----------
> From: Alana LaPerle <[log in to unmask]>
> To: [log in to unmask]

>
> While I don't agree with policies or philosophies that blame the victims
of
> poverty, I don't understand why it is wrong to question a
"resources-only"
> response to child poverty. As health promoters isn't it our
responsibility
> to help prevent people from falling into the river rather than simply
> pulling them out (or teaching them to swim)?

I think this is a very important question Alana.  I will try to give you my
perspective.

On April 1st 1996 the Canadian Assistance Program was revoked by the
federal government with the implementation of Bill C-76.  For people who
have to turn to welfare in Canada this meant that the enforceable rights
they enjoyed under CAP were lost.  These were like constitutional rights
for poor people, or human rights for poor people, because if you do not
have the right to your basic needs, you can not exercise any other rights.
Canada itself in all its past reports to the International Committee on
Social, Economic and Cultural Rights pointed to CAP as protecting the human
rights of poor people in Canada.

The CAP rights we have lost are:

     1) provide assistance to every person in need - regardless of the
cause of need (CAP S. 6(2)(a));


     2) take into account a person's budgetary requirements and the income
and resources available to him to meet them
     (CAP s. 6(2)(b));



     3) provide an appeal mechanism so that people have a legal right to
challenge decisions affecting their entitlement to
     social assistance (CAP s. 6(2)(e));


     4) not require that people who are in receipt of social assistance
perform work against their will as a condition of
     receiving assistance (CAP s. 15(3)(a));

We have seen welfare rates fall to levels that do not allow people to
obtain basic shelter or food right across the country.

The Premier's Council said in their report on Children "The best way to
address disadvantage is to end it".

So to me, and using the river thingie, the federal government is the one
that open the doors to provinces throwing people in the river and is now
wondering what we can do about all the people who are drowning and the
health people are talking about people's problems being that they are
unable to swim and are setting up swimming classes and poor people are
saying, I don't need to learn how to swim I want them to stop throwing us
in this damn river.  In fact spending all our time in this water sucks.

>
> Where does responsible decision-making fit? Shouldn't at least part of
our
> response be to provide resources (e.g., jobs, education, social support,
> self-esteem) that help people make healthy choices, rather than simply
> providing resources after the fact?

So are you saying that people fall onto the welfare rolls because they have
low education or self esteem or that if they just got those things they
would magically move out of welfare and in fact increasing the benefit
level to one that allowed people to obtain basic shelter and food would
just encourage more people to go on welfare?

I think it is highly patronizing to say
> to poor people, "we do not expect you to make healthy choices, so we will
> just be there when you need help." How is that empowering?
>
But you are assuming that people are making choices.  And what do people
need to make healthy choices?

S
Sherrie Tingley
Barrie Action Committee for Women
[log in to unmask]

> Alana
> [log in to unmask]