Whether you have heard the term “deserving/undeserving poor” or not, it is a concept that has always been a part of Canadian History, and it permeates our social institutions and policies today.
The Federal Budget 2009 is seeping with this ideology, and although it is never outright stated, the concept of the “deserving/undeserving poor” is implied in many of its initiatives. Why did we start making such distinctions between the poor? By what criteria do we try to separate those who deserve charity, and those who don’t? Who are the deserving poor?
In the early 1800’s it become very popular in Canada for middle and upper class women to create and run many different charitable institutions such as asylums, orphanages, and shelters for destitute women. Workhouses were opened for poverty stricken families, who were then used as cheap labor. Providing in-home social supports were not well liked. The elite class felt that they were being unfairly taxed to give poor people incentives not to work. They argued that if people really needed social supports, then they should be willing to pack up and move to the workhouse, and work for nominal wages in abysmal living conditions, plagued by disease and death.
By the late 1800’s workhouses had spread throughout Canada, with increased popularity as Canada rapidly industrialized. The state provided funding and subsidy to workhouses, and the church tried to meet the needs of the many poor families who are neglected and abused by the state system of care. The wealthy continued to form ideology about the poor. They used the media to promote the idea that the poor were responsible for their plight. It was because they were lazy and chose not to work, and therefore the wealthy could do nothing but encourage them to seek employment. At this time in our history Canada faced mass immigration, mass poverty, mass disease, little medical care, low wages for the majority, and little state-provided social support.
After the WW11, Canada saw a real shift in poverty and social services. Canadians had just survived the depression, and two World Wars. People were tired of living through hard times, and there was a sense of camaraderie and unity in communities who had supported each other through the worst of the hard times. State planning and intervention became popular, and in the next several decades that followed many new social supports were created that Canada still boasts today. While there was ideological disagreements between different Canadian leaders, and progress was slower it ought to have been, Canada slowly evolved into a more progressive and inclusive society.
In the 1980’s, Canada experienced a dramatic neo-liberal shift. Promise of free-trade and increased wealth, combined with political pitches about how much money social services were costing, proved to be effective in electing several key neo-liberal politician’s. Rumors of large scale “welfare-abuse” were spread, and eligibility requirements for social services were greatly increased, while funding for social supports were slashed. Investments such as social housing were allowed to deteriorate, and by the end of the century many Canadians were facing crisis.
“Almost one Canadian in ten relied on social assistance for all or part of household income in 1999 (only tightened eligibility rules kept many more from collecting), 2 million in a population of 30 million relied on food banks for at least some of their food that year, and 200,000 Canadians were homeless.” (Finkel, Social Policy and Practice in Canada, 2006).
Over the last ten years we have enjoyed an upswing in our economy, and some social services are coming close to their original intended status, but many are not. Today Canada faces an economic slowdown that has impacted many families and individuals. In response to our economic status, the Harper government has prepared Budget 2009 to address some of the issues Canadian will be facing over the next year.
One tool used in Budget 2009 is the Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB). This benefit was created by the Harper government in 2007. Budget 2009 specifically outlines that WITB was created to provide low-income Canadians incentive to work, especially those on income supports. This benefit operates on a historical assumption that low-income people have made a choice not to work, and they just need an extra push back into the work force. That is not to say that WITB is entirely negative, in fact many policy experts agree that that this will be a very helpful support for low-income families. The problem with this benefit is that it assumes that a tax credit of $1,680 is what is needed to provide incentive for people to work. While it will certain ease the strain of poverty, and encourage those who are trying to re-enter the work force; it will likely not come close to addressing the true barriers to employment that a majority of Canadians face.
The national Child Benefit Supplement (NCBS) and the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) are two other social supports that Budget 2009 addresses. Both of these were created to combat child poverty in Canada. Following the United States, Canada ranks as the country with the second highest rate of child poverty within the developed countries in the world. In Budget 2009, increases were given to both NCBS and CCTB, except for the lowest income bracket, those whose family income is less than $20,000 per year. This bracket is at the highest risk for having children live in poverty. The majority of people in this bracket are likely unemployed or underemployed. Why would this group in particular be left out of the increase? I believe it is because this group is not viewed as “deserving” of increases in social supports, because the majority of them are not working in paid employment.
Budget 2009 does not address the structural causes of poverty and unemployment. It allots huge sums for job training and work incentives, but it falls short of putting money where it will have the most social return. This is because the Budget 2009 still clings to harmful and outdated ideology about people who live in poverty. While there are definitely some individual exceptions, the majority of poverty in Canada has been caused by our social structure. Today there is a large list of barriers to employment: lack of treatment of mental health; lack of accommodation for people with disabilities; racism and prejudice against Aboriginal people and immigrants; lack of affordable housing; lack of high quality, affordable child care; gender inequality; community breakdown; and many other structural issues that make it difficult for people to thrive in our workforce. For people who face more than one of these barriers the difficulty is multiplied. It is time for Canada to move away from the “deserving/undeserving” poor dichotomy for good, and start focusing on larger scale structural change.
The public release of Tracking the Trends yesterday brought up an interesting point. How does Edmonton's social health compare to growth in the economy? Good question.
Sunday, 05 February 2012 
