2006 - Campaign 2000 archived news releases by toi79323

VIEWS: 4 PAGES: 32

									2006 – Campaign 2000 archived news releases
Campaign 2000 - Toronto, 23 Nov 06


Canada’s Child Poverty Levels not Budging - New report shows child poverty
“entrenched” in Canada over 25 Years

The rate of child and family poverty in Canada has been stalled at 17-18% over the past 5
years despite strong economic growth and low unemployment, according to a new report by
Campaign 2000. In fact, data from Statistics Canada shows that over the past 25 years
Canada’s child poverty rate has never dropped below the 15% level of 1989 when the
House of Commons resolved to end child poverty.

Titled “Oh Canada! Too Many Children in Poverty For Too Long”, the 2006 National Report
Card on Child & Family Poverty shows that 1,196,000 children – almost 1 in every 6 children
– live in poverty in Canada. In First Nations communities the child poverty rate is higher: 1
in every 4 children.

“Despite some claims to the contrary, Campaign 2000’s review of Statistics Canada data
since 1980 shows that Canada’s high rate of child and family poverty is not declining. There
are fluctuations depending on good economic times or bad, but we have not overcome the
challenge of over 1 million children living in poverty. It’s time to honour our commitments
to children,” stated Laurel Rothman, National Coordinator for Campaign 2000.

“These disturbing findings demonstrate that we need political commitment to a Poverty
Reduction Strategy for Canada with targets, timetables and funding. Countries like the
United Kingdom have done this with success. We challenge the leaders of all political parties
– including the Liberal leadership candidates – to make this commitment if they’re serious
about ending child poverty in our country.” added Rothman.

For the first time the annual report includes poverty figures for children on First Nations
reserves. "More First Nations children live in poverty than other Canadian children," stated
Assembly of First Nations, Regional Chief for Ontario, Angus Toulouse. "This is a deplorable
situation that can no longer be ignored, and should be unacceptable to all Canadians.
Eliminating child poverty among First Nations will require long-term commitment to the First
Nations Plan for Creating Opportunity that addresses housing, economic development,
education and all other areas needed to provide a safe and supportive environment for our
children."

Commenting on unacceptably high child poverty rates for urban Aboriginal children, Vera
Pawis Tabobondung, President of the National Association of Friendship Centres stated:
“Federal Aboriginal programs provide little benefit for the 69% of Aboriginal peoples who
live off-reserve. We need commitments to deal with urban aboriginal poverty”.

The report also identifies higher than average poverty rates for children in immigrant
families.
“According to the latest census 49% of children in recent immigrant families are living below
the poverty line. Immigrants arriving in this country are the most highly educated and well
qualified in Canadian history, yet so many are stuck in low wage jobs because their
international experience and qualifications are not recognized by employers, “ commented
Uzma Shakir, President of the Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants. “New
immigrants are key to the growth of Canada’s labour force. But who will want to come if
they find out their children are likely to be growing up in poverty? We join the call for
political commitment for a Poverty Reduction Strategy for Canada with specific policies to
address the barriers faced by new immigrants,” she concluded.

Highlights from “Oh Canada! Too Many Children in Poverty For Too Long”:

- Economic growth is not ending child poverty. The rate of child and family poverty has been
stalled at 17-18% over the past 5 years despite strong economic growth and low
unemployment.
- Growing proportion of working poor families. One-third (34%) of poor children live in
families with at least one parent working full time, full year – up from 27% twelve years ago.
- Canada is a laggard on child care spending. Canada’s expenditures on child care as a
percentage of GDP are the lowest among OECD countries. Regulated child care spaces meet
the needs of less than 16% of children; cancellation of federal child care agreements mean
little prospect for improvement.
- Canada is one of the few countries without an affordable housing strategy. Two in every
three low income families with children live in unaffordable housing.
- No province has reduced child poverty to less than 10%: British Columbia (23.5%) and
Newfoundland & Labrador (23.1%) have the highest rates. Alberta’s rate is 14.5% despite
strong economic growth. Quebec’s investments in families have seen its rate steadily
decline since 1997.
- Poor families are very poor. The average poor female lone parent family would need
$9,400/year additional income just to bring them up to the poverty line.
- Public programs do help reduce child poverty. Without government transfer programs the
poverty rate for low income families with children would have been 24%.

The provinces of Quebec and Newfoundland & Labrador have developed provincial poverty
reduction strategies. Campaign 2000 urges the Government of Canada, with the provinces,
territories and First Nations, to develop a cross Canada Poverty Reduction Strategy.
Specific components should include: labour market initiatives with improved minimum
wages, EI coverage and integration programs for immigrants; improved income supports by
consolidating and increasing the child benefit to $5,000/child; investment in quality child
care and new affordable housing; and more accessible post secondary education and
training.

Laurel Rothman concluded saying, “Tax cuts only reduce the government’s ability to make
the investments needed to reduce child poverty. Canada has a proven track record in
reducing poverty among seniors. We’re in a strong fiscal position now to tackle child poverty
- we need the political commitment to make it happen.”

Provincial Child Poverty Report Cards were also released in BC, Manitoba, Saskatchewan,
New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. All reports are available at www.campaign2000.ca


-30-

For further comment please contact:
Laurel Rothman, National Coordinator, Campaign 2000. Cell (416) 575-9230
Angus Toulouse, AFN Regional Chief, ON (807) 626-9339
Vera Pawis Tabobondung, President, NAFC (613) 327-5270
Uzma Shakir, President, OCASI (416) 487-6371
Michael Polanyi, KAIROS (porte parole francophone) (416) 463-5312 x 237
Jacquie Maund, Campaign 2000, (416) 595- 9230x241 for regional contacts.

Campagne 2000 - Toronto, 23 Nov 06


Le taux de pauvreté des enfants au Canada stagne. Un nouveau rapport révèle que
la pauvreté infantile s’enracine au Canada depuis vingt-cinq ans.

Selon un nouveau rapport, publié par Campagne 2000, le taux de pauvreté des enfants et
des familles au Canada stagne à dix-sept ou dix-huit pour cent depuis cinq ans et cela, en
dépit d’une croissance économique vigoureuse et d’un faible taux de chômage. En fait, des
données de Statistique Canada révèlent qu’au cours des vingt-cinq dernières années, le
taux de pauvreté infantile au Canada n’a jamais été inférieur à 15 p. cent, son seuil en 1989
au moment où la Chambre des communes a résolu d’éradiquer la pauvreté infantile.

Le rapport national 2006 sur la pauvreté des enfants et des familles intitulé Oh Canada!
Trop d’enfants pauvres et depuis trop longtemps indique que 1 196 000 enfants, soit près
d’un enfant sur six, vivent dans la pauvreté au Canada. Dans les communautés autochtones,
le taux de pauvreté infantile est encore plus élevé : un enfant sur quatre vit dans la
pauvreté.

« Malgré des affirmations contraires, notre analyse des données de Statistique Canada
depuis 1980 révèle que le taux élevé de pauvreté des enfants et des familles au pays ne
diminue pas. Nous remarquons des fluctuations selon que l’économie va bien ou mal, mais
nous n’avons toujours pas réussi à vaincre ce fléau de plus d’un million d’enfants pauvres.
Le temps est venu de respecter nos engagements envers les enfants », a dit Laurel
Rothman, coordonnatrice nationale de Campagne 2000.

« Ces résultats inquiétants sont la preuve qu’il faut se doter, pour le Canada, d’une
stratégie de réduction de la pauvreté, assortie de cibles, d’échéanciers et de financement.
D’autres pays, notamment la Grande-Bretagne, l’ont fait et ont connu du succès. Nous
mettons au défi les chefs de tous les partis politiques, y compris les candidats à la direction
du Parti libéral, de s’engager à mettre en œuvre une telle stratégie s’ils ont vraiment a cœur
d’éliminer la pauvreté des enfants au Canada », a ajouté Rothman.

Pour la première fois, le rapport annuel de Campagne 2000 comprend des données sur la
pauvreté des enfants vivant dans les réserves. « Un plus grand nombre d’enfants
autochtones que d’enfants canadiens vit dans la pauvreté », a dit Angus Toulouse, chef
régional de l’Ontario, Assemblée des Premières Nations. « Cette situation est déplorable et
ne peut plus être balayée du revers de la main. Ce doit être inacceptable pour tous les
Canadiens et Canadiennes. Pour éliminer la pauvreté infantile dans les communautés
autochtones, il faudra investir à long terme dans le Plan des Premières Nations pour créer
des débouchés, un plan qui s’attaque aux problèmes de logement, de développement
économique et d’éducation et qui vise tous les aspects nécessaires pour assurer à nos
enfants un environnement sûr et favorable à leur mieux-être ».

En réaction au taux de pauvreté inadmissible des enfants autochtones vivant en milieu
urbain, Vera Pawis Tabobondung, présidente de l’Association nationale des centres de
l’amitié, a dit : « Les quelque 69 p. cent d’Autochtones vivant à l’extérieur des réserves
profitent très peu des programmes fédéraux qui s’adressent aux Premières Nations. Il faut
s’engager à lutter contre la pauvreté des Autochtones vivant en milieu urbain ».
« Selon le dernier recensement, 49 p. cent des enfants des familles récemment immigrées
au Canada vivent sous le seuil de pauvreté. Les nouveaux immigrants et immigrantes sont
parmi les plus instruits et qualifiés jamais accueillis au Canada et pourtant, ils sont très
nombreux à être confinés dans des emplois à bas salaire parce que leur expérience et leurs
titres de compétences ne sont pas reconnus par les employeurs », a dit Uzma Shakir,
présidente du Ontario Council of Agencies Serving Immigrants. « L’immigration est
essentielle à la croissance du bassin de main-d’œuvre au Canada, mais qui voudra immigrer
chez nous en apprenant que leurs enfants sont susceptibles de grandir dans la pauvreté?
Nous nous rallions à ceux et celles qui réclament pour le Canada une stratégie de réduction
de la pauvreté, assortie de politiques spécifiques pour éliminer les obstacles auxquels font
face les immigrantes et immigrants », a-t-elle conclu.

Points saillants tirés de Oh Canada ! Trop d’enfants pauvres et depuis trop longtemps

• La croissance économique ne met pas fin à la pauvreté des enfants. Le taux de pauvreté
des enfants et des familles stagne à dix-sept ou dix-huit pour cent depuis cinq ans et cela,
en dépit d’une croissance économique forte et d’un taux de chômage faible.
• Une proportion croissante de familles de travailleurs et travailleuses à faible revenu. Un
tiers (34 p. cent) des enfants pauvres vivent dans des familles où un parent au moins
travaille à temps plein toute l’année, une augmentation par rapport à 27 p. cent, il y a
douze ans.
• Canada traîne de l’arrière au chapitre des dépenses en matière de services de garde. Les
dépenses du Canada pour les services de garde, en terme de pourcentage du PIB, sont au
dernier rang en regard des autres pays de l’OCDE. Moins de 16 p. cent des enfants ont
accès à des services de garde réglementés au Canada et l’annulation des ententes fédérales
sur les services de garder ne présage pas d’amélioration à cet égard.
• Le Canada est un des rares pays à ne pas avoir de stratégie de logement à prix abordable.
Deux familles à faible revenu avec enfants sur trois vivent dans un logement inabordable.
• Aucune province n’a ramené son taux de pauvreté sous la barre de 10 p. cent. La
Colombie-Britannique, à 23,5 p. cent, et Terre-Neuve et Labrador, à 23,1 p. cent, ont les
taux de pauvreté infantile les plus élevés. Le taux de pauvreté infantile en Alberta est de
14,5 p. cent malgré une croissance économique forte. Au Québec, grâce à des
investissements dans des politiques familiales, le taux de pauvreté infantile baisse
régulièrement depuis 1997.
• Les familles pauvres sont très pauvres. Il faudrait à une famille monoparentale pauvre,
dirigée par une femme, 9 400 dollars de plus par année pour se hisser au seuil de pauvreté.
• Programmes publics visant à réduire la pauvreté des enfants. N’eut été les programmes
de transferts gouvernementaux, le taux de pauvreté des familles à faible revenu avec
enfants aurait été de 24 p. cent.

Terre-Neuve et Labrador et le Québec ont mis en œuvre des stratégies provinciales de
réduction de la pauvreté. Campagne 2000 demande avec instance au gouvernement du
Canada, de concert avec les provinces, les territoires et les Premières Nations, d’élaborer
une stratégie pancanadienne de réduction de la pauvreté. Ses volets spécifiques devraient
comprendre des initiatives du marché du travail comportant des améliorations au salaire
minimum, à l’admissibilité au programme d’assurance-emploi et aux programmes
d’intégration des immigrantes et immigrants, des programmes de soutien du revenu
bonifiés par la consolidation de la prestation pour enfant et son augmentation à 5 000
dollars par enfant par année, des investissements dans des services de garde de qualité et
la construction de logements abordables et enfin, un meilleur accès à l’éducation
postsecondaire et à la formation professionnelle.
Laurel Rothman a conclu en disant : « les baisses d’impôt n’ont pour effet que de diminuer
les capacités du gouvernement à consentir les investissements nécessaires à la réduction de
la pauvreté des enfants. Le Canada a connu du succès dans la réduction de la pauvreté des
personnes âgées. Notre situation financière est suffisamment solide pour nous permettre de
nous attaquer à la pauvreté infantile. Tout ce qu’il faut c’est une volonté politique en ce
sens ».

Des rapports provinciaux sur la pauvreté des enfants ont également été rendus publics en
Colombie-Britannique, au Manitoba, en Saskatchewan, au Nouveau-Brunswick et en
Nouvelle-Écosse. On peut se procurer tous les rapports au www.campaign2000.ca


- 30 -


Pour des commentaires complémentaires, veuillez communiquer avec:
Laurel Rothman, coordonnatrice nationale, Campagne 2000. Cell. (416) 575-9230
Angus Toulouse, APN, chef regional Ontario. (807) 626-9339
Vera Pawis Tabobondung, présidente, NAFC. (613)327-5270
Uzma Shakir, présidente, OCASI. (416) 487-6371
Jacquie Maund, Campagne 2000, (416) 595- 9230, poste 241, pour des répondants
francophones et régionaux.
Campaign 2000 - Toronto, 2 Nov 06


The Child Welfare Wall: Can Social Policy Become Child Neglect?

OPED by Colin Hughes and Melanie Dignam published in the Toronto Star as ”Children Bear
Scars of Clawback”, November 2, 2006.

MPPs wore purple ribbons in the Ontario Legislative Assembly on October 2nd 2006 to
recognize Child Abuse and Neglect Prevention month. A pressing question was asked about
child poverty – a major social risk factor in child protection cases – and the province’s
practice of clawing back federal child income benefits.

The federal government provides a National Child Benefit Supplement (NCBS) to low-income
families to reduce child poverty. The province of Ontario deducts, or claws back, up to
$1,463/year of the NCBS from every child on social assistance. Premier McGuinty promised
to end the clawback of the NCBS in 2003. So his government was asked: when are they
going to honour their promise?

Because of the NCBS clawback families with children on social assistance are as poor as
ever. This is of great concern in child welfare because poverty debilitates families. Consider
these typical case scenarios:

• A single parent’s children go to school regularly with little to eat, holes in their shoes, and
ripped and tattered clothes. Mom is quite isolated, relies on social assistance, much of which
goes for rent, and relies on food banks.

• A landlord calls the police about a mother and children screaming in their basement
apartment. Father, who has addictions, is charged with assault. Mother leaves with her
children to a shelter. She qualifies for welfare, but unable to find affordable housing, returns
to an abusive relationship.

• Grandparents consider taking in a grandchild whose parents are unable to care for him.
Social assistance provides $221/month to look after a child in financial need. But
$122/month in federal child benefits is deducted. The grandparents have modest pensions
and wonder how they can afford to help.

A decade of inflation and social assistance cuts has already deepened poverty and sapped
the purchasing power of benefits by about 40%. At the same time, poverty among families
on social assistance has been established as one of a number of contributing factors,
independent of changes to child welfare policy, to increased referrals and admissions to
Children’s Aid Societies.

A University of Western Ontario study of London area child protection cases found that
families on social assistance are now having much greater trouble coping. Between 1995,
(when welfare rates were cut dramatically), and 2001, the rate of children in the London
area being admitted into Children’s Aid Society care among families relying on social
assistance almost doubled. In addition, the proportion of cases of child neglect where
mothers were relying social assistance mushroomed to 86% of cases.

Why deduct federal child income benefits targeted to poor children from families who rely
on social assistance? Apparently it is to lower a “welfare wall,” the “wall” being those
circumstances where social assistance benefits are marginally better than low-paid
employment. Notably, single able-bodied adults are better off if employed full-time than on
$536/month in social assistance. In reality the “wall” is about children and the real
additional costs and responsibilities of their daily care.

Using child benefits to reduce welfare leaves unemployed parents and their children no
better off and at a standard of living that is too low. Do we really want to reduce a “welfare
wall” so low paid work appears more attractive and raise a “child welfare wall” within which
children are at a higher degree of risk?

What’s on the other side of the “wall” for children? Does employment guarantee children
escape poverty? No. As Campaign 2000 reports, since 1995, the proportion of children living
in poverty who have a parent working full-time, full-year has doubled to 33%. Indeed,
many families living in poverty cycle between welfare and precarious, low-paying jobs.

Poverty is the problem. We must reduce poverty overall so parents can raise children in
decent and dignified living conditions, and so children get a good start in life, whether their
parents are employed or unemployed. Investing in the next generation is important. The
experiences children have in their formative years have lifelong consequences. Society
benefits socially and economically when families raise healthy children.

Our social policies must respond to the presence of children by investing in them, not by
neglecting them. Premier McGuinty should act on promises to end the NCBS clawback and
invest in more child care and affordable housing. That would lay the foundation for
developing a multi-year made-in-Ontario poverty reduction strategy, which could include a
new Ontario Child Benefit, to ensure that low income parents are better off whether they
are in the workforce or on social assistance. Ontario’s children deserve no less.

Colin Hughes is a Community Worker with the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto. Melanie
Dignam is an Intake Supervisor with the Peel Children’s Aid. Both agencies are community
partners in Campaign 2000 to End Child Poverty.
Campaign 2000 et World Vision - Toronto, ON Canada, 27 Oct 06


Avec le surplus actuel, comment le ministre Flaherty peut-il manquer à la
promesse de fournir une aide de 0,7 % à l'étranger et ignorer les besoins des
enfants les plus pauvres au Canada?

Avec le surplus actuel, comment le ministre Flaherty peut-il manquer à la promesse de
fournir une aide de 0,7 % à l'étranger et ignorer les besoins des enfants les plus pauvres au
Canada?
Aujourd'hui, deux éminents spécialistes de la pauvreté chez les enfants ont uni leurs voix à
celles qui, en grand nombre, réclament un budget fédéral qui contribuera à abolir la
pauvreté.
Dans le cadre de consultations prébudgétaires tenues aujourd'hui, Dave
Toycen, président de Vision Mondiale Canada, et Laurel Rothman, coordonnatrice nationale
de Campagne 2000, ont demandé au Comité permanent des finances de diriger une partie
du surplus budgétaire actuel de manière à respecter la promesse d'augmenter l'aide à
l'étranger et de mettre fin à la pauvreté des enfants au Canada.
"Chaque minute où nous n'apportons pas cette aide, vingt enfants dans le monde meurent
de causes liées à une extrême pauvreté", a déclaré M. Toycen. "Il y a 35 ans, le Canada a
promis de consacrer 0,7 % de son RNB à l'aide internationale. Nous n'avons donné
qu'environ la moitié de cette somme l'an dernier, et pourtant, nous disposons du plus
important surplus budgétaire parmi les pays du G8."
"La pauvreté existe en raison des choix que nous faisons", a ajouté M.
Toycen. "Elle existe parce que notre gouvernement refuse d'investir adéquatement dans le
développement social à l'étranger et que l'aide qu'il
fournit est insuffisante. Je demande qu'une partie du surplus budgétaire fédéral soit
consacrée au respect de notre promesse de financement en vue d'abolir la pauvreté. L'aide
financière canadienne doit servir strictement à réduire la pauvreté. Elle ne doit pas être
utilisée afin de répondre à d'autres priorités en matière d'affaires étrangères, par exemple
pour des questions de stratégie militaire ou de diplomatie commerciale. Voilà ce que je
demande aujourd'hui au comité, pour le bien des enfants."
Laurel Rothman a exhorté le comité à s'attaquer sérieusement au problème de la pauvreté
chez les enfants canadiens.
"Le Canada a les moyens de faire chuter radicalement le taux de pauvreté chez les enfants,
qui demeure anormalement élevé (1,2 million d'enfants, soit 17,7 % ou près d'un enfant sur
six au Canada), et même d'abolir la pauvreté chez les enfants, en mettant en oeuvre une
stratégie active de réduction de la pauvreté qui prévoit à la fois des mesures adéquates en
matière de revenu ainsi que des services de qualité aux familles", a déclaré Mme Rothman.
"Commençons par augmenter le montant de la Prestation nationale pour enfants à 5 000 $,
et à garantir que toutes les familles à faible revenu reçoivent ce plein montant. En leur
donnant accès à un logement abordable ainsi qu'à des services de garderie, les parents
auront plus de chances d'intégrer le marché du travail et d'y rester. Nous avons besoin de
bons emplois et de programmes publics adéquats pour que les enfants aient la possibilité de
s'épanouir, et non uniquement de survivre."
Les contribuables canadiens sont préoccupés par la question de la
pauvreté. Abolissons la pauvreté, coalition regroupant 800 organisations et
225 000 personnes au Canada, fait pression sur le gouvernement fédéral afin que ce dernier
mette en oeuvre des politiques qui se traduiront par une aide internationale accrue et
améliorée, et qui contribueront à éliminer la pauvreté chez les enfants canadiens. Plus de 5
000 partisans d'Abolissons la pauvreté ont communiqué, de manière individuelle, des
demandes semblables au ministre des Finances. La semaine dernière, près de 23 millions de
personnes, dont 50 000 Canadiens, ont participé à la plus grande manifestation mondiale
organisée à ce jour. En effet, ces personnes se sont toutes levées en même temps pour
montrer leur appui à l'élimination de la pauvreté et pour demander aux gouvernements de
mettre en place des stratégies efficaces afin de réaliser cet objectif.
La coalition reconnaît que la réduction de la pauvreté n'est pas l'une
des grandes priorités de ce gouvernement, mais elle espère que les imposants surplus
budgétaires actuels et l'appui sans précédent à la lutte contre la pauvreté sauront influencer
les décideurs.

Campagne 2000 est un mouvement transcanadien de sensibilisation du public dont l'objectif
est de faire en sorte que les Canadiens connaissent et
appuient la résolution, adoptée en 1989 par tous les partis de la Chambre des communes,
d'éliminer la pauvreté chez les enfants canadiens avant la fin de l'année 2000. Campagne
2000 a été créé en 1991, en réaction à l'absence de progrès, de la part du gouvernement,
dans la résolution du problème de la pauvreté des enfants. Campagne 2000, mouvement
apolitique, exhorte tous les responsables élus au Canada à tenir leur promesse à l'égard des
enfants canadiens.

Vision Mondiale est une organisation internationale, à vocation
chrétienne, d'aide humanitaire, de développement et de défense des droits. Sa mission est
de créer, en luttant contre la pauvreté et l'injustice, des changements positifs et durables
qui améliorent la vie des enfants, des
familles et des collectivités. Vision Mondiale vient en aide à tous ceux et
celles qui en ont besoin, sans distinctions fondées sur la religion, la race,
l'origine ethnique ou le sexe. Plus d'un demi-million de Canadiens combattent la pauvreté
en apportant leur appui à Vision Mondiale. Pour obtenir de plus amples renseignements,
veuillez consulter le site www.worldvision.ca.
Campaign 2000 and World Vision - Toronto, ON Canada, 25 Oct 06


With today’s surplus, how can Flaherty renege the 0.7 per cent aid promise and
neglect Canada’s poorest children?

Two leading child poverty experts added their voices today to the many calling for a federal
budget that will make poverty history.

At public pre-budget consultations held today, Dave Toycen, President of World Vision
Canada, and Laurel Rothman, National Coordinator of Campaign 2000, asked the federal
finance committee to direct budget surplus dollars to meet existing promises to increase
foreign aid and end child poverty in Canada.

“Twenty children around the world die from extreme poverty every minute that we hold
back aid,” said Toycen. “Canada promised to give 0.7 per cent of our GNI in aid 35 years
ago. We only gave about half of that last year, yet we have the largest surplus of any G8
country.”

“Poverty exists because of the choices we make,” continued Toycen. “It exists because our
government is unwilling to invest enough in overseas social development and is providing
insufficient aid. I’m asking that federal surplus money go towards meeting our funding
promises to make poverty history. Canadian aid dollars need to be protected for poverty
reduction. They cannot be melted into other foreign affairs priorities, like military strategy
or trade diplomacy. That’s what I’m asking the committee today, for the sake of the
children.”

Laurel Rothman appealed to the committee to address child poverty in Canada seriously.
“Canada can ratchet down the stubbornly high rate of child poverty (1.2 million or 17.7% or
almost one in six children in Canada) and make child poverty history with an active poverty
reduction strategy that balances income measures and high quality services for families,”
said Rothman. “Let’s start with increasing the National Child Benefit to a maximum of
$5,000 and making sure that all low income families receive the full benefit. With suitable
affordable housing and accessible early learning and childcare, families will be better
positioned to enter and stay in the labour force. Good jobs and public programs are needed
to ensure that all children have the opportunity to thrive not merely survive.”


Canadians taxpayers are concerned about poverty issues. Make Poverty History, a coalition
of 800 organizations and 225,000 individual Canadians, has lobbied the federal government
for policies that will provide more and better aid internationally and end child poverty in
Canada. More than 5,000 Make Poverty History supporters have made similar individual
submissions to the Minister of Finance. Last week, an estimated 23 million people, including
50,000 Canadians, took part in the world’s largest single public action in history: a global
stand-up event to illustrate public desire to see real poverty reduction strategies from our
leaders.

The coalition recognizes that poverty reduction is not a key priority for the current
government, but hopes that the combination of high surplus and unprecedented public
support will move policy makers.

Campaign 2000 is a cross-Canada public education movement to build Canadian awareness
and support for the 1989 all-party House of Commons resolution to end child poverty in
Canada by the year 2000. Campaign 2000 began in 1991 out of concern about the lack of
government progress in addressing child poverty. Campaign 2000 is non-partisan in urging
all Canadian elected officials to keep their promise to Canada's children.

World Vision is a Christian relief, development and advocacy organization whose purpose is
to create lasting change in the lives of children, families and communities by overcoming
poverty and injustice. World Vision serves all people regardless of religion, race, ethnicity or
gender. More than a half million Canadians fight poverty through their support of World
Vision. For more information, please visit www.worldvision.ca
Campaign 2000 - Toronto, 26 Oct 06


Campaign 2000 Presents Its Budget Proposals at Pre-Budget Hearings in Toronto

Reducing Child & Family Poverty in a Time of Prosperity: Campaign 2000's Submission to
Standing Committee on Finance Pre-Budget Consultations, Fall 2006

Executive Summary

Campaign 2000, a broad coalition of more than 110 organizations, remains committed to
implementation of the 1989 unanimous House of Commons resolution to end child and
family poverty. Persistent child and family poverty across Canada continues, despite strong
economic growth and the lowest unemployment level in 30 years. Most recent figures
indicate that more than 1.1 million children - almost 1 child in 6 lives in poverty or 17.7% of
all children in Canada (2004 pre-tax LICO figures from Statistics Canada’s Income in
Canada 2004). The poverty rate tells only half of the story. The other half is the depth of
poverty families face. Low income families would need, on average, an extra $7,200/year
just to reach the poverty line, a situation that has barely changed since 1995. This
entrenched deprivation is manifested in stubbornly high rates of food bank use – more than
40% of foodbank users are children (Canadian Association of Food Banks. Time for Action:
Hunger Count 2005).

Campaign 2000 believes that a comprehensive poverty reduction strategy is desperately
needed and is achievable. This strategy needs to include: tax benefits and income security
measures; substantial public investment in community services; and labour market
measures. Lessons from other industrialized nations can assist Canada in developing a
poverty reduction strategy that has the potential to succeed just as Canada’s concerted
policies for seniors instituted in the 1970s have substantially reduced poverty among those
over 65 years We believe that the government of Canada, in collaboration with the
provinces, territories and First Nations, has made some important progress with the
establishment of the Canada Child Tax Benefit and the Child Disability Benefit and that we
need to expand and enhance this work. The substance of the agreements on Early Learning
and Child Care services and those on Aboriginal Affairs made at the First Ministers’ Meeting
in Kelowna, B.C. in November, 2005 should be retained and further developed.

Campaign 2000 makes the following recommendations:
That the federal government immediately commit to increase the child benefit to a
maximum of $5,000 for each child with an assurance that all eligible low and modest
income families retain the full payment.

That the federal government create a system of Early Childhood Education and Care
programs across Canada for every child 0-12 (outside school hours) whose parent so
chooses. Targets and timetables must be established and priorities, such as ages of children,
level of coverage, must be identified. These programs must be accessible to children of
every level of ability and all backgrounds; designed to meet the needs of working parents;
affordable for every family who wishes to participate; and of high educational quality. Based
on discussion with provinces and territories, the federal government will come to new
bilateral or multilateral agreements that represent the interests of Canadians. At least $1.2
billion additional annual expenditures must be allocated.

That a national housing strategy with predictable, long term funding be adopted to assist all
levels of government ,the community and private sectors to engage in the provision of
affordable and social housing. As part of this strategy, the funding for and the continuation
of Supportive Communities Partnership Initiative and the Residential Rehabilitation
Assistance Program be confirmed. An energy efficiency program for low and moderate-
income households needs to be put in place.

That the federal government honour the agreements made among First Ministers in Kelowna,
B.C. in November, 2005 and continue to support the pivotal role that the Aboriginal
Friendship Centres Program (AFCP) in the development of an effective urban Aboriginal
strategy.

That the federal government establish a specific transfer for post-secondary education
(distinct from the Canada Social Transfer) and that access be improved by increasing the
student financial aid package and allocating a higher proportion of aid to needs based grants.
As well, tuition fees must be frozen and lowered in post-secondary institutions across
Canada.

That the federal government re-establish the federal minimum wage and set it at $10 per
hour; that reform of Employment Insurance be undertaken to address under-coverage of
the unemployed and that other initiatives such as paid training leaves be adopted on a pilot
basis.
Campaign 2000 / Campagne 2000 - Toronto, 21 Jul 06


Open Letter to the Premiers

"We are writing to urge you to put the wellbeing of children and families in Canada at the
top of your Council of the Federation agenda. More than one million children and their
families still live in poverty in Canada despite prosperous times – that’s one out of every six
children (Statistics Canada. Income in Canada 2004). We can, and must, do much better.
Strategies to address child and family poverty must be a significant part of your
deliberations on fiscal matters and funding arrangements......."

Use the related site link (below) to view the full text of the letter.

Contact: Laurel Rothman, National Coordinator, Campaign 2000 - laurelro@fsatoronto.com - tel: 416 595-9230 ext.
228


Related site: Complete text of the letter in a pdf file.
Campaign 2000 - Toronto, 3 May 06


Federal Budget 2006: Massive tax cuts deplete public resources but don’t reduce
poverty

TORONTO – Child poverty activists reacted with frustration and disappointment to the
Conservative Government’s first federal budget. With double-digit budget surpluses of $37.2
billion over two years the federal government can afford to invest in both early learning and
child care plus family income supports – key policies that would help make a dent in
Canada’s 17.7% child poverty rate. Instead, almost two out of every three dollars of the
surplus goes to general tax cuts.

“The failure to follow through on federal-provincial agreements on early learning and child
care will mean a cut of almost $4 billion in funding and will set back the development of our
national child care program for years. Campaign 2000 knows from studying the experience
of European countries with low child poverty rates that universal access to early learning
and child care should be a key part of a poverty reduction strategy for Canadian families,”
said Laurel Rothman, National Coordinator of Campaign 2000.

“The announced $1200 family allowance means that low and modest income families are
left out again. The allowance will be taxable which means that many families will have to
pay more income tax and are at risk of losing subsidies for child care and affordable housing.
Also, the Young Child Supplement of the Canada Child Tax Benefit – worth $243/year for
children under 7 whose families do not claim the Child Care Expense Deduction - has been
eliminated. This approach to income support for families would be more effective if there
were guarantees at both the federal and provincial levels that it would be a non-taxable
family allowance, or if it were delivered directly through the Canada Child Tax Benefit, ”
commented Pauline Raven, Chair, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Nova Scotia.

“Unfortunately tax credits and the GST cut will not significantly help low-income families.
Food and rent make up their biggest costs and GST has never been charged on these basic
expenditures,” commented Greg DeGroot Maggetti of Citizens for Public Justice.

Another key pathway out of poverty for Canadian families is the availability of affordable
housing. “Campaign 2000 is pleased that the 2006 federal budget follows through on Bill C-
48 from last year with an allocation of $1.4 billion for affordable housing to be flowed via
trust funds for the provinces, territories and Aboriginal housing. The challenge will now be
to ensure that these funds are spent in a timely way on new affordable housing for low
income families,” said Sharon Chisholm of the Canadian Housing & Renewal Association.

Given off reserve Aboriginal child poverty rates of 40% and chronically high on-reserve
poverty rates, Campaign 2000 is particularly disappointed that the 2006 budget has not
followed through on the $5.1 billion Kelowna Agreement . “We need the new Conservative
Government to show leadership in supporting both on-reserve and off-reserve Aboriginal
programs. Within the housing allocation, the $300 million for off-reserve Aboriginal
communities is modest but a good start. But the $25 million cut to aboriginal child care
programs is unconscionable,” said Sonia Prevost, Executive Director, Ndinawemaaganag
Endaawaad in Winnipeg.

“We were pleasantly surprised that the Child Disability Benefit was increased to $2,300 and
that it is now available to more families of children with disabilities. This improvement will
help to prevent and reduce poverty among families struggling with lifelong responsibilities,”
commented Michael Bach, Executive Vice President of the Canadian Association for
Community Living.

“Campaign 2000 has consistently called for government commitment to a social investment
plan similar to other industrialized countries that have significantly reduced child and family
poverty rates. But the tax cuts and tax credits announced in this federal budget will cost
$11 billion in 2006/07 alone, significantly whittling away the fiscal surplus that would allow
us to make long term investments in Canada’s most vulnerable families and children,”
concluded Laurel Rothman.

With 1.2 million children living below the poverty rate in Canada, Campaign 2000 continues
to call for a long-term, sustained and well financed strategy to reduce child and family
poverty. This should include: federal funding increases to reach $5 billion per year by 2010
for a national system of high quality early learning and child care; an affordable housing
strategy to build 25,000 new affordable units annually; increased child benefits to a
maximum of $4,900 per child; a dedicated urban aboriginal strategy; and a labour market
strategy to ensure more good jobs at living wages with better integration of skilled
immigrants into the labour force.

Campaign 2000 is a diverse coalition of over 100 national, provincial and community
organizations dedicated to eliminating child and family poverty in Canada. For more
information visit our website at www.campaign2000.ca




For more information contact:
- Laurel Rothman, National Coordinator of Campaign 2000, Cell 416-575-9230 or 416-595-
9230 x 228
- Sharon Chisholm, Canadian Housing & Renewal Association. Tel 613-594-3007 x 11
- Pauline Raven, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives Nova Scotia. Tel 902-542-3085 Cell
902-670-2949
- Greg DeGroot Maggetti, Citizens for Public Justice. Tel 416-979-2443 x 22.
- Sonia Prevost, Executive Director, Ndinawemaaganag Endaawaad, Winnipeg. Tel 204-586-
2588.
- Michael Bach, Canadian Association for Community Living. Tel 416-661-9611




- 30 -
Campaign 2000 - Toronto, 7 Apr 06


Low Income Families Not in Government’s Priorities: Where do Opposition Leaders
Stand?

Opposition leaders need to hang tough on the child and family poverty issues in response to
the Speech from the Throne of the 39th Parliament that said it was committed to ensuring
bright futures for our children but left families with tattered wish lists. The speech offered
no real options for early learning and child care services, affordable housing or progressive
income supports - the key pathways toward brighter futures for low and modest income
families with children. Opposition leaders need to press the federal government to honour
its commitments on child care, housing and Aboriginal issues as identified in the Kelowna
accord.

“The government claims to ‘keep pace with the evolving needs of Canadian society’ but
these words don’t ring true for low and modest income families struggling to pay the rent,
feed the children, and find affordable child care so they can go to school, training, work or
community involvement. Real choices would include a range of early learning and child care
services across the country, in rural, small and large communities, serving children
irrespective of their incomes. I am glad to see both Liberal and NDP leaders press for real
child care options and stable, long term funding for child care. We expect them to keep up
the pressure,” said Laurel Rothman, National Coordinator of Campaign 2000. “What we
don’t need is a continuation of a patchwork of services financed by what parents can afford.
The $1.200 family allowance for young children is of little help here.”

The proposal for a family allowance – described as a measure to help parents choose child
care or to stay at home – neither creates real options that support developmental needs of
children nor provides progressive income support to families.

“The Throne Speech had nothing new to say on early learning and child care. The federal
government needs to honour the legitimate multi-year agreements with all provinces on
early learning and child care. Relying on employers to create child care spaces is old news
that doesn’t work especially for low income families. It is a private, voluntary solution to a
very important social issue for families that deserves serious social policy,” commented
Martha Friendly, Childcare Resource and Research Unit, University of Toronto.

“Where’s housing? With no mention of the critical need for affordable housing and no
mention of the cities’ agenda, thousands of families are left waiting for secure housing that
supports communities and provides an anchor to social cohesion,” comments Sharon
Chisholm, Executive Director of Canadian Housing and Renewal Association.

“Where’s a commitment to the Kelowna accord? Aboriginal families need the education,
housing and health care services that all the First Ministers agreed upon last November.
Forty percent of children of Aboriginal identity living in low income families, with one in
every four off-reserve Aboriginal children living in poor housing, our communities need
resources and political will to move forward on the Kelowna accord,” said Peter Dinsdale,
Executive Director, National Association of Friendship Centres.

We need to know that low and modest income families with children are in the
government’s priorities. We want a Canada where every child has an equal chance for a
satisfying and productive life.
For further information please contact:
Laurel Rothman – Campaign 2000 416 595-9230 ext. 228 or cell 416 575 9230
Martha Friendly – Childcare Resource and Research Unit 416 978 6895
Sharon Chisholm – Canadian Housing and Renewal Association 613 594 3007
Peter Dinsdale – National Association of Friendship Centres 613 563 4844
Cell 613 327 5279
Campaign 2000 - Toronto, 23 Mar 06


Ontario Budget 2006: Small steps but no plan to reduce child poverty

MEDIA RELEASE - March 24, 2006

The 2006 Ontario budget will do little to address Ontario’s child poverty problem. Campaign
2000 was pleased to see some progress in raising social assistance rates, but disappointed
that growing tax revenues are not being invested in a comprehensive plan to deal with
Ontario’s 16% rate of child and family poverty.

“There’s little in the 2006 Budget for the one in every six children living in poverty in this
province”, said Jacquie Maund, Ontario Coordinator of Campaign 2000. “Campaign 2000 had
called for a budget investment of up to $1 billion to kick-start an Ontario Action Plan for
Children. With tax revenues higher than expected, Ontario has the resources to fund an
Ontario Action Plan for Children with investments in social programs and good jobs at living
wages.”

The 2% increase in social assistance rates is a small step in the right direction. But Premier
McGuinty has yet to index social assistance rates to inflation and fully end the claw back of
the National Child Benefit Supplement (NCBS) from recipient families as promised in the
election. The Province will continue to pass on the federal government’s increases to the
NCBS, but claw back up to $1,463 per child annually from the cheques of families on social
assistance. While economic growth has resulted in real gains in family income for most
families over the past decade, the real value of welfare benefits has declined by 40%.

“We can’t afford continuous growth in inequality, hunger and despair for families and
communities,” noted Colin Hughes of the Children’s Aid Society of Toronto. “The first duty of
the Government of Ontario is to protect vulnerable children and families by ending the
constant erosion of social assistance, by upgrading rates, and by fully ending the claw back
of the National Child Benefit Supplement as promised.”

Campaign 2000 is pleased with the Jobs and Skills Renewal Strategy to improve services for
the working poor and unemployed, but notes that there is no commitment in the budget to
increase the minimum wage beyond 2007. “Our research shows that 33% of low income
children are living in families where the parent/s are working full-time, full year. Campaign
2000 will continue to press for a $10/hour minimum wage with inflation indexation to
ensure that working parents can lift their families above the poverty line,” commented
Jacquie Maund.

Continued provincial investments in affordable housing and a high quality, regulated child
care system are key components of Campaign 2000’s Action Plan for Children.

“In this budget the Ontario Government has taken the federal child care funding for
2006/07 and re-allocated it over a 4 year period. We need Premier McGuinty to keep up the
pressure at the federal level, and be prepared to commit provincial funds to continue
expanding child care spaces and provide the affordable, high quality early learning and child
care system that parents need in order to pursue training or employment,” said Laurel
Rothman, National Coordinator of Campaign 2000.

Campaign 2000 echoes the concerns of housing advocates that the 2006 Budget contains no
new funding for affordable housing. At the current pace, Campaign 2000 is concerned the
Government will not be able to meet its commitment to produce 15,000 affordable housing
units nor its election promise of 26,600 affordable homes.

“It is disappointing that despite very strong economic growth resulting in $1.5 billion more
than expected in tax revenues, the Ontario Government fails to make the needed
investments to address our social deficit and 16% child and family poverty rate,” concluded
Jacquie Maund.

-30-

Campaign 2000 is a diverse coalition of over 90 national, provincial and community
organizations dedicated to eliminating child and family poverty in Canada.
C2000 - Toronto, 2 Mar 06


Campaign 2000 Calls for an Ontario Action Plan to Address Child Poverty

A new report by Ontario Campaign 2000 finds that 443,000 children in Ontario are living in
poverty and the child poverty rate is stalled at 16%, despite strong economic growth. The
average low income family is living about $10,000 below the poverty line.

“With the Liberal Government now halfway through its mandate the upcoming spring budget
is a key decision time. Campaign 2000 calls for provincial commitment to an Ontario Action
Plan for Children. The Liberal Government has a plan to address the fiscal deficit and has
made key long term investments in health and education. Now is the time to address
Ontario’s social deficit and the fact that 1 in every 6 children is living in poverty,” stated
Jacquie Maund, Coordinator of Ontario Campaign 2000.

“We want the Ontario Government to take strategic leadership on the issue of child and
family poverty with a commitment in the next budget to invest up to $1 billion over the next
two years to jumpstart a multi-year Ontario Action Plan for Children with investments in
social programs and high quality jobs. Addressing child poverty should be a non-partisan
issue. We call on the leaders of both Opposition parties to support such a plan.”

Jane Mercer, Executive Coordinator of the Toronto Coalition for Better Child Care, stated
“Good quality, affordable regulated child care is central to an anti-poverty strategy because
it supports parents’ efforts to work or get training while their children benefit from early
learning opportunities in a safe environment. We need Ontario to keep up the momentum
by pressuring the federal government to maintain the child care agreements. We must also
be working together on a long-term strategy to support child care in our province.”

Highlights from Putting Children First: The 2005 Ontario Report Card on Child Poverty
include:

 The latest available data (2003) show that nearly half a million children in Ontario are
living in poverty, and the child poverty rate has been stuck at 15-16% since 2000.
 Many are living in deep poverty. The average 2 parent family would need an additional
$10,200 in income just to reach the poverty line. The average lone parent family is living
$9,600 below the poverty line.
 A job is not always a route out of poverty. 33% of all low income children live in families
where the parent/s work full time and full year. This figure doubled between 1993-2003.
 Poverty rates for children in Aboriginal, visible minority and immigrant families are at
least twice the average Ontario rate

“Clearly economic growth is not solving Ontario’s child poverty problem, and our social
safety net is not preventing families from falling deep into poverty. Government policies do
make a difference – if we don’t see a commitment to an Action Plan for Children with a
financial downpayment in the next budget we fear Ontario’s child poverty rate will not
decline,” commented Laurel Rothman, National Coordinator of Campaign 2000.
Campaign 2000 calls on the Ontario Government to make the following commitments as
part of an Ontario Action Plan for Children to reduce child and family poverty:

 Press the new federal government to honour the 5 year Child Care Agreement, and invest
additional provincial funds to keep building a high quality child care system;
 Reduce the depth of child and family poverty by restoring social assistance rates to
adequate levels, and ending the clawback of child benefits from families on social assistance;
 Reduce the number of working poor families by continuing to increase the minimum wage
to $10/hour with inflation indexation, and improving enforcement of the Employment
Standards Act;
 Increase provincial funding for affordable housing, and press the federal government to
continue housing and homelessness funding;
 Continue to invest in services that help new immigrants get good jobs commensurate with
their training, and develop broader workplace initiatives to address employment
discrimination.

“There’s a long term cost to not addressing our child poverty problem – growing up in
poverty is linked to poor health, lower school performance, and low pay and unemployment
as adults. The Ontario Government has set out long term investment plans of $6.2 billion
for post-secondary education, $30 billion for infrastructure, and $32.9 billion for health. We
call for up to $3 billion over the next 5 years to make significant progress on an Ontario
Action Plan for Children. Ontario is expected to receive new revenue from the federal
government to address the fiscal imbalance - we want priority use of those revenues to
implement an Ontario Action Plan for Children,” said Jacquie Maund.

Deena Ladd, Coordinator of the Workers Action Centre, stated: “Low wages and poor
working conditions are part of the reason behind Ontario’s 16% rate of child and family
poverty. The growth of part time, temporary and contract work means that too many
parents are unable to find jobs that are stable, well paid and provide sufficient hours and
benefits. Ontario needs a living wage of $10/hour, and an updated and enforced
Employment Standards Act.”

“The combined effect of cuts to social assistance rates in the mid 90’s plus inflation have
meant that Ontario’s most vulnerable families with children have seen a 40% loss in income
over the past ten years. Ontario needs to increase social assistance to meet the real costs of
living, and honour the election promise to end the clawback of the National Child Benefit
Supplement,” said ISAC Director Jacquie Chic. “In the GTA alone about 13,500 children
would no longer need food banks if the Supplement were restored to families on social
assistance.”

See www.campaign2000.ca for a full copy of the report. Campaign 2000 is a cross-Canada
movement of over 90 organizations monitoring progress on the unanimous House of
Commons resolution to eliminate child poverty in Canada by the year 2000.

-30-

For further comment please contact:
Jacquie Maund, Ontario Coordinator, Campaign 2000.Tel. 416-595-9230x 241 (or x244)
Jane Mercer, Toronto Coalition for Better Child Care. 416-892-6810
Yves Savoie, Campaign 2000. French spokesperson 416-595-9230x 236

Campagne 2000 - Toronto, 2 Mar 06
Campagne 2000 réclame un plan d’action pour s’attaquer à la pauvreté des
enfants en Ontario

Un nouveau rapport de Campagne 2000 Ontario révèle que 443 000 enfants en Ontario
vivent dans la pauvreté et que le taux de pauvreté infantile est figé à 16 p. cent malgré une
forte croissance économique. Une famille moyenne à faible revenu vit 10 000 dollars
environ sous le seuil de pauvreté.

« Le gouvernement Libéral étant à mi-mandat, le budget attendu au printemps est un
moment décisif. Campagne 2000 réclame de la Province qu’elle s’engage à adopter un Plan
d’action pour les enfants de l’Ontario. Le gouvernement Libéral s’est doté d’un plan pour
s’attaquer au déficit fiscal et a fait des investissements cruciaux et à long terme dans la
santé et l’éducation. Le temps est venu maintenant de s’attaquer au déficit social et au fait
qu’un enfant sur six vit dans la pauvreté en Ontario », a dit Jacquie Maund, coordonnatrice
de Campagne 2000 Ontario. « Nous voulons que le gouvernement ontarien assume un
leadership stratégique dans le dossier de la pauvreté des enfants et des familles et qu’il
s’engage, dans le prochain budget, à verser jusqu’à un milliard de dollars au cours des deux
prochaines années pour lancer un Plan d’action pour les enfants en investissant dans les
programmes sociaux et des emplois de bonne qualité. S’attaquer à la pauvreté des enfants
ne devrait pas relever de la politique partisane. Nous demandons aux chefs des deux partis
de l’opposition de soutenir ce plan ».

Jane Mercer, directrice générale de la Toronto Coalition for Better Child Care, a déclaré : «
Avoir accès à des services de garde de bonne qualité, abordables et réglementés est au
cœur de toute stratégie efficace de lutte contre la pauvreté parce que les services de garde
viennent en aide aux parents qui travaillent ou étudient pendant que leurs enfants profitent
d’un milieu de vie stimulant pour leur développement et d’un environnement sûr. Il faut que
l’Ontario maintienne l’élan actuel et presse le gouvernement fédéral de respecter les
ententes sur les services de garde. Nous devons aussi travailler ensemble à mettre au point
une stratégie à long terme pour soutenir les services de garde dans notre province ».

Faits saillants tirés de Les enfants d’abord : Rapport 2005 sur la pauvreté des enfants en
Ontario :

 Les données les plus récentes disponibles (2003) révèlent que près d’un demi million
d’enfants en Ontario vivent dans la pauvreté et que le taux de pauvreté des enfants est
resté figé à 15-16 p. cent depuis 2000.
 Beaucoup vivent dans une profonde pauvreté. Il faudrait à une famille biparentale
moyenne 10 200$ de plus pour atteindre tout juste le seuil de pauvreté et à une famille
monoparentale moyenne, 9 600$.
 Un emploi n’est pas toujours la rampe de sortie de la pauvreté. Trente-trois pour cent de
tous les enfants défavorisés vivent dans une famille où le(s) parent(s) travaille(nt) à temps
plein et toute l’année. Et ce pourcentage a doublé au cours de la période de 1993 à 2003.
 Les taux de pauvreté des enfants vivant dans des familles autochtones, immigrantes ou
appartenant à une minorité visible sont au moins deux fois supérieurs à celui de la moyenne
ontarienne.

« Manifestement la croissance économique ne règle pas le problème de la pauvreté des
enfants en Ontario. Notre filet de sécurité social n’empêche pas les familles de sombrer
dans la pauvreté. Les politiques gouvernementales font véritablement une différence. Si on
ne s’engage pas à mettre en œuvre un Plan d’action pour les enfants et à y consentir des
fonds dans le prochain budget, nous craignons que les taux de pauvreté infantile en Ontario
ne diminueront pas », a dit Laurel Rothman, coordonnatrice nationale de Campagne 2000.

Campagne 2000 demande au gouvernement de l’Ontario de s’engager à poser les actions
suivantes en vertu d’un Plan d’action pour les enfants de l’Ontario pour réduire la pauvreté
des enfants et des familles :

 Presser le nouveau gouvernement fédéral de respecter l’entente de cinq ans sur les
services de garde et investir des fonds provinciaux additionnels pour continuer à bâtir un
système de services de garde de qualité.
 Réduire la profondeur de la pauvreté des enfants et des familles en ramenant à des
niveaux acceptables les taux d’aide sociale et en mettant fin à la récupération des
prestations pour enfants à même l’aide sociale versée aux familles.
 Réduire le nombre de familles à faible revenu dont les parents travaillent en continuant à
augmenter le salaire minimum jusqu’à 10$/h indexé à l’inflation et en veillant plus
étroitement au respect de la Loi sur les normes du travail.
 Accroître le financement provincial consenti au logement à prix abordable et presser le
gouvernement fédéral de continuer à financer les programmes de logement et d’aide aux
sans-abri.
 Continuer à investir dans les services qui permettent aux nouveaux immigrants d’obtenir
de bons emplois correspondant à leur formation et élaborer des programmes plus généraux
destinés aux milieux de travail afin d’y contrer la discrimination.

« Il y a un coût à payer à long terme si on ne règle pas notre problème de pauvreté infantile.
Grandir dans la pauvreté est lié à une santé précaire, un rendement inférieur à l’école, un
bas salaire et au chômage une fois devenu adulte. Le gouvernement de l’Ontario a mis de
l’avant une série de plans d’investissement à long terme : 6,2 milliards en éducation
postsecondaire, 30 milliards pour les infrastructures, 32,9 milliards en santé. Nous
réclamons trois milliards de dollars sur cinq ans pour mettre en œuvre le Plan d’action pour
les enfants de l’Ontario. L’Ontario doit recevoir des fonds additionnels du gouvernement
fédéral en vertu du déséquilibre fiscal. Nous voulons avoir accès prioritairement à cet argent
pour le Plan d’action pour les enfants de l’Ontario », a dit Jacquie Maund.

Deena Ladd, coordonnatrice du Workers Action Centre, a déclaré : « Les bas salaires et
conditions de travail médiocres expliquent en partie un taux de pauvreté des enfants et des
familles figé à 16 p. cent en Ontario. À cause de l’augmentation des emplois à temps partiel,
temporaires et contractuels, trop de parents sont incapables de se trouver un emploi stable,
bien payé et qui leur assure un nombre suffisant d’heures et des avantages sociaux.
L’Ontario a besoin d’un salaire minimum à 10$/h et il faut mettre à jour et appliquer la Loi
sur les normes du travail ».

« La réduction des taux d’aide sociale au milieu des années 1990, conjuguée à l’inflation, a
eu pour effet de faire fondre de 40 p. cent le revenu des familles avec enfants les plus
vulnérables en Ontario au cours des dix dernières années. Il faut que l’Ontario augmente
l’aide sociale afin que les prestations correspondent au véritable coût de la vie. Le
gouvernement doit respecter sa promesse électorale et mettre fin à la récupération du
Supplément de la prestation nationale pour enfants », a dit Jacquie Chic, directrice de ISAC.
« Dans le grand Toronto seulement, environ 13 500 enfants n’auraient plus recours aux
banques alimentaires si ce supplément de revenu était remis aux familles bénéficiaires de
l’aide sociale ».
Campagne 2000 est un réseau pancanadien non partisan de plus de quatre-vingt-dix
organismes partenaires nationaux, provinciaux et locaux engagés à travailler ensemble à
l’éradication de la pauvreté des enfants au Canada. www.campaign2000.ca

- 30 -

Pour d’autres réactions, veuillez communiquer avec:
Jacquie Maund, coordonnatrice, Campagne 2000 Ontario.Tél. 416-595-9230, poste 241 ou
244
Jane Mercer, Toronto Coalition for Better Child Care. 416-892-6810
Yves Savoie, Campagne 2000. Porte-parole francophone 416-595-9230, poste 236
CCAAC / ACPSGE - Ottawa, 6 Mar 06


Open letter to Prime Minister Harper, provincial Premiers and the leaders of the
Federal Opposition parties / Lettre ouverte au premier ministre Harper, aux
premiers ministres provinciaux et aux chefs des parties d’opposition

To sign on to the open letter, visit www.buildchildcare.ca. For more information on the
CODE BLUE for child care campaign, use the link below to go to the CCAAC CODE BLUE
campaign web site.
+++++++++++++++

Open letter to Prime Minister Harper, provincial Premiers and the leaders of the Federal
Opposition parties

An open letter to Prime Minister Harper, provincial Premiers and the leaders of the Federal
Opposition parties:

We are calling on you to work together to honour the promise of a national child care
program. The place to start is by protecting the early learning and child care agreements
between the Government of Canada and the provinces.

The federal-provincial agreements on child care were negotiated in good faith.
They lay a foundation for a full system of early learning and child care that can meet the
needs of all Canadian families. Canceling them sets back the development of a national child
care program for years to come, leaving families with young children to fend for themselves.
Breaking federal-provincial child care agreements would be a breach of public trust and
would lead to a cut of almost $4 billion from child care funding.
The federal election results were not a mandate to turn back the clock on child care.
While income support for families is a valid policy goal, a taxable family allowance and a tax
credit for employers will not create early learning and child care services that are high
quality, available and affordable. Families need income supports and publicly funded child
care services.
We call on all governments to protect and enhance progress on child care.

Sincerely,

--------------------------

Pour signer la pétition, allez sur le site Web : www.garderiespubliques.ca.
Pour plus d'informations sur la campagne CODE BLEU:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Lettre ouverte au premier ministre Harper, aux premiers ministres provinciaux et aux chefs
des parties d’opposition :

Nous vous demandons de travailler de concert afin de tenir votre promesse d’instaurer un
programme national de services de garde à l’enfance. Pour ce faire, il faut commencer par
protéger les ententes entre le gouvernement du Canada et les provinces sur les services
éducatifs et de garde.
Les ententes fédéral/provincial sur les services de garde ont été négociées de bonne foi.
Elles constituent la base d’un système complet de services éducatifs et de garde qui répond
aux besoins de toutes les familles canadiennes. Leur annulation retarde de plusieurs années
le développement d’un programme national, et oblige les familles qui ont de jeunes enfants
à se débrouiller toutes seules. Rompre ces ententes équivaudrait à abuser de la confiance
du public et entraînerait des coupures d’environ 4 milliards de dollars dans le financement
des services de garde.

Les électeurs n’ont pas mandaté le nouveau gouvernement pour faire marche arrière en
matière de services de garde à l’enfance.

Bien que le soutien du revenu des familles soit un objectif politique louable, une allocation
familiale imposable et un crédit d’impôt pour les employeurs ne permettront pas de créer
des services éducatifs et de garde de grande qualité, viables et abordables. Les familles ont
besoin de soutien du revenu et de services de garde financés par l’État.

Nous lançons l’appel à tous les gouvernements de protéger et de renforcer les gains réalisés
en matière de services de garde à l’enfance.
Veuillez agréer, Messieurs, Mesdames, l’expression de nos sentiments les plus distingués,
+++++++++++++++++++
C2000 - Toronto, 14 Jan 06


Speaking Up for Canada’s Kids: How do the federal parties rate on children’s
issues?

Canadians have the power in this federal election to offer a positive future to children and
families trapped in poverty. At a press conference today, children’s advocates released an
analysis of federal party proposals to address the poverty of Canada’s children.

Laurel Rothman, National Coordinator of Campaign 2000, stated, “Now is when we look to
our leaders for their proposals on how to ratchet down Canada’s shameful rate of child and
family poverty. With 1.2 million children living in poverty - one in every six – too many
vulnerable children are growing up with lost opportunities. We know what makes a
difference for children and their families - it’s effective income security programs and
reliable community services. Campaign 2000 has outlined its long-standing
recommendations and asked the leaders for their proposals for public policies and
investments. Let’s see how they line up!”

June Callwood, Co-Chair of Campaign Against Child Poverty, commented: “Lessons from
other countries which have reduced their child poverty rates show that tax cuts do not
reduce poverty. What helps low income families most is affordable housing, good quality
affordable child care, and jobs with decent wages and benefits. Over one million children in
this country wake up every day in poverty. They have to count on us to make decisions in
this election that will improve their futures.”

“Our future is in our kids,” said Bishop Colin Johnson of the Anglican Diocese of Toronto.
“Yet so many are growing up hungry and deprived in other ways. Our foodbanks are facing
huge demands. The political parties and all of us need to face up to these critical issues in
this election.”

The summary and ranking of party leader responses to Campaign 2000 policy
recommendations can be found at www.campaign2000.ca. A public message from
Campaign Against Child Poverty addressing tax cuts can be found at www.childpoverty.com.

-30-

For further comment please contact:
Laurel Rothman, National Coordinator, Campaign 2000. Cell (416) 575-9230
June Callwood, Campaign Against Child Poverty 416-231-1923
Bishop Colin Johnson, Anglican Diocese of Toronto 416-363-6021x250
Campagne 2000 - Toronto, 16 Jan 06


Défendre les intérêts des enfants du Canada : quel est le classement des partis
fédéraux sur les questions touchant les enfants

Les Canadiennes et Canadiens ont le pouvoir durant cette élection fédérale d’offrir une
perspective d’avenir positive aux enfants et à leurs familles captives de la pauvreté. Au
cours d’une conférence de presse tenue aujourd’hui, des défenseurs des droits des enfants
ont rendu publique leur analyse des propositions des partis fédéraux pour lutter contre la
pauvreté des enfants au Canada.

Laurel Rothman, coordonnatrice nationale de Campagne 2000, a dit : « C’est maintenant
que nous nous tournons vers nos leaders afin de connaître leurs propositions pour faire
chuter le taux choquant de pauvreté des enfants et des familles au Canada. 1,2 million
d’enfants vivent dans la pauvreté au Canada, soit un sur six. C’est beaucoup trop d’enfants
vulnérables, qui grandissent avec des horizons perdus. Nous savons ce qui fait une
différence dans la vie des enfants et de leurs familles : des programmes efficaces de
sécurité du revenu et des services communautaires fiables. Campagne 2000 a présenté aux
partis les recommandations que nous prônons depuis longtemps et demandé aux leaders de
nous faire part de leurs propositions de politiques publiques et d’investissements. Voyons
comment elles se classent! »

June Callwood, coprésidente de Campaign Against Child Poverty a fait le commentaire
suivant : « Les leçons d’autres pays qui ont réussi à réduire leurs taux de pauvreté infantile
nous apprennent que les réductions d’impôt ne diminuent pas la pauvreté. Ce qui aide le
plus les familles à faible revenu, c’est l’accès à des logements abordables, des services de
garde à l’enfance de qualité et abordables et des emplois payés décemment assortis
d’avantages sociaux. Plus d’un million d’enfants dans ce pays se réveillent le matin dans la
pauvreté. Ils doivent se fier à nous pour prendre les décisions qui s’imposent durant cette
élection et améliorer leur avenir ».

« Notre avenir repose sur nos enfants », a dit Colin Johnson, évêque anglican du diocèse de
Toronto. « Pourtant, ils sont si nombreux à grandir le ventre creux et à souffrir de privations
de toutes sortes. Nos banques alimentaires sont aux prises avec des demandes énormes.
Les partis politiques, tout comme nous, doivent se pencher sur ces problèmes cruciaux au
cours de cette élection ».

La synthèse des réponses des chefs des partis nationaux aux recommandations de
politiques de Campagne 2000 et leur classement respectif se trouvent au
www.campaign2000.ca. Un message public de Campaign Against Child Poverty relatif aux
réductions d’impôts se trouve au www.childpoverty.com.

- 30 -

Pour d’autres informations, veuillez communiquer avec :
Laurel Rothman, coordonnatrice nationale, Campagne 2000. Cel. (416)575-9230
June Callwood, Campaign Against Child Poverty, (416) 231-1923
Colin Johnson, évêque anglican du diocèse de Toronto (416)363-6021, poste 250
C2000 - Toronto, 12 Jan 06


Children’s Advocates Comment on Federal Party Positions on Children’s Issues

Toronto – Who’s speaking up for Canada’s kids? At a press conference on Monday, January
16th at 10.00am children’s advocates will comment on where the parties stand on issues
affecting low income families and children.

Campaign 2000 and the Campaign Against Child Poverty will release a summary of the
responses received from national party leaders to questions addressing child poverty in
Canada.

Details:

Monday, January 16th, 10.00am

Orde Street Daycare, in Orde St School at 18 Orde Street, Toronto
(located 1 block southwest of College & University, behind Ontario Hydro building, just east
of McCaul St.)
Note: parking is available on McCaul St., opposite Orde St School

Speakers:

June Callwood, C.C., O. Ont. Co-Chair, Campaign Against Child Poverty

Laurel Rothman, Campaign 2000

Bishop Colin Johnson, Anglican Diocese of Toronto

A low-income parent

-30-

For more information:
Jacquie Maund, Campaign 2000. 416-595-9230x241
Linda Nye, Campaign Against Child Poverty (CACP). 416-595-9230x222
CCAAC / ACPSGE - Ottawa, 10 Jan 06


Children and Families Deserve More than Empty Conservative Promises

As the federal election draws near, Canadians concerned about the country’s future should
closely examine the Conservative child care promises. These promises are a throwback to
the past. They will not deliver the kind of high quality child care our children deserve nor
the support today’s parents need. Instead, a Stephen Harper government would erase the
progress we have finally begun to make towards building a system of accessible care for
children across Canada.

The Conservatives say they would create 125,000 child care spaces through a $10,000 tax
credit to employers.

Past experience with this trickle-down approach has been dismal. Mike Harris’s government
used the same scheme—a tax incentive to employers for workplace child care—and no new
spaces were created. Saskatchewan and New Brunswick had similar programs with poor
results. In any case, most workplace child care in Canada is associated with public sector
employers who can’t take advantage of tax credits.

The Conservatives’ math is also questionable. Capital and start-up costs for developing a
child care space are considerably more than a $10,000 tax credit, especially in big cities. For
example, in Vancouver, the cost would be closer to $40,000 because of the high cost of land
and construction.

And what about the cost of operating affordable spaces once they’re created? Employers
have shown they’re not willing to fund the ongoing cost of workplace child care and that
leaves parents and provincial governments on the hook.

Stephen Harper says he’ll tear up child care funding agreements with the provinces.

The Conservatives would take back billions of already-committed child care funding that the
provinces are counting on. The provinces are responsible for child care and would have to
abandon their plans to use these dollars for much-needed expansion and quality
improvements, with devastating results. For example, Manitoba would have to cancel plans
for 3,000 new community-based child care spaces and 200 nursery school places would no
longer be feasible. Toronto would not get its planned 5,000 new subsidies to help low- and
modest-income parents pay for child care and would not be able to build 58 new planned
centres. Saskatchewan would have to cancel an announced wage increase for child care
staff. And the plans of other provinces would meet a similar fate.

No worries, the Conservatives will give families $25 a week.
The proposed allowance would be taxed back from all families except those with one parent
at home, so $25 represents a maximum. This cash would not help parents find high quality
child care—you can’t buy what doesn’t exist. Even existing child care (only enough for 15%
of young children) costs 10 or 20 times the $3 or $4 a day the allowance would provide.
While many families do need income support, families with young children very much need
and want a range of quality, affordable child care services. An increase in public investment
in high quality child care and—at the same time—an increase in the existing National Child
Benefit would make much more sense for today’s families.
Say no to the Conservative child care scheme
Solving Canada’s child care crisis will take a lot more than sound bites, simplistic ideas and
discredited theories. Canada needs a plan and a program that recognizes the social and
economic benefits that good early learning and child care produces for children, families and
all of society. Most successful industrialized nations recognize the benefits of public
investment in high quality child care and already have universal programs. Canada, its
children and their families deserve one too.

We won’t get it with the Conservative plan.




The Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada was founded in 1983 to promote quality,
inclusive, publicly funded, non-profit child care accessible to all. The association’s more than
140,000 members include parents, caregivers, researchers and students; and women’s,
anti-poverty, labour, social justice, disability and rural organizations.


This statement is endorsed by the following organizations and individuals:
Childcare Resource and Research Unit, University of Toronto

								
To top