By what measure?

At least one in ten Canadians live in poverty.

This statistic, undoubtedly familiar to CPJ readers, is an approximation that is widely accepted within the Canadian social development community as a reasonable estimation of the current incidence of poverty – or at least it was prior to the 2008 economic downturn.

I often wish we could be more specific. But there is, unfortunately, no official measure of poverty in Canada. References to “living below the poverty line” are often made, but that “line” has never been formally defined. Statistics Canada and other groups use a variety of measures to report on statistical trends experienced by Canadians classified as “low income.” The Low Income Cut-Off (LICO) has become the de facto “poverty line” and even there, data is released with a two-year time lag.

In an effort to fill this significant information gap, CPJ recently released Bearing the Brunt, a report on the impact of the recession on poverty. This report provides invaluable analysis of key socio-economic trends and sheds some light on the failings of the Canadian social safety net. It is, however, limited in its scope as we were hampered by the lack of an official definition of poverty and formal poverty measures.

“Poverty indicators that can measure progress” are among the four cornerstones of a successful anti-poverty strategy, as identified by the National Council of Welfare. The proposed Poverty Elimination bill (C-545), tabled in June, also includes the determination of “an acceptable measurement of poverty for Canada” as a starting point for federal action on poverty.

Why is a measure so important? Over the years, the debate over how poverty is defined has repeatedly stifled action to address the needs and respect the rights of those who are poor. An official measure of poverty is required in order to best discern the extent of situation, the response required, and the impact any interventions are actually having over time.

Defining Poverty

In their 1999 discussion paper, “Defining Poverty in Canada,” Michael Goldberg and Jane Pulkingham identify two types of poverty measures. Restrictive measures conceptualize poverty as “that point at which people’s physical/medical survival is at risk.” Inclusive measures, in turn, see poverty as the inability to cover “the cost of meeting the physical, emotional, social, and spiritual needs of individuals and families.”

Restrictive measures of low income – those most commonly used to date – have led policymakers to focus disproportionately on the economic: median incomes, average household expenditures, the goods and services necessary for survival.

Newer measures look beyond income to include a number of factors related to people’s life circumstances. They require decisions like which items are necessary for a household to have a culturally acceptable standard of living, or what are the most revealing or reliable indicators of wellbeing and how can these be measured.

Rather than distract and dissuade, these questions help capture dimensions of poverty that income does not, such as social isolation, discrimination, and powerlessness.

A Question of Values

The decision of what measure to use reflects our values. Do we value a society in which all people possess the means to participate fully in the life of their communities? Are we comfortable with having large differences in income levels? Are we willing to accept increasing reliance on emergency food and shelter? In sum, what is a desirable social outcome?

CPJ believes that God’s vision for society is one free of poverty where resources are distributed fairly, people are treated with dignity, and there is respect for their well-being. It is a society of inclusion and opportunity where everyone is supported in their response to God’s calling in their lives.

In light of this vision, CPJ would like to see an inclusive, comprehensive definition of poverty and a corresponding measure informed by the Canadian values of equality and full participation in the life of the community. We believe that Canada is bound to seek the same.

Canada needs an official definition of poverty. We also need a robust measure of poverty that includes indicators of low income, material deprivation, and social exclusion.

In the end, however, even the best measure is just that: a measure. Necessary as it is, a measure does not provide a road map towards justice. The challenge of addressing poverty and building a society that promotes equality, participation, and dignity for all remains for all levels of society – from business and household, to local communities, municipalities, provincial and federal governments.

The time has come for us to take the first step.