http://tinyurl.com/7eaaa

Toronto Star:

How your vote impacts on poverty rates
Jan. 12, 2006.
DENNIS RAPHAEL

Despite the House of Commons unanimously passing an all-party resolution on
Nov. 24, 1989 to achieve the goal of eliminating poverty among Canadian
children by the year 2000, Canada's child poverty rate continues to be
among the highest in the developed world.

According to UNICEF, Canada's child poverty rate stood at 14.9 per cent
during the late 1990s. This is the case even though Canada is wealthier —
using the total value of goods and services produced or GDP — than just
about every other developed nation.

Denmark's child poverty rate of 2.4 per cent represents a virtual
elimination of child poverty. This is also the case in Finland, Sweden,
Holland, Belgium and Norway. As a researcher trying to come to grips with
why this might be the case, I reviewed Canadian public health documents
that have accumulated since the famous 1974 Lalonde Report that put Canada
on the world map as a leader in "health promotion."

Health Canada seems to be onside. Its 1998 Statistical Report on the Health
of Canadians stated: "In the case of poverty, unemployment, stress, and
violence, the influence on health is direct, negative and often shocking
for a country as wealthy and as highly regarded as Canada."

The Canadian Public Health Association's (CPHA) 2000 annual meeting
approved the resolution to "promote dialogue with the public about the
persistence of poverty in the midst of economic growth and declining
unemployment rates; the negative effects that poverty has on the health of
individuals, families, communities, and society as a whole; and
solutions/strategies for reducing poverty and its negative health
consequences."

The appreciation of the importance of poverty by public health
professionals and civil servants at Health Canada is present. So why is
nothing being done?

An increasing body of research finds that child poverty rates cannot be
attributed to failings of those children and families who are poor.

It does not even lie with the presence or absence of well-meaning
intentions of policymakers. It reflects the general operation of the
economy — heavily influenced by the politics — of a nation.

International studies reveal the best predictors of child poverty rates
are: The percentage of low-paid workers within a nation; minimum wage
levels; and the percentage of national revenues invested in social
infrastructure through services, programs, or other public spending.

Among developed nations, Canada has the second highest percentage of
low-paid workers (23 per cent) exceeded only by the U.S. Our minimum wages
are among the lowest. Despite Canadians' beliefs about the generosity of
our programs, we have one of the least developed welfare states.

Indeed, Canada is identified by scholars as a "liberal welfare state" that
shares characteristics with nations such as the U.S., Britain, Ireland,
Australia, and New Zealand.

These nations spend relatively little on social and entitlement programs,
which results in higher levels of child and general poverty, and greater
income and wealth inequality.

How does a nation get to be a liberal welfare state as opposed to a nation
that takes the well-being of its population seriously? The answer is
deceptively simply.

The best predictor of child poverty rates is also the best predictor of
official commitment to providing its citizens with a modicum of security
and well-being: The influence of "left" parties in government as measured
by "left cabinet share."

Left cabinet share is the percentage of cabinet members that are members of
a labour or social democratic party.

Canada and the U.S. have never had a federal labour, CCF, or NDP party in
power.

How strong is the relationship between left cabinet share and child poverty
rates? Among 14 developed nations between 1946 and 1990, the presence of
left parties in government is strongly related to the probability that a
child will experience poverty.

To illustrate: Sweden had a 32 per cent left cabinet share and a child
poverty rate of 2.4 per cent. Belgium had a 13 per cent left cabinet share
and a 6 per cent child poverty rate. Canada had 0 per cent left cabinet
share and a 14 per cent rate. And the U.S. also had the lowest left cabinet
share at 0 per cent and a 25 per cent child poverty rate.

Why is this so? Social democratic parties are committed to full employment,
equitable distribution of income and wealth, and provision of a strong
social safety net.

Even though Canada has never had a left party member in cabinet, the
presence of left party members in Parliament during minority government
situations has led to most of the progressive changes such as medicare and
public pensions.

More recently, increased spending on housing, daycare, and public
transportation came about in our current minority government situation
because of the NDP. The electoral implications of these findings are clear.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dennis Raphael, is associate professor at the School of Health Policy and
Management at York University and is editor of Social Determinants of
Health: Canadian Perspectives.