lower income
(poverty line) than a wasteful, less careful
household? Or if because of circumstance or
preference a household has more specialized and
expensive needs, would we adjust the income line
upward to accommodate this? In. arriving at a
national standard, we have concluded that "on
average" this amount of income provides a basic
adequate standard of living. The possibility of
adjusting to individual circumstance is rejected.
8. The one exception to making adjustments is for
persons with disabilities who do "on average" face
higher costs wherever they live. A given income
corresponds to a lower standard of living where a
household contains one or more disabled persons.
Consequently, the national standard could not be
expected to apply to persons with disabilities.
65
Since, however, the extra costs associated with
disability vary considerably with the nature of
the disability and with the availability of public
services geared to their special needs, the amount
to be added to the national standard would have to
be calculated after consultation with a wide
variety of organizations of persons with
disabilities. Unfortunately, the task force was
unable to gather enough useful data on this
subject matter to conclude with precise cost
adjustments.
9. From evidence heard at the public meetings, the
task force was strongly reminded of actual or
threatened cutbacks in universal social services
such as health care and education. Many cases of
retrenchment in providing access to other services
such as day care, legal aid and other family
services were identified. The imposition of
health care user fees, the charging for school
textbooks, the increasing number of special event
days at schools, escalating college and university
tuition, and the curtailment of services in some
areas means that income takes on added importance
when additional fees are applied to formerly free
or subsidized services.
10. In arriving at its decision to maintain a national
poverty standard at 50 per cent of national
average income, the task force was influenced
considerably by the results of the detailed and
community-based market basket budget procedure
worked out by the Toronto Social Planning Council
and described in this report. The Social Planning
Council's budget calculation falls within a few
hundred dollars of 50 per cent of national
average family income.
The Canadian Council on Social Development poverty
line, based on national average income, and the
Toronto Social Planning Council approach, based on
detailed budgets, complement each other. The 50
per cent standard adds a national dimension and
simplicity in calculation. The Toronto SPC
66
approach fleshes out the 50 per cent standard by
translating it into everyday expenditure patterns
that are easily understood. It is possible to
visualize the type of life a 50 per cent standard
provides. Examination of the budget allows one to
see that while it is adequate it is also very
frugal.
11. The task force has found that the measurement of
only the extent of poverty, or its rate, is an
inadequate measure of poverty. In addition to the
extent, there are two other dimensions: depth and
length. Consequently, the task force has
presented additional data on the depth of poverty,
or more precisely, how far household incomes fall
below the poverty line. The conclusion is reached
that since 1971, the depth has increased.
Unfortunately, because Canada maintains no
statistics on the length of time that people
suffer low incomes, it is not possible to
incorporate this important dimension in
the national measure. The limited data that are
available, however, suggest that the low-income
population is not stable; that is, there is some
turnover in its composition.
12. At the time of writing, in the Spring of 1984, the
task force is relying on 1981 data. For policy
purposes, a two- to three-year lag in information
is serious, for it means policy is formulated in
reaction to a situation described statistically
three years ago. This kind of lag would not be
tolerated in the collecting and reporting of data
on leading economic indicators. Moreover, this
lag is not owing to technical impediments but
rather to a low priority attached to this
information.
13. The task force has also found other shortcomings
in official income data. For example, natives
living on reserves are excluded from the annual
income surveys. Because it is common knowledge
that most native reserves suffer from low incomes,
67
the official poverty statistics understate the
extent of low incomes in Canada.
14. Statistics Canada also presents no regular data on
persons with disabilities. This has made the task
force's examination of the nature and extent of
the relationship between disability and low income
extremely difficult and incomplete.
68
Recommendations
On the basis of its broad findings, the task force
makes the following recommendations concerning the
meaning and measurement of poverty:
1. A national income standard can and should be
used for defining and measuring poverty. This
standard would vary only for family size and
for disability.
2. The income standard would be based on 50 per
cent of national average family income, which
in 1984 is estimated to be $36,226 before
taxes, and would vary for family size
according to the following schedule:
CCSD 1984 POVERTY LINES
Family Size Poverty Line
1 $9,056
2 $15,094
3 $18,113
4 $21,131
5 $24,150
6 $27,169
These incomes will provide in all areas of the
country an adequate budget as developed by the
Toronto Social Planning Council, which used
the help of community based panels and expert
evaluators.
3. Adjustments to the national poverty standard
to account for the extra costs associated with
disabilities need to be worked out with the
assistance of organizations of persons with
disabilities.
69
4. The depth of poverty and a dollar measure of
the "poverty gap" should be published annually
with the other data on poverty. Evidence
suggests that although the extent of poverty
has stabilized somewhat in the past decade,
the depth has increased.
5. For policy purposes, the problem of poverty
can best be comprehended by using the "poverty
gap" measure. This measure illustrates the
amount of money required to bring all
low-income households up to the 50 per cent
national standard. In 1981 the poverty gap
amounted to $9.3 billion, or 2.8 per cent of
the gross national product.
6. Since the length of poverty is an important
dimension of poverty and because no data is
regularly or comprehensively collected on this
dimension, the government should commission a
longitudinal study to repair this deficiency.
A similar study nearing completion in the
United States is contributing greatly to an
understanding of the problems of poverty.
This study has extended over 15 years.
7. Because of the "feminization" of poverty,
increased attention should be paid to the
special problems of women.
8. Although the task force feels that there is
little difference in the cost of purchasing a
basic standard of living in rural or urban
areas, there is need for a more systematic
examination. The task force suggests that the
wide discrepancies in the low-income lines
used by Statistics Canada are more the result
of income than cost differences. Statistics
Canada should collect and publish
cost-of-living comparisons specifically for
rural areas based on a range of basic items of
similar quality.
70
9. The task force also recommends to the
Government of Canada that at least three
changes take place in the current Statistics
Canada annual survey of incomes, from which
poverty calculations are made:
(i) that natives living on reserves not be
excluded from the survey;
(ii) that specific information on persons with
disabilities be collected following
consultation with organizations of these
persons;
(iii) that the delay in the release of the annual
survey data be reduced to one year.
71
Appendix A
Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto Budget Outline
A) FOOD - based on standards recommended by the Canadian Council of
Nutrition. Basic, healthy food elements.
B) CLOTHING - based partially on recorded low-income household
expenditures, plus community panel judgements. Translation
of clothing needs into specific items and costs is done by
department store purchasing agents.
C) RENT - average rent prevailing for a specified unit in Toronto
that year.
D) HOME FURNISHINGS - based on previous budget studies done in other
areas, on actual recorded expenditures by low-income
families and on the judgements of a community panel.
E) HOUSEHOLD OPERATIONS - calculated in the same way as home furnishings.
F) HEALTH CARE - based on the prevailing cost of various health
insurance policies, dental care and drugs, cost of
prescription lenses, and basic medicine chest supplies.
G) PERSONAL CARE - based on recorded expenditures by low-income
families and the judgement of a community panel.
H) RECREATION, READING, COMMUNICATION - assumes public library
availability and inexpensive recreational outlet such as
YM/YWCA. Biggest item is a one-week vacation at a nearby
rented cottage.
I) ALCOHOL AND TOBACCO - based on data from consumer expenditure
surveys.
J) TRANSPORTATION - assumes complete reliance on public transit.
72
Appendix B
Task Force Budget - National Cost of Living Comparison
i
ITE M
FOOD:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
Milk
Cheese
Eggs
Chicken
Ground Beef
Weiners
Orange Juice
Coffee
Tea
Butter
Sugar
Flour
Peanut Butter
Canned Beans
Bananas
Potatoes
Carrots
Bread
Corn Flakes
Jelly Powder
TOTAL:
HOUSEHOLD SUPPLIES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Detergent
Bathroom Tissue
Scouring Pads
Plastic Wrap
Light Bulbs
TOTAL:
PERSONAL CARE SUPPLIES:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Toothpaste
Facial Tissue
Soap
Razor Blades
TOTAL:
ST. JOHN'S
NFLD.
1.23
1.97
1.63
3.67
3.92
1.67
2.29
6.49
2.49
3.09
1.64
1.98
2.45
0.99
1.30
3.29
1.19
1.03
2.29
0.55
$45.16
4.IB
1.39
0.46
2.25
2.55
$10.83
2.09
1.35
0.54
2.39
$6.37
CHARLOTTETOWN
PEL
0.80
1.74
1.55
3.29
4.39
1.69
1.85
5.88
2.09
2.15
1.39
2.99
2.19
0.89
1.21
2.59
0.89
0.98
1.59
0.55
$40.70
5.09
2.27
0.63
1.14
1.01
$10.14
1.69
1.25
0.34
2.49
$5.77
GLACE BAY
N.S.
0.94
1.97
1.45
2.84
3.94
0.89
1.19
5.99
2.28
2.35
1.59
3.14
2.09
0.83
1.08
1.99
0.79
0.89
2.16
0.33
$38.73
2.45
0.99
0.48
1.09
1.09
$6.10
1.99
1.09
0.33
1.29
$4.70
ST. JOHN
N.B.
0.93
1.89
1.49
3.28
2.32
1.79
1.85
5.79
1.89
2.33
1.46
2.89
2.49
0.79
0.99
2.89
1.19
0.63
1.89
0.29
$39.07
4.99
1.99
0.29
1.09
1.69
$10.05
1.69
1.29
0.60
1.89
$5.47
M3NTREAL
QUE.
0.77
1.90
1.50
4.30
5.03
2.89
0.85
7.07
2.36
2.54
1.83
4.32
2.36
1.08
0.64
2.29
0.89
1.07
2.09
0.61
$46.39
5.35
1.95
0.37
2.21
1.62
$11.50
1.79
1.23
0.21
2.39
$5.62
KINGSTON
0NT.
1.09
1.95
1.43
3.29
5.27
2.13
1.72
6.85
2.77
2.49
1.99
2.87
2.57
1.05
1.23
2.92
0.99
0.94
2.26
0.55
$46.36
5.39
2.24
0.54
2.19
2.01
$i2.37
1.92
1.34
0.40
2.24
$5.90
OTTAWA
ONT.
1.09
1.69
1.38
3.73
3.48
1.79
1.49
4.97
2.19
2.29
1.89
2.69
1.85
0.79
0.99
2.98
0.95
1.02
1.49
0.44
$39.19
3.49
2.19
0.40
1.99
2.05
$10.12
0.99
0.89
0.36
1.99
$4.23
SASKATOON
SASK.
0.83
1.95
1.38
3.99
3.29
1.79
1.89
5.88
2.49
2.28
1.74
2.99
1.88
0.74
1.24
2.39
0.89
1.09
1.58
0.44
$40.75
5.99
2.29
0.42
1.15
1.69
$11.54
2.09
1.33
0.37
2.49
$6.28
CALGARY
ALTA.
0.81
1.95
1.39
3.95
2.16
2.89
1.99
6.39
2.37
2.33
1.73
3.19
2.29
0.66
0.86
2.45
1.35
0.81
2.19
0.53
$42.29
5.39
1.44
0.43
1.15
1.99
$10.40
0.99
0.98
0.36
2.35
$4.68
VANCOUVER
B.C.
1.02
1.89
1.53
3.68
3.29
1.79
1.59
5.59
2.35
2.41
1.61
2.75
2.25
0.97
1.30
2.59
1.39
1.09
2.19
0.55
$41.83
5.75
1.89
0.38
1.17
1.99
$11.18
1.78
1.35
0.37
2.08
$5.58
CONTINUED
APPENDIX B (continued)
HOME
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
ITE M
FURNISHINGS:
Bed Chesterfield
Mattress &
Box Spring
Ironing Board
Electric Kettle
Tea Pot
TOTAL:
ALCOHOL & TOBACCO:
1.
2.
Beer
Cigarettes
TOTAL:
ST. JOHN'S
NFLD.
569.00
424.00
21.86
29.99
21.88
$1066.73
25.54
21.27
$46.81
READING,RECREATION,EDUCATION:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Newspaper
Telephone
Television
Movie: Adult
: Child
TOTAL:
MEDICINE CHEST SUPPLIES
1.
2.
3.
Thermometer
Ointment
Aspirin
TOTAL:
7.00
13.15
109.00
4.25
2.50
$135.90
2.59
4.86
2.19
$9.64
TASK
CHARLOTTETOWN
PEL
399.98
579.96
17.99
19.99
27.50
$1045.42
18.45
14.25
$32.70
6.50
12.50
134.98
4.25
2.50
$160.73
3.67
4.39
3.29
$11.35
FORCE BUDGET - NATIONAL COST OF
GLACE BAY
N.S.
399.98
419.00
17.99
24.99
17.95
$879.91
17.50
11.89
$29.39
7.00
12.35
122.00
4.25
2.50
$148.10
2.49
3.19
1.99
$7.67
REGIONAL COSTS
ST. JOHN
N.B.
699.98
619.96
17.99
19.99
25.78
$1383.70
19.00
17.27
$36.27
25.12
11.75
124.98
4.50
2.50
$168.85
2.99
5.12
1.99
$10.10
MONTREAL
QUE.
599.98
519.96
17.99
19.99
25.99
$1183.91
15.90
13.79
$29.69
18.40
12.00
125.00
5.00
2.50
$162.90
2.59
7.60
3.33
$13.52
LIVING COMPARISON
KINGSTON OTTAWA
ONT.
449.49
434.99
17.98
26.97
20.25
$949.68
15.85
14.74
$30.59
9.25
9.68
103.47
4.75
2.00
$129.15
2.95
3.04
1.89
$7.88
ONT.
499.98
619.96
29.98
24.99
9.96
$1184.87
15.85
15.40
$31.25
6.00
10.50
129.98
4.50
2.50
$153.48
2.09
4.59
2.29
$8.97
SASKATOON
SASK.
499.00
580.00
26.98
32.00
6.69
$1144.67
17.75
13.49
$31.24
7.00
8.30
129.00
4.50
2.00
$150.80
3.25
4.50
2.59
$10.34
CALGARY
ALTA.
450.00
620.00
19.99
29.98
26.69
$1146.66
17.80
11.29
$29.09
6.75
7.75
99.00
5.00
2.50
$121.00
2.19
5.78
2.99
$10.96
VANCOUVER
B.C.
449.98
629.86
18.99
21.99
19.98
$1140.90
18.20
13.69
$31.89
6.50
13.20
134.98
5.00
1.75
$161.43
2.48
4.28
1.98
$8.74
APPENDIX B (continued)
ITE M
CLOTHING:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Men's Work Boots
ST. JOHN'S
NFLD.
74.99
Girl's Running Shoes 26.00
Women's Casual Shoes 30.00
Boy's Rubber Boots
Jeans
Men's Work Pants
Women's Raincoat
Men's Raincoat
Child's Swampcoat
Briefs
TOTAL:
HOUSING:
1.
2.
Private Sector
Public Housing
TOTAL:
TRANSPORTATION:
1.
2.
3.
4.
Public: Adult
: Student
: Child
21.95
29.98
20.00
70.00
78.88
16.00
2.69
$370.49
520.00
269.00
$789.00
0.60
0.35
0.35
Monthly Pass: Adult 20.00
: Student
: Child
Taxi: Flat Rate
10.00
10.00
1.50
: Additonal/Mile 1.10
Gas @ Litre
TOTAL:
0.56
$44.46
TASK
CHARLOTTETOWN
PEL
51.99
22.99
20.97
10.78
23.00
22.50
65.00
145.00
16.00
1.50
$379.73
425.00
285.00
$710.00
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
N/A
3.00
0.88
0.55
***
FORCE BUDGET - NATIONAL COST OF
GLACE BAY
N.S.
51.99
20.00
23.00
13.00
29.95
17.95
65.00
145.00
14.95
2.00
$382.84
350.00
312.50
$662.50
0.50
0.25
0.25
N/A
N/A
N/A
1.00
1.00
0.55
***
REGIONAL COSTS
ST. JOHN
N.B.
51.99
12.00
23.00
10.00
22.00
19.00
65.00
145.00
13.00
2.25
$363.24
275.00
301.00
$576.00
0.75
0.50
0.50
15.00
N/A
N/A
2.50
1.04
0.52
***
MONTREAL
QUE.
89.95
19.99
14.99
9.99
22.00
30.00
80.00
110.00
9.99
2.00
$388.91
390.00
174.35
$564.35
0.85
0.25
0.25
24.00
9.25
9.25
1.20
1.12
0.57
$46.74
LIVING COMPARISON
KINGSTON
ONT.
49.99
22.99
21.95
11.99
18.88
12.99
80.00
145.00
13.88
1.20
$378.87
363.00
294.00
$657.00
0.65
0.45
0.45
22.00
15.00
15.00
1.50
0.50
0.44
$55.99
OTTAWA
ONT.
52.99
13.99
22.99
10.00
17.00
19.99
65.00
145.00
13.00
1.99
$361.95
441.00
294.00
$735.00
0.85
0.45
0.45
28.00
17.50
17.50
1.35
1.20
0.49
$67.79
SASKATOON
SASK.
53.99
21.98
20.00
9.99
22.00
20.00
55.00
150.00
17.00
1.43
$371.39
375.00
250.00
$625.00
0.50
0.35
0.25
18.00
12.00
N/A
1.40
1.15
0.42
***
CALGARY
ALTA.
69.95
24.00
18.95
10.00
26.00
21.95
49.99
150.00
13.00
1.49
$385.33
560.00
314.00
$874.00
1.00
0.75
0.75
36.00
7.00
N/A
1.50
1.00
0.41
***
VANCOUVER
B.C.
51.99
19.00
23.00
10.00
22.00
23.00
65.00
150.00
13.00
3.00
$379.99
572.00
345.00
$917.00
0.85
0.45
0.45
34.00
20.00
20.00
1.40
1.20
0.51
$78.86
*** Because public transit and/or monthly transit passes are not available in these cities, transportation items cannot be
totaled.
All items priced are exclusive of provincial sales tax, except the Alcohol and Tobacco items.
An attempt to price the cost-of-living comparison in Winnipeg was unsuccessful.
Ln
Appendix C
National Cost of Living Comparison Questionnaire
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS:
Please read the item descriptions and the pricing instructions carefully.
This is necessary in order to ensure that the same items and practices
are being employed across the country.
This "shopping list" represents the type of items consumed by a moderate
to low-income household. In order to keep the list manageable for this
exercise, not all items in a budget are included; this is a sample of items.
The object of this exercise is to compare prices on selected items across
the country in order to determine the appropriateness of national standards.
Wherever specified, generally available manufacturers' brands of food items
are to be priced. Generic and store brands should be excluded.
Pricing of food, household supplies and personal care products should be done
at large supermarket chain stores and/or drugstores, eg. Loblaws, Safeway, etc.
in order to provide consistency among the various sites.
The lowest "regular selling price" should be noted.
Clothing and home furnishings should be priced at department stores, family
discount clothing stores and/or specialized furniture stores. Please note
the name(s) of the stores where pricing is done.
For some items, particularly the home furnishings, it is time-saving to ask
a salesperson to indicate the products that fit the sample description.
FOOD: ITEM BRAND NAME/COMMENTS PRICE
1. MILK.
fresh, fluid whole dairy milk, pasteurized; may be homogenized or contain
vitamins; disposible carton of 1 litre.
2. CHEESE
generally available manufacturers' brands (store brands excluded); process
cheese food slices; skim milk powder and/or whey powder added; plain without
seasoning or condiments; individually wrapped; 250 grams
3. EGGS
large size; grade A; one dozen
4. CHICKEN
eviscerated; whole fresh or frozen; broiler, roaster or fryer; 1-2 kg size;
grade A; price per kilogram
5. GROUND BEEF
medium ground with 24-30Z fat contenc; fresh; price per kilogram
6. WIENERS
manufacturers' brands made from beef and pork; ground, skinless, smoked and
cooked; vacuum packaged; first grade; 450-454 gram size
7. ORANGE JUICE
manufacturers' brands, unsweetened or 5Z sugar added; 48 oz. size (1.36 litre)
8. COFFEE.
Manufacturers' brands; dried instant coffee; pure or may have added dextrin,
dextrose or maltose; e.g. Nescafe, Maxwell House. 10 oz (283 grams)
76
APPENDIX C (Continued)
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
HOUSEHOLD
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
PERSONAL
1.
TEA
Manufacturers' brands;
e.g. Red Rose; 8 Oz.
BUTTER
orange pekoe tea bags; package of 60-2 cup bags;
(227 grams)
manufacturers or store brand; first grade creamery butter; salted; foil or
parchment wrapped: 1 pound (454 grams)
SUGAR
FLOUR
manufacturers' brands; white, all purpose or bread frlour; enriched^vitaminized;
may be pre-sifted; excluding pastry or other special flours;e.g. Five Roses,
Robin Hood. 2.5 iciloRram bag
PEANUT BUTTER
manufacturers' brands;
crunchy; e.g. Kraft.
BEANS
manufacturers' brands;
14 oz. (398 ml) size
BANANAS
first grade: price per
POTATOES
white, table potatoes;
CARROTS
made from roasted peanuts; may be labelled smooth or
500 grams
cooked beans with pork in tomato sauce; e.g. Libby's
kilogram
Canada No. 1: 10 pounds (4.54 kg)
tops completely removed; good quality; in plastic or cellophane packages;
2 pounds (908_g_ramsJ_
BREAD
manufacturers' brands;
prepared from white or
CORN FLAKES
TFLLY POVTitfR
manufacturers's brands
SUPPLIES:
DETERGENT POWDER
manufacturers' brands;
BATHROOM TISSUE
pan style standard loaf; sliced and wrapped;
wheat flour; vitamin enriched; 675 grams
e.g. Kellogs. 675 grams
all purpose, granulated or powdered; 85 grams
all purpose granulated or powdered: 6 litres (2.4 kg)
manufacturers' brands; white or pastel shades; medium quality; perforated;
1-Dlv sheets. 400 sheets/roll: 4 roll packages
SCOURING PADS
nvlon: package of 3
PLASTIC WRAP
LIGHT BULBS
general utility bulbs;
CARE SUPPLIES:
TOOTHPASTE
manufacturers' brands;
29 cm X 30 m roll
white: 100 watt: package of 2
standard dentifrice: mav have fluoride: 100 ml
77
APPENDIX C (Continued)
2. FACIAL TISSUE
manufacturers' brands; 2-ply; package of 200 tissues
manufacturers' brands of toilet soap; selection confined to wrapped brands
sold in multiple units of 3 or 4 bars per package; guest or bath sizes, as
well as varieties with high synthetic or perfume content are excluded;
e.g. Jergena, Sweetheart; price per bar
4. RAZOR BLADES
manufacturers' brands; twin-blade cartridges; package of 5 blades
1. MEN'S WORK BOOTS.
CSA-certified; steel toe and puncture-resistant steel plate midsole; leather
upper; oil-resistant, non-slip rubber compound sole and heel; 8" high;
sizes 6-11. e.g. GREB Job-Rated, TUF-MAC
2. GIRL'S RUNNING SHOES
canvas upper; foam padded; treaded rubber outsole; nylon lined; sizes 1-6.
e.g. NIKE court shoe, BUSTER BROWN
3. WOMEN'S CASUAL SHOES
mocassin-style slip-on; man-made upper; nylon-lined; crepe-look sole;
sizes 5-9. e.g. TENDER TOOTSIES
4. BOY'S RUBBER BOOTS
"gum-boot" scyle; fully waterproof; cotton lined; treaded rubber outsole;
medium width; 12" high; sizes 6-11; black with red sole
10 or 14 oz. cotton denim; straight leg western scyle; 4,or 5 pockets;
contrasting stitching; boy's sizes 8-16. e.g. LEVI's, GWG
6. MEN'S WORK PANTS
polyester/cotton; perma-press; scotchguard treated; 4 or 5 pockets; waist
sizes 30-44, lnseam 29-33" e.g. SEARS Wearmaster
7. LADY'S RAINCOAT
cotton/polyester blend; polyester lining; 2 front pockets; may have detachable
belt and/or hood; 45" long; Misses sizes 10-18. e.g. CANADIAN MIST II
8. MEN'S RAINCOAT
poly/cotton trenchcoat with nylon or acetate lining; zip-out insulated liner;
single-breasted button front; back yoke; belted; sizes 36-46. e.g. RAINTAMER,
LONDON FOG
9. CHILDREN'S RAINCOAT
rubber/rayon "swamp coat"; reversible; drawstring hood; concealed metal
zipper; 2 snap-closure patch pockets; boy's sizes 3-14
10. BRIEFS /pair
cotton/polyester blend; elastic waist and leg openings; sanl-guard treated;
sizes 8-14; package of 2 or 3. e.g. JOCKEY, FRUIT-of-the-LOOM
HOUSING:
1. RENT per month in the private sector for an unfurnished
2-bedrcom apartment.
- CMHC conducts vacancy surveys each April and October. Suggest contacting
regional office for information pertaining to your area.
- Do they include heating & utility costs in the average rental prices given
2. RENT per month in public housing for a single working mother earning
$15,000 per year with two children (girls, aged 4 and 11 years).
N o other special needs
- Suggest contacting the Regional Housing Authority.
78
APPENDIX C (Continued)
HOM E FURNISHINGS:
1. BED CHESTERFIELD _
approximately 73" long X 33" wide X 25" high; hardwood/plywood frame;
no-sag spring back construction; foam-filled reversible seat cushions;
synthetic fabric; double sized mattress.
2. MATTRESS AND BOX SPRING
heavy coil construction in box spring; welded grid top and anti-sway
stabilizers ; i" cotton insulating pad and 1" polyurethane foam padding;
innerspring mattress; polyester/rayon covering; 10-15 year guarantee;
e.g . Sears-O-Pedic Regency.
3. IRONING BOARD „
tubular steel construction; mesh top; non-slip feet
4. ELECTRIC KETTLE
polished stainless steel or chrome-finisned; plasti c handle and spout;
automatic shut-off and reset; 2-2 litre capacity; 1500w; e.g. Superior, CGE
5. TEA POT
pyrex/corning ware; 4-8 cup capacity
RECREATION/READING/COMMUNICATION:
1. NEWSPAPER
cost of 1 month subscription, delivery 6 days per week; local paper.
2. TELEPHONE
monthly rental charge for basic black desktop model telephone.
3. TELEVISION
purchase price of 12'" black and white television; AC-DC.
4. MOVIES A
admission to theatre showing "family" film (Parental Guidance) for
Adult, above, and Child (under 12 years). C
ALCOHOL: BEER: popular, domestic brand; regular strength;
case of 24 bottles including ^ales tax
TOBACCO: CIGARETTES: popular brands; kingsize; filter tip;
carton of 2QQ including sales tax
TRANSPORTATION:
1. Price per fare of public transit for ADULT:
STUDENT:
CHILDREN (under 12 years):
2. Cost of monthly transit pass (if available) for ADULT:
STUDENT:
CHILD:
3. TAXI: basic fare for first kilometer(s)
for additional kilometers
4. GAS: regular, leaded gas at full-service station;
price per litre.
MEDICIN E CHEST SUPPLIES:
1. Oral thermometer
2. Antiseptic ointment - 60gm tube; for scrapes, cuts, minor burns
3. Aspirin - regular strength bottle of 100 tablets
79
Appendix D
Summary of Family Expenditure, by Size of Area of Residence in Canada, 1978
EXPENDITURE
ITEM
1 . Food
2. Shelter
- rented living quarters
- owned living quarters
- property taxes 4 assessments
- repairs S maintenance
- mortgage & Interest
- water, fuel i electricity
3. Household Operations
- communications
- cleaning supplies
- paper supplies
4. Household Furnishings S Equipment
- furniture
- appliances
5. Clothing
- women (14 years*)
- girls (4-13 years)
- men (14 years*)
- boys (4-13 years)
- children (under 4 years)
6. Personal Care
- services (eg. hairstyling, barber)
- toiletries, makeup
7. Medicine 4 Health Care
- health insurance premiums
- dental care
- physician's care
- hospital care
- prescribed medicine
8. Tobacco S Alcohol
- tobacco products
- beer
' - liquor
- wine
9. Transportation
- automobile & truck purchase
- automobile & truck operation
- transportation services (local,
commuter & intercity)
AVERAGE DOLLAR
URBAN
(Pop. 500,000+)
3408.9
3424.3
1203.2
1492.2
406.3
261.2
692.4
536.1
814.7
257.9
109.7
127.5
868.3
298.4
168.1
1380.3
578.2
52.8
493.3
53.8
29.9
342.7
148.0
150.7
400.2
151.0
119.0
10.6
12.4
45.7
654.3
264.1
152.3
164.0
73.9
2356.9
900.6
1089.2
332.9
EXPENDITURE
RURAL
(Farm/Non-Farm)
3010.5
2414.3
237.2
1282.9
240.3
324.9
581.5
794.8
727.2
233.8
117.5
124.5
837.7
234.0
191.2
1162.8
508.7
71.3
416.3
65.1
38.6
254.6
86.9
123.9
353.7
136.9
82.2
5.4
10.3
57.1
530.7
235.5
152.5
117.9
24.9
2689.0
1232.1
1343.2
103.8
RURA L EXPENDITURES
A S A % OF
URBAN
88.3
70.5
19.7
86.0
59.1
124.4
84.0
148.0
89.3
90.7
107.1
97.6
96.5
78.4
113.7
84.2 i
75.0
1 35.0 '<
84.4
121.0
129.1
74.3
58.7
82.2
38.4
90.7
69.1
50.9
83.1
124.9
81.1
89.2
100.1
71.9 i
33.7
114.1
136.8 i
123.3
31.2
continued
80
APPENDIX D (Continued)
EXPENDITURE AVERAGE DOLLAR
ITEM
(Pop
10. Recreation, Reading 4 Education
- recreation (admission to movies, plays
sports events, etc.)
- home recreation equipment
- outdoor recreation equipment
- entertainment appliances
- reading (newspapers, magazines)
- education
- tuition fees
11. Miscellaneous Expenditures
- (eg. Interest on personal loans, bank
charges, professional & union dues.
lawyers' fees, funeral expenses)
Total Current Consumption
(Items 1 - 11 inclusive)
12. Personal Taxes, Security & Gifts
- personal taxes
- security
- Hfe insurance premiums
- retirement & pension fund payments
- gifts 8 contributions
- religious & charitable organizations
Total Expenditures
(Items 1 - 12 inclusive)
Income Before Taxes
Sayings
(Income - Expenditures)
URBAN
. 500,000 )
1244.5
969.3
155.9
227.0
136.3
122.8
152.4
95.6
449.1
15344.1
5174.5
3818.5
890.4
190.5
500.7
465.6
109.7
20518.6
21505.0
986.4
EXPENDITURE
RURAL
(Farm/Non-Farm)
971.8
811.8
140.9
328.2
102.5
80.4
79.6
46.0
490.1
13442.3
3331.3
2314.6
599.4
14.9.9
313.8
417.3
151.3
16773.6
17021.0
247.4
RURA L EXPENDITURES
A S A % OF
URBAN
78.1
83.8
90.4
144.6
75.2
65.5
52.2
48.1
109.1
87.6
64.3
60.6
67.3
78.7
62.7
89.6
137.9
81.7
79.1
25.1
Source: Statistics Canada, Family expenditure in Canada, 1978, vol.3.
81
Appendix E
Distribution of Income, All Families, 1981
FAMILIES ('000)
1000
9oo
AND
82
Appendix F
Distribution of Income, Unattached Individuals, 1981
1000
800
83
Appendix G
Distribution of Income, Family Size Three, 1981
FAMILIES ('000)
800
600
4OO
zoo
100
O 5 \O 45 5O 55 <6O (&5 7<D 75
(good)
IN
84
Appendix H
Percentage of Unattached Individuals by Region, Living Below CCSD Poverty Lines
Calculated on the Basis of Average National Family Income, 1981
PERCENTAGE
CANADA ATLANTIC QUEBEC ONTARIO PRAIRIE BRITISH
PROVINCES PROVINCES COLUMBIA
: ANNUAL INCOME BELOW $7610
tZIi : ANNUAL INCOME BELOW $3805
Source: Statistics Canada, Income distributions by size
in Canada, 1981
85
Appendix I
Percentage of Families, by Region, Living Below CCSD Poverty Lines Calculated on the
Basis of Average National Family Income, 1981
PERCENTAGE
SO '
30
20
1 0
Wim
CANADA ATLANTIC QUEBEC ONTARIO PRAIRIE BRITISH
PROVINCES PROVINCES COLUMBIA
REGIONS
: ANNUAL INCOME BELOW $16001
H I : ANNUAL INCOME BELOW $8000
Source: Statistics Canada, Income distributions by size
in Canada, 1981
86
Selected Bibliography
Duncan, Greg J. et al, Years of Poverty, Years of
Plenty, Institute for Social Research, The
University of Michigan, 1984
Health and Welfare Canada, Social Security Research
Reports, Research Report No. 01,
Characteristics of the Working Poor in
Canada, September 1976
National Council of Welfare, 1983 Poverty Lines,
Government of Canada Publications, April 1983
National Council of Welfare, Sixty-five and Older,
Government of Canada Publications, February
1984
National Council of Welfare, Women and Poverty,
Government of Canada Publications, October
1979
Ross, David P., The Canadian Fact Book on Poverty -
1983, James Lorimer & Company Publishers for
the Canadian Council on Social Development,
1983
Ryant, Joseph C., Report of the Manitoba Task Force on
Social Assistance, Manitoba Task Force on
Social Assistance, Winnipeg, September 1983
Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, Guides
for Family Budgeting, 1983, Social Planning
Council Publication, 1983
Social Planning Council of Metropolitan Toronto, The
Budget Guide Methodology Study, Social
Planning Council Publication, 1979
87