Province must deliver on child-poverty promises

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 06/12/2017 (2900 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The Pallister government has finally announced a consultation process to develop its promised made-in-Manitoba poverty reduction strategy. But the Tories have not told us how long consultations will last, and have not been clear on how to weigh in, except for written briefs and an online survey. They are meeting with people directly touched by poverty, but we don’t know how or why these particular people were chosen.

They have not announced meetings with groups that have studied poverty, such as Campaign 2000 to End Child Poverty, the Winnipeg Poverty Reduction Council and Make Poverty History Manitoba. More transparency and more inclusion could lead to more trust.

And building trust will be important, given the disappointing timing of this long-overdue strategy. This government showed in the 2016 election campaign that it understood how bad the problem is. The premier even mentioned it in his victory speech. In the 2017 budget papers, they promised a strategy by year end of the year. Now, they have broken that promise and are just beginning consultations in the last month of 2017.

How bad is this problem? The latest data is from 2015, obtained from income tax returns and Canada Child Benefit files. This results in a very large sample Statistics Canada has found approximates the Canadian population. Therefore, it is more accurate than the much smaller Canadian Income Survey, which the government uses to report on progress.

It is clear the problem is very bad. Manitoba has the highest child poverty rate of any province (27.5 per cent), more than 10 per cent above the rate for all of Canada (17.4 per cent).

This is an almost 20 per cent (19.6 per cent) increase since 1989. Manitoba ranked fifth-lowest for average weekly earnings (including overtime) for all industries excluding unclassified businesses, resulting in the highest rate (36.2 per cent) of child poverty based on market income alone. Tragically, Manitoba has the lowest percentage reduction (24.1 per cent) from government transfers to families with children.

Many families live in deep poverty. For example, half of lone parents with two children would require more than $13,002 just to reach the poverty line, and half of couples with two children would need more than $12,276.

Why should we care about child poverty? Apart from the moral issue that poverty is an affront to children’s right to their childhood and potential, eradicating child poverty will yield benefits for all of society. This is because child poverty is a key driver of lifelong health, developmental and educational outcomes, child maltreatment and criminal involvement.

Poor children are far more likely to be poor as adults. Therefore, decreasing child poverty will reduce costs for health care, criminal justice and social services and will lead to a more vibrant labour force.

A fixation on decreasing the provincial government debt to the exclusion of investing in child poverty reduction will impose higher costs on future generations.

Fortunately, research and experience in many jurisdictions have identified the five ingredients of a successful child poverty reduction strategy. First, the government must set clear targets for reduction in the rate and depth of child poverty, outline the programs and policies that will accomplish this and describe the budgetary allocations which will be made for each program and policy.

In the legislature on Nov. 27, Families Minister Scott Fielding committed to targets, but these are meaningless unless there is a timeline for their accomplishment. Campaign 2000 recommends a 25 per cent reduction in the rate and depth of child poverty by 2023.

Second, most poor children in Manitoba live in families where parental work is the main source of income. Low wages and precarious work create a high child-poverty rate. Therefore, Campaign 2000 recommends a $15 minimum hourly wage by the end of 2019 and implementation of a plan to increase the supply of well-paying, non-precarious jobs.

Third, income-support programs in Manitoba are less effective than any other province or territory in preventing child poverty. Therefore, Campaign 2000 recommends raising the Manitoba Child Benefit so it commands the same purchasing power as when it was introduced in the early 1980s by Sterling Lyon. In addition, raising employment and income assistance benefits so that recipients’ total income achieves the poverty line should be a priority.

Fourth, poor children need access to high-quality, accessible public services to buffer the effects of poverty. The government has promised an increased number of child-care spaces. The government has also promised an affordable social-housing strategy, but it has already decreased the Rent Assist subsidy for the working poor, including children with families.

Poor families with children rely on public transportation in urban areas, but the government has decreased funding to Winnipeg Transit, causing fare increases which are unaffordable for some families. Accessible health-care services are required to reverse the negative health effects of child poverty, but the government has made services less available through decreased funding to regional health authorities.

Fifth, civil-society organizations in poor neighbourhoods need more supports to decrease the risks for children and increase developmental opportunities. The Pallister government must regain the trust of Manitobans on the authenticity of its intentions to improve the lot of poor children. So far, it has broken promises and made some things worse.

Sid Frankel is an associate professor in the faculty of social work at the University of Manitoba.