Atkinson Charitable Foundation

Last month's "Make Poverty History" concerts brought critical attention to the role of governments in tackling poverty at home and abroad. But those events were just the beginning.

After the music stops, our actions will determine the seriousness of our commitment to making a difference.

As Canada's premiers hold their annual gathering this week, we remind them that they, too, have a major role in the campaign to make poverty history — and it begins in the premiers' own backyards.

Understandably, issues related to federal-provincial funding and collaboration will dominate the agenda. After all, issues of fiscal capacity and federal-provincial lack of co-operation have been at the heart of why the fight against child poverty in Canada has often seemed stalled.

The good news is that in recent years, federal and provincial governments have made a good start on addressing child poverty: stronger child benefits, a new deal on quality child care and commitments to new affordable housing.

The not-so-good news is that there's a great deal of work left to do in these areas and in bolstering a labour market that is simply not producing enough good jobs that allow families to thrive, or even survive.

The situation is actually getting worse despite a growing economy. The most recent numbers from Statistics Canada show that the child poverty rate is growing again. More than 1 million children — nearly one in six — live in families experiencing poverty. Most of those families are working but still cannot make ends meet.

We are seeking an inspired effort by the premiers. Instead of the usual finger-pointing, here's an opportunity to place children at the heart of a pitch for a renewed partnership.

The premiers should agree that in return for increased, sustained federal funding, they will be accountable for investing in social programs that will reduce poverty.

But the crucial message for the premiers this year is not simply about more cash in the form of a blank cheque.

The Canada Social Transfer, the current vehicle through which the federal government sends money to the provinces for social programs, can and should be a driver of community programs and income supports that promote social inclusion in Canada.

In return for new funds, provinces and territories should pledge to work with communities and non-governmental organizations to ensure targeted funds can be accounted for and are transparent. This can be done by separating the funds for post-secondary education, early childhood education and care and social services, for example, into individual envelopes.

Ultimately, Canadians want to know that social policy is making a difference. That provinces and the federal government are guided by shared principles that ensure, for example,an opportunity for every child in Canada to succeed. That funds for early childhood education and care are used to support high quality services for families.

That funding for post-secondary education helps to make university and college education more accessible, especially for low-income students. That families on social assistance can live in dignity and that new affordable housing units are being built.

Building a nation in which children thrive is the surest basis for a high level of health and well-being and a strong foundation for sustainable economic prosperity.

Now that is something that governments from coast to coast to coast, and across all jurisdictions, should be able to rally around.

Premiers, this year, let's put a "first call" on the nation's resources for Canada's families and children.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Laurel Rothman is the national co-ordinator of Campaign 2000, a cross-Canada coalition striving to end child and family poverty. Peter Bleyer is president of Canadian Council on Social Development.

Alberta moving ahead on private health care - Will lead to less choice for many

Ralph Klein thinks patients who can afford to pay for health care should "not jump the line, but move out of the line." Which begs the question: Just where would these patients move to?

The Alberta premier concedes that emergency medical services are not for sale. That leaves non-emergency care; but this requires medical examinations, diagnostic tests and treatment.

Who's going to provide those services? We already have waiting lists for precisely that type of health care. Expanding a parallel system of clinics and operating theatres will take millions, even billions, in private investors' resources, and time to train more people.

The only way to "move out of the line" and into the market for health care, is to raid the existing supply of public health-care professionals. This is a straight trade-off between who gets seen first, and who has to wait longer.

Given the higher price tag of faster care — and presumably the higher rates of pay, lower stress or shorter hours of work — get ready for the giant sucking sound of health-care workers being siphoned from the public sector to the private market.

Alberta's premier says the solution is not more public money, but more choice. While the alternative to the status quo he suggests will indeed provide some people more choice, it will come at the expense of many others having less choice.

Klein's frustration with the speed of change is understandable, and underscores why he sees the Supreme Court ruling representing a real opportunity to move ahead.

Indeed this is an opportunity: The opportunity for governments in all parts of the country to show how strategic public investments can provide the best value for money and quality of care for Canadians of all income levels.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Armine Yalnizyan,

"In Search of a Mandate?" By Roy Romanow

“Access to Care, Access to Justice: The Legal Debate Over Private Health Insurance in Canada”

I want to begin my remarks by thanking Colleen Flood, Kent Roach, Lorne Sossin and the Faculty of Law in the University of Toronto for organizing this very important and timely conference. They have done a wonderful job in assembling leading academics and practitioners who have a particular interest in the legal dimensions of health care policy. So, it’s indeed a great honour to share the stage with these accomplished individuals.

Friends, let me be clear at the outset. In my view, there is no better window on the future of our nation, than the manner in which we collectively deal with medicare. How we handle the issues arising from the recurrent debates on the provision of health care provides us with a glimpse of our future together — or not! Is the federation to become an association? Will a particular ideology prevail, despite the preponderance of evidence that its tenets are contrary to Canada’s core values? Will this decision end the great social experiment known around the world as Canada? Are we seeing a disruption of our special balance between individual and community, and a movement against nation and toward enterprise?

Whatever may be the eventual answers to these questions, we are at yet another serious crossroads in both health care and its contribution to nation building, Canadian identity, and, not least, health outcomes.

As we know, this conference focuses on the legal debate concerning the role of private health care insurance in Canada, particularly in light of the Supreme Court of Canada’s majority decision of June 9, 2005, in Chaoulli v. Attorney General of Quebec.[1] Now I must admit, that based on the evidence I have examined, as well as my understanding of the fundamental principles of health policy, and my involvement in the implementation of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, this decision came as a surprise to me. That four of the seven Supreme Court sitting justices would rule in favour of Mr. Chaoulli, a physician looking to practice privately, and Mr. Zeliotis, a patient who had to wait for a hip operation, and essentially tell the Quebec government that its ban on private health insurance was in violation of Quebec’s Charter and by clear implication the Canadian Charter, as well, was in the words of one health policy expert, “astonishing”.[2]

The Court basically said that the prohibition of private health insurance enacted by a democratically elected provincial government was bad public policy – indeed, they described it as “arbitrary”. Despite this, according to a June 2005 Statistics Canada report, where over 80% of Canadians, including Quebeckers, are satisfied with the quality of health care they receive.[3]

This decision also touches upon a longstanding and related issue with respect to Canadian politics. Quebec has consistently held the position that the delivery of health care is an area of exclusive provincial jurisdiction. This view holds that provinces may deliver health care in the fashion they deem desirable. I do not subscribe to this view myself because I believe there is a constitutional and national role for the federal government to ensure that all Canadians in all regions have citizenship rights to equal access to medicare services. But this decision —needlessly — has fuelled further the debate about which level of government is responsible for what policies and programs in Canada.

We witnessed the Court move from deciding questions of constitutional law to matters of major public policy. Why? Were a few members of the Supreme Court in search of a mandate to venture into the world of politics? Seems so, and they did it in such a thunderous way! This remarkable level of activism on the part of the Court troubles even many of those who are sympathetic to the end result.[4]

That said, as we take a closer look at the issues arising from this somewhat startling decision, I want to suggest a touch of caution. It is my view that we need to distinguish between what the various justices have actually written and the intended or unintended permission that some proponents of private health care — high on ideology and low on evidence — have gleaned, even exploited, from this case.

[2] The Expansion of Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

Section 7 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is well known to everyone in this audience, but at the outset of this conference it is perhaps worthwhile to restate what it says. Section 7 states: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and the security of person and the right to not be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.”[5]

Originally, the constitutional and political negotiators involved in the debate over the Charter and its entrenchment raised concerns over the meaning of this section and, in particular, the words “in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice” as revealed by section 7. To Mr. Justice Barry Strayer, representing the federal government as counsel at the time, these words would “…cover the same thing as what is called procedural due process…it…does not cover the concept of what is called substantive due process, which would impose substantive requirements as to the policy of the law in question.”[6]

Even for those who maintained their apprehensions about an entrenched Charter, this interpretation found favour. It reflected the consensus of the Constitutional negotiators. I know because I had the extraordinary experience of serving as co-chair with Jean Chretien over an extended period of time during which politicians, academics, and legal experts debated the policy, the details, implications, and proposed compromises to be recommended to the First Ministers.

One compromise was section 1, which mandated the courts to carefully balance their views with those of the elected lawmakers. It is a constitutional reminder for the courts that they need to establish an appropriate balance between the interests of the individual and society when deciding cases of this nature.

The Charter, when finally accepted by all governments except Quebec, was understood to be a constitutional vehicle that would protect our most vulnerable communities, as medicare does for those who cannot pay individually for their health care needs. Thus, as originally intended, and as court cases previous to Chaoulli have confirmed, “section 7 did not protect against economic deprivations or guarantee benefits that might enhance life, liberty or security of person.”[7]

In fact, prior to the Supreme Court’s decision on Chaoulli and even the gradual expansion of the applicability of section 7, the principles of fundamental justice were understood to reflect commitments to due process, sanctity of life, and domestic and international human rights guarantees.[8]

In the Quebec Court of Appeal’s majority decision on Chaoulli, Delisile, J. stated that, “access to medicare was a fundamental right under section 7 and it was clear that the provision of health care did not extend to a right to purchase private health insurance since it was an economic claim not fundamental to human life.”[9]

Despite this, all seven Supreme Court judges sitting on the Chaoulli court found that long waiting times in the public sector may, at least in some circumstances, engage section 7. But Justice Binnie, LeBel, and Fish, in their dissenting opinion, were not persuaded that even when waiting engaged section 7 that the principles of fundamental justice were breached. They wrote: “The courts can use s.7 of the Canadian Charter to pre‑empt the ongoing public debate only if the current health plan violates an established ‘principle of fundamental justice’. That is not the case here.”[10]

The net legal effect of the Chaoulli decision is that in grappling with medicare, the Court has ventured beyond constitutional and legal principles and into complex social policy, an area that has traditionally been in the domain of elected lawmakers.

I argue that the whole of the history of Section 7 jurisprudence has been marked by high sensitivity to the potentially expansive content of “security of the person” and “principles of fundamental justice.” The constrained context in which the Court has heretofore allowed these terms to be pleaded has served to preserve a healthy separation of legislative and judicial powers.

But not here! Here, there is a loose connection between any health care condition and the idea of a constitutionally protected “security of the person.”

Here, justice is calculated by personal preference while broader social need is ignored.

Here, the imperative of markets and consumerism defines “justice”, not the logic of responding equitably to human need and suffering.

Section 7, I can tell you with complete assurance, was not designed to expel broad social need from the forums of good government!

The implications of this decision could signal further attempts to seek major reversals to other public policies and programs. Will this lead to further attacks on the fundamental values of Canadians, which favour redistribution and social justice? As Professor John Whyte has written, “the program of state distribution has been followed by an explanatory philosophy which has explicitly explored this political behaviour in terms of the idea of justice…it is now commonplace to think of the state’s imposition of burdens and benefits as either promoting social justice or on the contrary, being fundamentally unjust.”[11] Not both.

There is another perplexing dimension to this decision. The majority found Quebec laws banning private health insurance to be arbitrary and they did so based on the evidence they had before them. But the evidence they heard was not from the millions of Canadians who receive great health care from public Medicare and who, notwithstanding their concerns about its future continue to support it.

Rather the evidence they reviewed came from others for example, the Canadian Medical Association and individual physicians unhappy with the constraints of public Medicare. Granting intervener status to Senators, armed more with opinion than evidence, was odd in this regard since they have a parliamentary forum in which to argue their views. In the majority opinion, McLachlin, CJ and Major J, write, “the evidence that the existence of the health care system would be jeopardized by human reactions to the emergence of a private system carries little weight.”[12] However, we are entitled to ask on what specific evidence is this statement made. Were unsubstantiated opinions offered by some interveners taken as fact?

Let’s consider a few of the major studies that have chronicled the health care system in the United States; a system which, according to 2003 data compiled by the OECD, spends 15% of its GDP on health care. In Canada, by contrast, this figure amounts to 9.9% -- despite the fact that our vast geography and uneven demographics do us few favours in terms of economies of scale.

What’s the result? One example in a study on medical bankruptcies in the United States, which account for half of all bankruptcies in that country, Himmelstein, et al, report that in 2001, between 1.9 and 2.2 million Americans filed for bankruptcy because of medical causes.[13] Moreover, another study reveals that, in 1999, the cost of paper work for healthcare in the United States amounted to US$1059 per capita, per year while in Canada, the figure was US$307 per capita, per year.[14] These differences demonstrate the inefficiencies associated with private for-profit delivery and, more precisely, how it would impact on, in the words of some of the justices, on, in their words, “human reactions.” Why? Simply put, single-payer systems offering universal coverage obviate the need of thousands of hours being spent designing employee health benefit plans, selecting which HMO or provider to contract with and for what basket of services, variable deductibles, eligibility of family members for benefits, the costs of signing people on- and off - benefit plans based on their employment, and on and on. And that’s before we get to the unique challenges of insuring those who frequently change employer or who go from job to job, or who are simply too ill to work.

The implied conclusion that timely access to health care services will be improved with the establishment of a parallel private scheme flies in the face of all of the evidence with which I grappled for 18 months as Royal Commissioner. The evidence that I speak of was gathered from numerous independent studies on this particular topic and others by some of the world’s foremost experts. In addition, the evidence was gathered in round table deliberations of experts in London (UK); Paris; Washington, D.C; meetings with OECD representatives in Ottawa in 2001; through actual sight visits to hospitals and clinics both here in Canada and abroad in countries such as France and Sweden; and most importantly, from listening to thousands of Canadians about their concerns, solutions and values.

This gathering of evidence also closely examined those schemes that sought to graft the private onto the public. Today, this is described as the so-called “Third-Way,” neither public nor private, but a mixture of both. It has arisen because we are told that no one wants the American model. However, the proposed ‘Third Way’ model has been tried and found wanting.

Don’t simply take my word for it. Commenting on this particular type of health system, Ted Marmor explains that:

…the experience of private supplementary insurance in Europe is that parallel financing persistently raises questions of fairness. They are a never ending source of complaint as illustrated by the controversies over pay beds in British NHS hospitals, private insurance coverage of co-payments in France, and the exiting from the public insurance “pool” of those in Germany’s top 10 percent of income earners.[15]

Still, proponents of private delivery advocate more of it, citing European — often non-existent hybrid ― examples.

The evidence that mixing and matching private and public with respect to the payment and delivery of health care services leads to the conclusion that, based on economics, health outcomes, and fundamental values, this type of system is very unlikely to succeed. As Marmor, who has studied these models, cautions: “evaluating Canada’s ban involves matters of judgement about what is fair and less costly, not what is simply possible to do.”[16]

The key point is this: if the ultimate objective is to inject substantial change in medicare, then there needs to be evidence to justify these changes. The mantra of “more choice” is insufficient. We know that Mr. Zeliotis’ one-year wait for hip surgery was unreasonable in the eyes of the Supreme Court, yet the Court did not say what a reasonable wait time is. And, it did not say what should be a reasonable wait time in other individual cases for this procedure? What’s more, it was loudly silent on the wait times associated with the thousands of other medical procedures and treatments that exist today.

And, whenever private pay is layered upon a public system, there has been a drift of human resources to the private side, providing timely care for the few, and making it worse for the many.

Accordingly, one may ask, does the Supreme Court of Canada now replace the professional health care providers in making these complicated determinations?

To paraphrase noted British political scientist, Richard Rose, the best answers come from the questions we ask. Although this conference has been framed in terms of considering the legal debate over access to justice and care, to me, the Chaoulli decision encompasses much broader issues. What is the political impact of this decision? How does it conform to public values? What is the effect on national unity? Will Canada be strengthened by the decision in the future?

We know that in November of this year, ardent supporters of the Chaoulli decision will meet to discuss how to expand on this decision, legally and politically, in order to develop a parallel private health care system. Yet, when I delivered my health care report, it was made clear that “Canadians embrace medicare as a public good, a national symbol and a defining aspect of their citizenship” and as such, there was little appetite for the inclusion of a parallel private system.[17] This sentiment, in fact, was expressed through an open and democratic process, which received input by Canadians from all walks of life. This indeed has to mean something.

Predominantly, the Chaoulli decision suggests that the measure of a good health care system is centred on the amount of time that someone is on a waiting list. While this is important, I believe a values-based health care system encompasses much broader criteria.

Take, for example, the characteristics of a good and fair health care system as laid out by the World Health Organization (WHO). The WHO suggests that health consists of: (a) overall health—meaning the population is relatively healthy; (b) fair distribution of good health—meaning citizens have access to services regardless of where they happen to reside; (c) high degree of responsiveness—in terms of responding to people’s expectations; and (d) a fair distribution of health care financing — meaning that people are not excluded from receiving adequate service because they are unable to pay for it.[18]

The wait list issue must be seen and dealt with in the context of overall reforms and health outcomes.

In sum, the Court’s decision should be a clarion call to all — practitioners, policy experts, legal experts, and especially the public and the politicians they elect --- to get on with badly needed reforms to medicare before those clamouring for its destruction gather more momentum. That may have been what the Court intended.

Now, whether you agree or disagree with my comments, I hope one idea forms the basis of common purpose today: health care is not an economic or legal construct, but rather, a political construct informed by fundamental values. And it is this view that has given medicare its legitimacy. “We all know,” as Greg Marchildon writes, “that the demand for health care services is potentially limitless. After a protracted debate, we long ago decided, that at least for medicare services, rationing should be based upon urgency of need rather than ability to pay.”[19] The outcome of that debate signified that medicare is, in fact, a public good and not an economic commodity.

Hopefully the Court will recalibrate in this direction and that this decision was an aberration, not a move towards a broader mandate.

In closing, Martin Luther King Jr. once said: Of all the forms of inequality, injustice in health care is the most shocking and inhumane. I believe that Canadian’s overwhelmingly share this sentiment. As a result, the rumours regarding the death of medicare are greatly exaggerated. I believe Canada will find the courage to reform and sustain its most cherished social program.

[1] Chaoulli v. Quebec (Attorney General) 2005 SCC. Obtained from, http://www.lexum.umontreal.ca/csc-scc/en/rec/html/2005scc035.wpd.html

[2] Steven Lewis, “Medicare’s Fate: Are we Fiddlers or Firefighters?” Winnipeg Free Press, Sunday June 12, 2005, obtained from, http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/westview/story/2847826p-3297880c.html.

[3] As found on CBC Online, “Health Care.” June 10, 2005. Obtained from http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/healthcare.

[4] See for example, Norman Spector, “Blame the Boomers for the Supreme’s Diagnosis,” The Globe and Mail (Toronto: June 12, 2005) A13 and David Frum, “Bad Decision, Good Result,” National Post (Toronto: June 14, 2005) A15.

[5] Department of Justice Canada. Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Schedule B, Constitution Act, 1982. Obtained from, http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/charter/index.html.

[6] J.D. Whyte, “Fundamental Justice: The Scope and Application of Section 7 of the Charter,” in Canadian Constitutional Law, Volume II, P. Macklem et, al., eds. (Toronto: Emond Montgomery Publications Limited, 1994) 517. Emphasis added by the author.

[7] Martha Jackman, “Section 7 of the Charter and Health-Care Spending,” in The Fiscal Sustainability of Health Care in Canada, Romanow Papers, Volume 1, Gregory P. Marchildon, Tom McIntosh, and Pierre-Gerlier Forest, eds. (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2004) 115.

[8] See for example, R. v. Parker 2000. [2000] OJ No.2787 (Ont.CA) and R. v. Morgantaler. 1988. [1988] 1 SCR 30.

[9] Chaoulli v. Quebec (Procureure generale). 2000 [2000] JQ no 479 (Cour superieure du Quebec-Cambre civile) paragraph 25.

[10] See Binnie, J. Supra note, 1. Emphasis added by the author.

[11] Supra note 6, 519.

[12] McLachlin, C.J., supra note 1, para 65.

[13] David Himmelstein, et.al, “Ilness and Injury as Contributors to Bankruptcy,” in Health Affairs: The Policy Journal of the Health Sphere, vol. 24 no. 1 February 2, 2005.

[14] Steffie Woolhandler, Terry Campbell, and David U. Himmelstein, “Costs of Health Care Adminsitration in the United States and Canada,” New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 349, No 8, August 21 2003, 768-775.

[15] Ted Marmor, “An American in Canada—Making Sense of the Supreme Court Decision on Health Care,” in Policy Options, September 2005 (Montreal: Institute for Research on Public Policy) 42.

[16] Supra note 16.

[17] Supra note, 17, xviii.

[18] World Health Organization, The World Health Report 2000—Health Systems: Improving Performance (Geneva: WHO 2000) 27-35.

[19] Gregory P. Marchildon, “The Chaoulli case: Two-Tier Magna Carta?” in Law & Governance, June 2005 (Toronto: Longwoods) 4. Obtained from, http://www.longwoods.com/product.php?productid=171.

Early learning curve - Toronto First Duty

Early learning curve

A decade after a royal commission urged Ontario schools to open their doors to 3-year-olds, an east Toronto neighbourhood experiments with an innovative model, writes Laurie Monsebraaten

When school began Tuesday, 3-year-old Rebeka Keys was one of the first kids through the door.

"When I said `yes,' Rebeka began cheering: `Yay. A school day,'" her mother, Margaret says.

When the answer was another yes, Rebeka could barely contain herself. "Oh Mommy, I'm so glad."

Rebeka and 25 other 3-year-olds at Bruce Public School are part of Toronto First Duty, a pilot project funded by the city, the Toronto District School Board and the Atkinson Charitable Foundation in partnership with several community agencies.

The project, which has been running at the school for three years, has been experimenting with different ways of delivering enriched kindergarten to 4- and 5-year olds.

This year the innovative program has been expanded to include 3-year-olds — a first for Toronto. The preschool follows the successful kindergarten model, which gives parents the flexibility to choose a free half-day program, a full school day for $6 and care outside school hours for an additional $6.

In both programs, parents can enrol their children for as few as 2 1/2 hours of free learning per week, or as many as five full school days with before- and after-school care for $60 a week.

It's a far cry from traditional school-based child care, which operates outside the education system and offers parents little choice but a full-day program for a flat monthly fee ranging from $700 to $1,000.

Penny Morris, co-ordinator of the Bruce project, says kids in the neighbourhood have first dibs on the program on a first-come, first-served basis. But families from outside the area are clamouring to get in and already, a waiting list is growing.

Toronto First Duty runs similar integrated early learning programs in four other neighbourhoods but none are as advanced as the Bruce site.

At Bruce school, Woodgreen Community Services, which runs five local daycare centres, has partnered with the kindergarten program and parenting centre, where mothers and fathers can take part in activities with their children.The kindergarten program is run by a team of Bruce teachers and Woodgreen child-care staff, which works together to offer a seamless experience for the kids. Teachers aren't part of the preschool but are involved in broader team planning for the whole project.

"Not only is the program well-run and enriching for kids, it's affordable for parents," says Rebeka's mom, a lawyer at a community legal clinic.

Kristen Chow, who like Rebeka is enrolled in the program for the entire day, wakes from her noon-time nap just as several parents are dropping off their children for the afternoon. Chow's father Kenny, who is looking for work as a systems analyst, hopes the program will help his 3-year-old learn English and improve her attention span.

"I really like the program and especially the school environment," he says. "We also hope she will make some friends from the neighbourhood."

Jessica Chan, who has just had lunch with her four children in the parenting centre, arrives with William, her youngest, who will turn 3 in December. "I spend time with him in the parenting room in the morning. I like the circle time. It helps him learn to sit down and listen to a story," she says. She has enrolled William in the afternoon program to help him learn some independence. "I think it's really important to start early."

The afternoon starts in the arts and crafts area where children work on their fine motor skills, colour identification and creativity.

Blake Ball, another child from the neighbourhood who attends every afternoon, paints "Batman and his Batmobile."

His mom Roslyn, who looks after two babies in her home during the day, says the program is a welcome relief for her active son — and for her.

"We spend many mornings in the parenting centre, but I have to go home in the afternoon to put the babies to sleep," she says.

"This gives him something to do in the afternoon. And I think this will be a great bridge to junior kindergarten."

As the children complete their art work, they drift off to the various areas of the room to learn through play. They are guided by two full-time child-care staff who run the program and one student from George Brown College's early childhood program, who is here on a work placement. A part-time staffer rotates in and out as the others take breaks to ensure there's always at least two adults in the room.

While 26 children are enrolled in the program this fall, there is a maximum of just 16 kids in the room at any time.

With just nine children attending this afternoon, there's lots of adult attention. Lidia Eyob, who is sporting three pigtails in her curly black hair, wanders over to the "make-believe" area and begins to try on hats and scarves with child-care worker Cariann Perreault.

Meanwhile William's mom, who has decided to stay with her son this afternoon, is helping Rebeka and the boys assemble a wooden parking garage for toy cars in the block area.

They're having a whale of a time. But over at the window, Brooklyn Rose is looking out longingly for her mother.

Brooklyn, 3, is the baby of the family — her closest sibling is 11 — and her mother hopes the program will help her daughter meet some new friends and gain some independence.

"She knows her ABCs, her phone number and her address. But she has a hard time separating from me," Mary Rose tells us as she leaves.

Student worker Dan Roffey, whose strawberry blond dreadlocks just scream "fun," tries to coax Brooklyn from the window.

"I've got some puzzles that need to be put together. Can you help me? I don't know where to start," he says.

"It's difficult during the first couple of days for some children," acknowledges Esther Miller, the senior staff person in the room with 14 years as an early childhood educator under her belt. "But they all come around."

Miller, 42, is both a parent and a grandparent and believes strongly in the parent-teacher partnership.

"Some parents come because they want their kids to learn to socialize, some to learn English, others feel frustrated at home and just want a break. We're here to help," she says.

The wide range of options for parents is what Miller likes best about the program. Elaine Levy, director of child-care services for Woodgreen, hopes the idea will catch on.

"The flexibility that we're able to offer in this model is what makes it innovative, exciting and it really addresses a whole segment of the population, which up to now, really hasn't had these kinds of options," she says.

Full-day, school-readiness programs for 3- to 5-year-olds was one of four recommendations of the 1995 provincial Royal Commission on Learning.

"We believe early education is one of the most powerful engines for transforming our educational system," said the commission's report. "We are convinced that early childhood education must be part of public education, offered as an option for all 3- to 5-year olds for the full day, with the option of a half-day schedule for those parents who may prefer it."

At the time, the idea of 3-year-olds in school was ridiculed by then opposition leader Mike Harris. And parents in rural areas questioned how practical it would be to bus kids that young to school.

But today, the concept is embraced by respected academics like Fraser Mustard, international think tanks like the OECD and parents — both working and in the home — who are looking for enriching experiences for their tots that they can afford.

Quebec has been offering full-day kindergarten for 5-year-olds through the school system since 1996 and now provides $7-a-day programs in early childhood centres for kids from birth to age 4. Europeans countries like Sweden, France, Spain and Italy provide universal preschool.

The federal government's recent $5 billion, five-year commitment to early learning and child care is helping Canadian provinces outside Quebec catch up.

Ontario, through its Best Start program, is focusing on school-based child care for 4- and 5-year-olds outside the regular half-day kindergarten program.

Toronto Councillor Olivia Chow (Ward 20, Trinity-Spadina), who heads the mayor's roundtable on children and youth, says the city is committed to the First Duty model and hopes to expand it to other schools and child-care centres in the city.

"We think we have a model that works for parents and kids. We hope the province will work with us on the next steps," she says.

A spokesperson for Children's Minister Mary Anne Chambers says First Duty meets the province's goal of providing seamless learning for children. And lessons learned from the Toronto pilot project will help other communities that are planning similar programs.

While the 1995 commission envisioned early childhood education would gradually replace kindergarten programs and become part of the public school system, strings attached to federal daycare money prevent provinces from using the funds in the formal education system.

So for now, the different components of the Bruce program — the parenting centre, kindergarten and early learning for 3-year-olds — are funded separately. But as Levy at Woodgreen says, the model can be transferred today to any environment where the players are willing to participate.

Book Review...Telling Tales: Living the Effects of Public Policy

The Record is alerting Waterloo Regional residents to the significant poverty in our community, which has remained the same or increased, even in times of prosperity. As readers, we are finding out the actual costs of the policy changes made by the Harris and Eves governments. Toronto Dominion Bank has issued “From Welfare to Work in Ontario: Still the Road Less Travelled” on September 8^th, 2005, which documents the problems with Ontario Works as well as pending financial disaster for Toronto and other urban areas if the economy has a downturn. Maintaining low minimum wages without benefits means individuals cannot leave Ontario Works. Providing low social assistance rates without enough incentives and support to find a job is a problem not only for the working poor and those on Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program, but also for all residents who pay property taxes and want a healthy city.

Telling Tales is not an economic report but the stories of people from moderate and lower incomes as well as from different races, genders, family compositions, and ages. These 40 family units have been selected to represent a wide spectrum of Ontario’s residents and have been interviewed in 1997, 1998, and 1999. These families report the effects of “down-loading” to regional and municipal governments as well as “off-loading” when individuals and families need to provide the services or funding previously provided by governments.

Many families and individuals were doing well before 1995, but then had significant financial and social struggle when they had personal difficulties, such as needing to take care of older parents, providing books for children in school, losing financial equity because of disability, or being laid off work. Children were not able to participate in recreational activities. Parents had difficulty accessing daycare so that they could work full time. Fewer workers qualified for Employment Insurance. Ontario and federal policies made life much more difficult and took away the safety net which previously provided temporary support for families and individuals.

From Transitions, published in 1986 by the Peterson Liberal government, we know that individuals and families are only on social assistance for a short period of time. One year or less is the average for individuals; three years for single parents with very young children; five to seven years for persons with disability; these are averages and there are obviously some exceptions. These trends continue as statistics in Waterloo Region are compiled. Myths and urban legends--which work against individuals and families needing support--talk about families being in poverty for several generations; this is rarely true. Those of us working in social services find terrible isolation and loneliness among the poor; they do not have the family and social supports of the average Canadian.

But Telling Tales is not just about the poor; it demonstrates the difficulties that government policies caused for middle and lower class families and individuals. A mother needs to live with her daughter and son-in-law because none of them are able to find jobs that provided the money they need for food, shelter, and other essentials; they are not on and do not wish to obtain Ontario Works; they fear losing the house which the mother has purchased and is their only real capital. A wife decides to go back to work, but can not because she needs to care for her parents; she must rely on her husband’s income. Another woman wants to go back to work but has few opportunities for training and can not find jobs that pay $10/ hour or more. New Canadians are hopeful of the future, but find their credentials are not honoured in Ontario, so they use all their savings while trying to find jobs; they want their children to have a North American education and opportunities.

Does government action have an impact on our households? As an Ontario citizen, I have looked long and hard to see how policy changes affect my pay cheque; there has been very little change, but then I’m not among the economic top 10% in Ontario. As a community worker and pastor, I have seen the terrible predicament of moderate and low income families and individuals because of cutbacks, downloading, and off-loading. It has been helpful to read Telling Tales as I reflect on the past ten years as well as work for a better Canadian society in the years ahead.

It’s time to regain our sense of caring for all Canadians as a community. I don’t think we ever lost that concern. Telling Tales can help people understand what happened and why everyone should be interested in government policy. It does affect our lives and the lives of our neighbours.

Brice Balmer is a Mennonite pastor and secretary for Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition, which addresses provincial issues of social and economic marginalization.

L'argent ne fait pas le bonheur

À quoi tient le degré de bonheur d'une population? Essentiellement à la
vigueur de son économie, ainsi qu'on serait porté à le croire si on en juge
par l'importance accordée dans les sociétés développées à la seule mesure du
produit intérieur brut (PIB). Mais comment ne pas tenir compte d'autres
facteurs comme la santé, la sécurité, le temps passé avec sa famille ou
encore la qualité de l'environnement? À quand la mesure du bonheur intérieur
brut?

Le Canada devrait bientôt disposer d'un nouvel indice visant à mesurer le
degré de bien-être de ses citoyens. En voie d'élaboration par plus d'une
vingtaine d'économistes et d'experts en sciences sociales, cet indice
placerait le pays aux avant-postes dans ce type de mesures.

«Je crois que nous avons besoin de nouveaux outils pour mesurer et suivre
l'évolution de facteurs clés qui influent sur notre bien-être et notre
qualité de vie», déclare le parrain de cette initiative financée par une
fondation privée, l'ancien premier ministre de la Saskatchewan et
ex-président de la Commission sur l'avenir des soins de santé au Canada, Roy
Romanow. «Ce nouvel indice comprendra un ensemble d'indicateurs qui
reflètent les valeurs que les Canadiens jugent importantes pour leur qualité
de vie. Il nous montrera également la voie à suivre pour connaître une
prospérité économique qui soit durable à long terme.»

Le nouvel indice se veut moins une solution de rechange qu'un contrepoids à
l'indice qui occupe presque toute la place dans les pays développés à
l'heure actuelle: l'indice du produit intérieur brut. «Il n'y a pas de
problème en soi avec le PIB», explique Ron Colman, directeur général de
l'organisation GPI Atlantic et directeur de recherche du projet. «Cet indice
accomplit parfaitement le travail pour lequel il a été conçu. Le problème,
c'est qu'on en est arrivé, depuis les années 50 et 60, à le percevoir comme
une mesure du degré de bonheur des citoyens.»

D'une certaine manière, cela se comprend. Il est en effet assez raisonnable
de croire que plus une société produit de richesse, plus elle est en mesure
de satisfaire les divers besoins de ses membres. C'est en principe pour
cette raison que la mesure du PIB prend chaque fois autant d'importance dans
nos sociétés, que la moindre variation à la hausse est source de fierté et
que la moindre baisse suscite tant d'inquiétude de la part des politiciens
et des experts.

Les gens ont beau dire, dans les sondages, que rien ne les comble plus de
joie qu'une famille unie, une bonne santé ou leurs enfants, c'est encore
l'argent qui, dans les faits, semble avoir le plus d'impact, note Christian
Bourque, vice-président recherche à la firme de sondages Léger Marketing.
«Ils se disent plus heureux aujourd'hui que durant la récession du début des
années 90, raconte-t-il, ce qui ne veut pas dire que les gens les plus
riches sont nécessairement les plus heureux. Seulement, ils tendent à se
dire plus heureux lorsqu'ils ont l'impression que la situation financière
s'améliorera à l'avenir.»

D'où le grand intérêt qu'on prête à une autre mesure économique: celle de la
confiance des consommateurs. La plus utilisée en Amérique du Nord, mise au
point à l'université du Michigan, sonde la perception des gens à l'égard de
leur situation financière personnelle et de l'économie en général. En plus
de mesurer l'état d'esprit des citoyens, cet indice revêt une grande
importance en matière de croissance compte tenu du fait que plus de 60 % de
l'activité économique repose sur la consommation des ménages.

Ces indices restent toutefois bien imparfaits pour mesurer le véritable
degré de bien-être de la population. D'abord parce que le PIB ne tient
aucunement compte du degré de répartition de la richesse au sein de la
population. Ensuite, comme le déplorait un des concepteurs de l'indice, le
Prix Nobel d'économie Simon Kuznets, parce qu'il n'accorde aucune valeur au
travail non rémunéré, que ce soit celui de la mère restée à la maison pour
s'occuper des enfants ou celui du bénévole qui vient en aide aux démunis.
Mais aussi parce que toutes les activités qui rapportent de l'argent sont
considérées sur le même pied et que, à ce titre, le naufrage d'un pétrolier
au large d'une réserve nationale ou l'explosion du nombre de cas de diabète
ou d'asthme pourraient être considérés comme de bonnes nouvelles à cause de
toute l'activité économique qu'ils généreront. De ce point de vue, une forêt
encore debout ou le moindre filon de minerai ne sont qu'autant de chances
ratées de faire rouler l'économie.

«Il y a un paradoxe au coeur de notre civilisation, écrivait récemment
Richard Layard, économiste à la London School of Economics. Les individus
veulent de meilleurs revenus. Pourtant, bien que la société soit devenue
plus riche, les gens ne sont pas plus heureux. Au cours des 50 dernières
années, nous avons eu de meilleures maisons, plus de vêtements, de plus
longues vacances et, surtout, une meilleure santé. Pourtant, les sondages
montrent clairement que le degré de bonheur n'a augmenté ni aux États-Unis,
ni au Japon, ni en Europe.»

Ce paradoxe commande une profonde remise en cause, estiment plusieurs. À
commencer par la façon dont nous mesurons les progrès réalisés.

Les premiers efforts en vue de la mise au point d'un plus grand nombre
d'indicateurs qui ne soient pas seulement de nature économique remontent aux
années 60 et 70. Ce mouvement a connu une interruption au cours des années
80, après que plusieurs pays et certaines agences internationales en eurent
réduit les budgets. Il a repris de l'ampleur depuis les années 90.

Le Canada fait figure de leader dans ce domaine. La rigueur méthodologique
et l'inventivité de Statistique Canada sont réputées à travers le monde. Les
enquêtes lancées au début des années 90 sur de nouveaux sujets comme la
vieillesse et la retraite ou la conciliation famille-travail existent
maintenant depuis assez longtemps pour qu'on commence à pouvoir détecter des
tendances, note Hervé Gauthier, coordonnateur de l'unité des conditions de
vie à l'Institut de la statistique du Québec. «Notre difficulté aujourd'hui
est surtout de trouver le temps et les ressources nécessaires pour traiter
toutes ces données», confie-t-il.

Une telle abondance d'information constitue un atout rare et précieux dont
on serait fou de se priver, dit Ron Colman. Si l'indice de développement
humain des Nations unies, bien connu ici depuis qu'il a consacré le Canada
«plus meilleur pays du monde», ne fait, par exemple, la synthèse que de
quatre indicateurs portant sur l'espérance de vie, la scolarisation et le
PIB par habitant, c'est qu'on n'avait pas le choix. Comme cette mesure
devait servir à comparer les pays entre eux, elle ne pouvait pas reposer sur
davantage de données que les pays les plus pauvres peuvent en fournir.

Le futur indice canadien n'aura pas ce problème. Il couvrira sept domaines:
le niveau de vie, la santé, l'organisation du temps, l'éducation, la
vitalité communautaire, l'environnement et la gouvernance. Chacun de ces
domaines comptera jusqu'à une vingtaine d'indicateurs, allant du revenu des
ménages à la quantité de polluants émis dans l'atmosphère en passant par le
niveau de bénévolat, le taux de décrochage scolaire, la récurrence de
certaines maladies et le temps passé avec sa famille.

Cinq ans après le début du travail, la liste des indicateurs qui doivent
entrer dans la définition des trois premiers domaines est relativement
complète, dit Ron Colman, dont le projet a jusqu'à présent été financé à
hauteur de 1,5 million par la Fondation Atkinson, qui se consacre à la
promotion de la justice économique et sociale. Cela devrait permettre le
dévoilement d'un premier rapport partiel au printemps prochain.

Une telle addition de données de toute nature peut facilement ne plus rien
signifier, font remarquer certains statisticiens. «Le principal problème
auquel nous faisons face est de déterminer le poids relatif que chaque
indicateur doit avoir sur l'indice général», reconnaît Ron Colman. Une
réunion de travail avec des experts européens aura lieu au début du mois
prochain. «Les Européens ont développé une très grande expertise dans les
indices composites.» On envisage déjà de donner deux notes, l'une sur le
contexte environnemental et l'autre sur tout le reste.

«Nous ne prétendons pas mesurer le niveau de bonheur des Canadiens, prend-il
la peine de préciser. Nous ne voulons qu'évaluer le degré d'atteinte de
facteurs connus pour leurs effets positifs sur la qualité de vie des gens.»

Il faudra également tenir compte des différences culturelles qui existent
dans le pays. Les grands sondages mondiaux sur les valeurs réalisés par le
chercheur américain Ronald Inglehart ont montré comment les populations
d'Amérique latine et de certains pays d'Extrême-Orient témoignaient d'un
sentiment de bien-être presque aussi grand que dans les pays riches, bien
qu'elles ne disposent que d'une fraction de leur confort matériel.

«Le Québec et le reste du Canada constituent sans contredit deux entités
qu'il faudra savoir distinguer dans notre enquête», dit Ron Colman. Cette
fois-ci, ce sont les Néo-Zélandais qui serviront de modèle aux chercheurs
canadiens. Ils ont inventé une mesure de préservation du «capital culturel»
et élaboré des indices distincts adaptés à la communauté maorie.

L'élaboration d'un indice de qualité de vie ne vise pas qu'à relever un défi
scientifique. «Il y a évidemment un aspect politique à tout cela. C'est une
façon de braquer les projecteurs sur des enjeux qui sont dans l'ombre», dit
Ron Colman. «On se rendra peut-être compte que si nos sociétés se sont
enrichies au fil des ans, cela pourrait bien s'être fait au détriment
d'autres facteurs qui font aussi la qualité de la vie.»

L'exemple le plus souvent cité en la matière est celui du royaume himalayen
du Bhoutan, dont le souverain, Jigme Singye Wangchuk, a décidé, un beau jour
de 1972, qu'il ne gouvernerait plus qu'en fonction d'une amélioration du
bonheur intérieur brut de son peuple. Depuis lors, ce petit pays d'un peu
plus de deux millions d'habitants est resté un des plus pauvres de la
planète, mais l'espérance de vie de sa population a gagné presque 20 ans et
le volume de touristes étrangers a été limité afin de ne pas déranger les
habitudes des habitants. On a aussi rédigé une nouvelle Constitution en
vertu de laquelle un premier gouvernement démocratique devrait bientôt être
élu. Aussi, 60 % du territoire devra rester sous couvert forestier en dépit
de la forte demande pour son bois précieux.

Tous n'aspirent pas à des réformes aussi radicales. «Aucun autre changement
ne vous fera autant progresser dans l'échelle du bonheur que de passer du
groupe le plus pauvre au groupe le plus riche d'une société», dit
l'économiste américain Robert Frank. Ce qui rend heureux, ce n'est pas le
revenu absolu, précise-t-il immédiatement, mais le revenu relatif,
c'est-à-dire le fait d'être plus riche que les autres, quel que soit le
niveau de cette richesse. En fait, à l'exception des gens plongés dans
l'indigence extrême, «le revenu absolu n'a aucune importance».

L'être humain est un animal compétitif, explique le professeur de
l'université Cornell, un des maîtres à penser dans le domaine, aux
États-Unis, avec le psychologue et Prix Nobel d'économie Daniel Kahneman. Il
se sent bien lorsqu'il a le sentiment d'avoir fait mieux que les autres, que
ce soit à la chasse aux mammouths ou en matière d'accumulation de biens. Il
est aussi réputé pour sa remarquable capacité d'adaptation. Ce qui fait en
sorte qu'il s'habitue et tient rapidement pour acquis le moindre gain
matériel.

Pour nos sociétés, une telle course au bonheur est perdue d'avance parce
qu'elle n'a pas de fin, dit-il. À moins qu'on n'apprenne à ses membres à
s'occuper aussi de leurs autres besoins, comme la sécurité, la santé ou
l'affection. Ou qu'on les force à le faire si nécessaire.

Les gouvernements pourraient par exemple augmenter le nombre minimum de
congés payés, suggère Robert Frank, ou renforcer la prévention en matière de
santé. Ils pourraient cesser d'être aussi défensifs en ce qui concerne
l'impôt, dit son collègue britannique Richard Layard, et reconnaître qu'ils
tiennent là un de leurs outils les plus efficaces pour décourager une
personne de travailler sans fin au détriment de sa vie personnelle. La lutte
contre le chômage, le crime ou l'étalement urbain devrait également être une
priorité, estime-t-il. Les entreprises devraient quant à elles se rendre
compte que si les primes au rendement accroissent la performance de leurs
employés, elles en minent aussi le moral, contrairement à des programmes de
formation professionnelle.

Il est urgent, quoi qu'il en soit, qu'on se pose directement la question du
degré de bonheur de la population, dit tout ce beau monde. «Il s'agit
d'aller au-delà de notre fixation sur la performance économique et de
s'intéresser à l'ensemble des facteurs qui composent l'être humain», résume
Ron Colman.

Thwarting Great Expectations - Letters to the Editor

Oct. 17, 2005

Schools need funds to help immigrants
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thwarting Great Expectations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Opinion, Oct. 13.

The need for federal support for immigrant children is a critical issue not just in Ontario but in the rest of Canada as well, particularly in large cities. Schools in Vancouver, Regina, Saskatoon, Winnipeg, Edmonton, Calgary, Montreal, Quebec city and Halifax all welcome immigrant children.

They arrive with needs and schools require resources to address those needs. Beyond the obvious one of second language acquisition, there are translation services required so that families can understand our school system; assessment is needed to ensure that children get the right school placement and that learning challenges are identified — many immigrant children have never been in school or have missed big chunks of their education.

Some children who have suffered trauma in their war-torn homelands need psychological services; a host of integration services for families and training for school staff are essential to make the settlement process a positive one.

The universal access point to our future is through our schools. Our educational institutions must be welcoming, prepared and effective. Making sure we get it right is everyone's responsibility and this absolutely includes the federal government.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gerri Gershon, President , Canadian School Boards Association, Toronto

Canadian Index of Wellbeing Hits the Road...

This fall the Foundation kickstarted a series of consultations to talk about the Canadian Index of Wellbeing. In partnership with the United Ways of Canada-Centraide Canada, CIW project partners and EKOS Research Associates, the consultations will travel to 13 communities from Whitehorse to St. John’s.

Along the way, these roundtables are providing crucial insights into how the CIW and its domains capture what Canadians care about, what’s missing and how the CIW can be used as a policy tool and track program effectiveness at the community level.

The consultation report will be available in February, and will inform the 2006 launch of the CIW’s first report looking at living standards, population health, and time allocation.

As part of the ongoing efforts to “connect the dots” between research areas, members of the CIW Research and Development Group met with the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre and the Canadian Council on Learning to investigate and plan for the development, validation and dissemination of a composite index. For further information about this event, visit http://farmweb.jrc.cec.eu.int/ci

Meanwhile, research teams are developing the education, community vitality and ecosystem health domains areas.

Since the release of Reality Check #10: Introducing the Canadian Index of Wellbeing, the CIW has generated great interest by the media, policy makers, researchers, community leaders, students and many others.

Look for the next issue of Reality Check to be release in early December and posted on this website. In this issue we explore the issue of energy – from dwindling oil supplies, rising fuel prices, global warming and the need to explore and plan for alternative and sustainable sources of energy.

Armine Yalnizyan & Bill Watson square off on federal budget

CIW newscast... looking ahead to 2010

CBC Show on Measuring Progress

"Measuring Community Progress" was the subject of CBC's Maritime Noon phone-in on August 29th.

Troubleshooting media files

To watch and listen to content on the ACF Website you'll need an up-to-date media player such as Windows Media Player, RealPlayer, etc.

When clicking on a media link, such as audio, your media player should automatically launch in a separate window. This usually means that the media file will start playing momentarily, although how much time it will take for the file to start playing will depend on the speed of your connection.

Files on the ACF website are optimized for use with Windows Media Player. If you are using another program, such as Realplayer for example, the file should also play automatically. However, depending on the version that you are using and your settings, your computer may proceed to attempt to download the file before playing it.

The simplest, surest way to listen to audio on the ACF website without downloading the file is to make Windows Media Player your default player.

3. Click on Windows Media Player (if available, if not proceed to “Troubleshooting” below)

4. Maximize the Windows window (top right hand corner of the newly opened window, click on the square

If you are experiencing trouble with the file one option is to download a media player or upgrade to the latest version.

First, determine which edition of RealPlayer you¹re using by opening the RealPlayer application and clicking on the “About RealPlayer” section of the Help menu.

RealPlayer 10

8. Click on the box to the left to enable the RTSP media type for your video player.

5. Change the application type to RealOne Player or RealPlayer, depending on which application you¹ve

6. Close the browser window, then reopen another Explorer window and try a video link.

RealOne Player

1. Click on the Apple Menu button and select RealOne Player from the list of applications.

6. Uncheck the "Use optimized video display" box in the Video Card Compatibility section.

Windows 98 and Windows Me

1. Click Start, point to Settings, click Control Panel, and then double-click System.

2. On the Device Manager tab, double-click the Sound, Video And Game Controllers branch to expand it.

6. Click Show All Hardware, click the appropriate manufacturer and model in the Manufacturers and Models boxes, and then click Next. If the appropriate device is not listed, click Have Disk, and install the correct driver from the manufacturer's installation disk. If you receive a message stating that the current driver may be a closer match for your hardware than the driver that you have selected, click Yes.

Windows XP

6. Follow the prompts to automatically install the driver. If you have recently downloaded an updated driver, click

Because Internet-based streaming media is subject to network connectivity troubleshooting, make sure that the Internet Wizard or Network Connection Wizard has been run on your system. If it has not been, run either wizard:

1. Click Start, point to All Programs, point to Accessories, and then click Communications.

When content plays, but there are a lot of pauses and the player says "buffering," the player is usually experiencing network congestion. In other words, there¹s not enough available bandwidth to stream the selected file. To address the problem, users can limit protocol options.

CIW News and Notes - August 2006

Walrus letters...

Letters to the editor of Walrus Magazine in response to Roy Romanow's June 2006 essay, "A House Half Built"

Parochialism and individual fulfillment seem to be the guiding themes of our current debates on federalism. Roy Romanow’s piece is a refreshing reminder that there is a different vision of what it means to be Canadian. I believe that this caring national sensibility may be a truer reflection of what most Canadians value than what is suggested by our current political leaders. As Canadians, we believe in strengthening our national health-care and social programs, reasserting our role in the international arena as peace-builders, and creating a workable federalism that recognizes provincial rights and responsibilities within a national framework that is greater than the sum of its parts.

Romanow’s suggested narrative recalls that nation-building in Canada need be no more complicated than people realizing that they need to work together for the common good, both in their communities as well as in government. Healthy communities and good government are not necessarily in competition with our individual interests. Ideally, they are expressions of who we are. Romanow asks us to remember that the Canadian narrative is a story about setting high standards and meeting them, not about setting our standards lower when we fail.

” A House Half Built” was written as encouragement to a public that wants and needs more. The response to date has been inspiring. The notion of difference is certainly not a new phenomenon in Canada—diverse peoples progressively building a nation together is one of Canada’s most recognizable features. The concept of shared destiny describes our historical commitment to digging deeper for meaning in our place and to being something bigger than the sum of our differences.

New challenges over time raise new questions. How can we maintain a commitment to a fair and balanced Canada in the context of growing complexities and a smaller world We grapple with big questions through casual chats with neighbours, by attending a budget meeting at city hall, or by following mass media. Our political leaders and their policies play a central role in fomenting this debate. In many ways, it is how governments orient themselves in the public arena that ultimately shapes the character of our conversations, and too often we are led down the path of “divide and conquer” instead of being engaged in ways that would teach us more about what Canadians have in common.

This truncated discourse is increasingly pervasive. Ministers haggle over fiscal imbalances instead of engaging Canadians about the purpose of federal transfers. Discussions over health reforms begin with the promise of transparency and consultation but wind up being conducted behind closed doors. The promise of a carefully negotiated child-care agreement is abandoned under the guise of increasing individual choices.

It should come as no surprise that as policy-making becomes detached from our history and the very public it is supposed to reflect, Canadians lose faith in the possibility of a shared destiny. But Canadians still dream of public institutions that can reflect our shared values of fairness, opportunity, and respect, and that also strike a balance between the individual and society.

Perhaps a little less dreaming and a bit more demanding is in order. To invoke the words of Alfred Lord Tennyson, “come, my friends, ‘tis not too late to seek a newer world.”

Voices From the Street

For a preview of the Speakers Bureau roster, click play in the box below (18 minutes, plays in Windows Media Player).

To view fullscreen (reduced quality), right click inside the player, scroll to “zoom” and choose “fullscreen”. Hit the “esc” key to escape.

voices posting

Voices From the Street is a collective of individuals who have experienced homelessness and poverty and who are committed to educating and informing the public through their personal stories. Speakers are available to engage with a wide variety of audiences.

For a preview of the Speakers Bureau roster, click play in the box below (18 minutes, plays in Windows Media Player).

Toronto's past offers solutions on poverty

Toronto at the start of the 20th century was a
bustling and rapidly growing city with an ugly reality: Most of
the new immigrants were arriving poor and streaming into horrible
slums.
At the start of the 21st century, Toronto is still growing. The
latest population projection predicts another 430,000 people will
arrive over the next 25 years. Almost all will be immigrants and,
like the newcomers a century ago, most will move into poor
neighbourhoods, often with substandard housing.
One big difference: Over the past decade, poor neighbourhoods
have moved out from north Etobicoke to eastern Scarborough.
In recent years, growing poverty has been the key factor driving
increased homelessness and the underlying affordable housing
crisis.
The average market rent for a private rental unit in Toronto is
the highest ever. Rents for a two-bedroom apartment jumped from a
little more than $800 per month in 1995 to more than $1,000
monthly in 2005.
There are 175,190 households in Toronto with incomes less than
$20,000 annually. They can afford a rent of up to $500 - less
than half the market rate.
A staggering one in three Toronto households cannot afford the
rents the market is charging. They squeak by with a combination
of thrift, doubling and tripling up (but don't tell the
landlord!), frequent trips to the food bank and constant denial. More tenant households are falling over the edge.
Last year, a record 30,499 tenant households faced eviction,
almost all because they couldn't afford to pay the rent, and
hydro and food. That's up 10 per cent from 2004 - a sign of
more trouble to come.
Tenants who are evicted tumble fast and far.
A 2004 survey found that one-third of tenant households which
are evicted go directly to homeless shelters. Another one-third
become the "hidden homeless," staying in temporary
arrangements with family or friends.
The 1990s were a particularly cruel time.
Even as poverty rose, federal and provincial governments cut
billions from housing spending. In 1996, the federal government
downloaded housing to the provinces and territories. In 1998,
Ontario followed along, downloading to municipalities.
The City of Toronto's record on housing has not been good.
The number of homeless people in city shelters jumped by 20 per
cent during the 1990s.
Only 1,435 new affordable homes were completed over the past
decade, and only 613 of those were truly affordable to low- and
moderate-income households. There were no new affordable homes in
22 of the city's 44 wards.
It hasn't always been this bleak.
Toronto's first crusading medical officer of health, Dr.
Charles Hastings, launched a campaign to improve the city's
appalling slums before World War I.
He knew that poor housing led directly to poor health and early
death. He also knew that bad housing created shattered
communities.
In 1918, Hastings said: "Every nation that permits people
to remain under fetters of preventable disease and permits social
conditions to exist that make it impossible for them to be
properly fed, clothed and housed so as to maintain a high degree
of resistance and physical fitness, and, who endorses a wage that
does not afford sufficient revenue for the home, a revenue that
will make possible development of a sound mind and body, is
trampling on a primary principle of democracy."
His pioneering work led to the city's first, and
successful, housing initiatives. But those lessons were lost and,
by the 1930s, another crusading medical doctor rose to the
challenge.
Dr. Herbert Bruce, founder of the Wellesley Hospital, was
lieutenant-governor of Ontario when in 1934 he almost literally
dragged Toronto's aristocracy by its collective nose to the
downtown slums.
The Bruce Report of 1934 laid the foundation for a campaign of
urban renewal launched right after the end of World War II.
The 1970s were the high-water mark. Community groups seized the
agenda and the wonderful St. Lawrence neighbourhood, which
continues to be a model for a vibrant community, was taking
shape.
We can learn a lot by looking back. Both the good and the bad
are there to see.
Poverty in Toronto has once again emerged as deep and
persistent. The solutions are also close at hand.
A quick look back offers inspiration for a comprehensive and
fully funded housing strategy that starts by moving people from
crowded shelters into homes, and then moves on to tackle
substandard and unaffordable existing housing.
One of the most puzzling facts about homelessness is that it
costs so much more to maintain the status quo than to move to
better solutions.
It costs at least $10,900 to keep a homeless person in a
hospital bed for a month, $4,333 to keep that same person in a
jail cell, and $1,932 for a bed in a homeless shelter - all
sizeable bills.
The average cost of providing a rent supplement to a homeless
person for a private rental unit is $701 a month.
And the monthly bill for a social housing unit is $199.92.

Michael Shapcott is senior fellow at the Wellesley Institute, a
community-based public policy, research and capacity-building
organization in Toronto. He is a long-time housing and
homelessness policy expert.

Don't just ask why, ask who

Don't just ask why, ask who
Statistics show that visible minorities are most likely to be poor in Canada,
By Avvy Go

Photo Caption: Avvy Go [cascadeid]hgxvzmz3[/cascadeid]
In a series of articles examining the issue of
poverty, the Toronto Star challenges its readers to ask
themselves a sobering question. Why, asks the Star, is it that in
one of the richest countries in the world, a mother working two
jobs cannot afford to buy a sofa and has to ration food among
herself and her two children.
Even if we are to answer that question to our satisfaction, we
are still only halfway to finding a solution to eliminating
poverty.
To complete our journey, let's pose a second question:
"Ask who?"
Who are the poor?
Poverty does not strike anyone of us at random, nor are all
Canadians equally likely to be hit by it. Statistics don't
lie, and the tale they tell is disturbing.
The fact is, if you are a person of colour living in Toronto,
you are three times more likely to live in poverty than a white
person.
Just ask scholars like Ryerson professor Grace Edward Galabuzi
or professor Michael Ornstein at York University. They could tell
you that there is a large income gap between members of
racialized communities and the rest of the population.
Using Statistics Canada and other sources of data, social
scientists have confirmed, for instance, that while the poverty
rate for the white population fell by 28 per cent between 1980
and 2000, it rose by a staggering 361 per cent among racialized
families.
If you break the figures down by communities in Toronto, the
incidence of family poverty is 44.6 per cent for Africans,
blacks, and Caribbean Canadians, 45.2 per cent for Arabs and West
Asians - all roughly three times the white average.
The figures for East and Southeast Asian are twice as high as
European families and for South Asian families, the poverty rate
is 34.6 per cent.
In short, the conclusion that poverty is on the rise applies
only to some, not all Canadians.
Calling it Canada's economic apartheid, as Galabuzi did, is
not an overstatement.
There are many reasons why non-white communities are hardest hit
by poverty.
Unequal access to employment opportunity, lack of recognition
for internationally trained professionals, racism in the
workplace, and a continuous decline in government funding for
social programs and support, are but a few.
Whatever the cause, the result is devastating, as the Star
articles have so painfully illustrated.
Who is responsible?
As many experts have pointed out, cutbacks to social assistance,
to immigration settlement and other social support programs by
all levels of governments are the contributing - if not primary -
factors to the increased racialization of poverty in Canada. And
it would appear that, on this front, not one single political
party can escape blame.
It was during the NDP era, for instance, that sponsored
immigrants were singled out for a drastic welfare rate cut,
leaving many immigrant families destitute.
The Mike Harris common sense revolution took this slash-and-burn
tactic to the next level, but the current Liberal government has
not done nearly enough to restore the funding loss since then.
Blame, too, unscrupulous employers who do not pay their workers
according to the law.
It is difficult enough to live on minimum wage, but many
immigrant workers working in non-unionized jobs do not even get
paid that amount.
The lack of teeth given to our labour law enforcement agency
means many employers are breaking the law and getting away with
it.
Blaming the governments or the "bad apples" in our
society can only take us so far, however. After all, it is we who
put the politicians in power. We deserve the legislators we vote
for.
Every time we embrace a political platform built upon tax cuts
and rollbacks in social programs, we are helping to entrench
poverty for our fellow Canadians who are less fortunate.
Who can make a difference?
Just as we are part of a problem, we can be part of the
solution, too. Letting politicians know that fairness and
equality are important to us as voters, and not allowing them to
scapegoat minorities would be a good place to start.
Voting for political leaders who have the fortitude and vision
to build a just society is another route.
But most important, giving all people living in our country -
regardless of whether they are Canadian citizens - a right to
vote is ultimately needed to keep politicians accountable.
Disenfranchised people are also disadvantaged because they have
no way of influencing decisions that affect their lives.
This is not a far-fetched idea, given that as recently as the
1980s, permanent residents who were British subjects had a right
to vote in provincial and municipal elections.
We can easily extend that right to all residents in these two
lower tiers of government.
It would instantly enlarge the political power base for
racialized communities, as a significant proportion of these
communities are non-citizens.
The fact that many Canadians have reached out to help the mother
featured in the Star story shows we are a compassionate people.
Let's turn our compassion into action, and start making a
difference in not just one person's life.

Avvy Yao-Yao Go is director of the Metro Toronto Chinese &
Southeast Asian Legal Clinic.

Work together to fight poverty

Work together to fight poverty
Frances Lankin says income disparity between rich and poor is widening fast
By Frances Lankin

The Saturday Star story of Maheswary Puvaneswaran, a
working Toronto mother of two who lives in poverty, is moving and
compelling. But most of all, her story illustrates the
deprivation faced by thousands of others who live in poverty in
our city, despite being employed.
In response, some have suggested poverty alleviation policies
such as minimum wage increases and family assistance programs.
Others have talked about the role of our social agencies. Yes,
yes and yes.
Poverty is systemic and multi-dimensional and requires multiple
strategies in response. To solve it we must change the structures
that create and perpetuate it. Another Star article highlighted
the successful poverty reduction strategy used by the Irish
government, which in the mid-1990s adopted a multi-pronged
approach that cut the poverty rate from 15 per cent to less than
5 per cent. As well as taking minimum wage earners off the income
tax rolls, Ireland invested heavily in training, increased
welfare payments and beefed-up support for drug cards and child
care.
These investments reflect a public policy environment where an
engaged electorate has built the required consensus to identify
poverty as a shared challenge. Have we in Toronto? In Ontario? In
Canada?
United Way of Greater Toronto is focused on a strategy to
address the root causes of poverty by strengthening
neighbourhoods and building on community assets. We are building
stronger community and social services, which can help people
meet their basic needs and access programs and services to help
them out of poverty. Services such as food banks, employment
training programs and settlement programs for newcomers are all
essential to helping people such as Puvaneswaran. They form the
support network that anyone can rely on in times of need.
By focusing on building community, and working in partnerships
with governments, business and community leaders, we are
addressing some of the systemic issues that keep people in
poverty.
Healthy neighbourhoods are the hallmark of Toronto's civic
success. Their strength comes from the rich cultural mixture of
residents, safe streets, abundant green space, diversity of shops
and cultural amenities, and the social infrastructure of
community services and programs. All these factors bring the city
worldwide recognition as one of the best cities in the world.
Yet all is not well. Poverty is rising, and deepening, and the
income disparity between rich and poor is widening, and fast.
Toronto's population is growing most quickly in the inner
suburbs yet there has been no commensurate investment in social
infrastructure.
The United Way's "Poverty by Postal Code" details
the dramatic increase in the number of poor Toronto
neighbourhoods. It shows that the city now has many more
concentrated areas of poverty than it did 20 years ago. This
means that things are not going well for the most vulnerable in
our city.
We know that the consequences of living in poverty in poor
neighbourhoods are significant - and have long-term implications
- for children and youth, for newcomers to our country and for
the entire community. Poor neighbourhoods can spiral into further
decline, causing increases in crime, and abandonment by both
residents and businesses. And, shockingly, Toronto is losing
ground faster than any other urban centre in Canada.
What are the key elements required and how can we work toward
them together, if our goal is to conduct a serious fight against
poverty? I know that there is a significant amount of hope
expressed by the many responses to Puvaneswaran's plight.
Many in Toronto have shown they care enough to open their wallets
and respond to her.
Are we now able to take that care and turn it into a public
demand for a comprehensive strategy to help all the others like
her? Can we teach and learn about opening our minds, along with
our wallets, to understand the structural nature of poverty and
the many strategies required to change it?
Even though the gap between rich and poor is growing quickly, it
is still within our capacity to change it. Are we able to work
together to change public attitudes toward poverty and create a
new public policy consensus?
Let us move past indecision and ignorance to act together and
create a call to fight poverty in our own neighbourhoods.

ACF Investments: Making Our $ Count for Social Justice

Such questions have led a few pioneering foundations, including the ACF, to adopt mission-based investment policies (MBI). This means that the ACF pursues its mission not only through its program work, but also through how it conducts its investment policies.

MBI offers a number of strategies to those who want to align their investments with their values. Mission-based investing can include positive, best-in-class action that directs investments to exemplary organizations and funds, or alternatively, it can engage in exclusionary screening. MBI can also include active proxy voting, and shareowner engagement, which is a strategy being actively pursued by the Foundation.

What does proxy voting and shareowner engagement mean? In our case, the ACF is currently engaging with companies in its portfolio whose core business appears to rely on contingent work or precarious employment. We want to reinforce with these companies the objectives of the ACF, and the kind of work that we want to continue supporting.

Contingent employment is a growing feature of Canada’s labour market. For example, it takes the form of retailers, hotels and other employers increasing their use of temporary or part-time workers not covered by benefits or statutory entitlements; property management, construction, and other companies contracting through intermediaries such as temp agencies and independent subcontractors, often blurring the legal relationships and responsibilities of the employer; and consumer retail supply chains that exploit agricultural, transportation and forestry workers.

SHARE (Shareholder Association for Research and Education) has been contracted by the Foundation to facilitate this engagement process. Engagement by active shareholders generally begins with research (including contact with other stakeholders in the company) and then correspondence and meetings with the company about the issue of concern. Depending on the response of the company, further activities might include one or more of the following: asking a question at a company’s annual meeting, a formal shareholder proposal, and facilitation of a multi-stakeholder discussion of the issues with social partners, investee companies and other institutional investors.

The bottom line matters. And our bottom line includes the pursuit of social justice.

Marie Wadden Series

Atkinson Economic Justice Fellowship Awarded to Uzma Shakir

Spotlight on Acorn and Voices From the Street

ACF PARTNERSHIPS FOR GRASSROOTS ACTIVISM + OTHER RECENT GRANTS

Spotlight on Acorn and Voices From the Street... scroll down to read about the two initiatives...

Toronto’s Voices from the Street works with people who have lived experience with homelessness to inform and influence public decision-making at various levels, writes Becky McFarlane (Ontario Council of Alternative Business)

Homelessness can be the ultimate experience of disconnection – from community, resources, supports and virtually everything else that makes up ‘home.’ Toronto’s Voices from the Street helps counter this disconnection by providing training and leadership opportunities to people who have lived experience with homelessness.

Voices From the Street (VFTS) believes that poverty can make it difficult for people to act and work for change in their lives or in the lives of their communities. People in poverty often lack the financial resources to participate. They may also have insufficient access to the skills and capacities common to policy planning and public decision-making processes. In addition, they most likely have unequal access to the networks and systems that inform and influence public decision-making at various levels.

Through an intensive training program, VFTS attempts to counter this imbalance by providing the tools and resources that people who are experiencing poverty require to more adequately participate. Further, it assists individuals to use their own experiences and stories as a way of educating and influencing those involved in change initiatives. This training spans a wide spectrum, and includes concrete skills building opportunities (ex. public speaking workshops, media training, understanding public policy etc.) and leadership skills (diversity training, facilitation training, developing a personal narrative).

In June of 2007, VFTS produced 14 powerful new graduates. While these brave individuals come from a wide spectrum of experiences, they share the often soul-crushing effects of poverty. With a keen desire to change the system, VFTS members are involved in a number of community initiatives and continue to speak with students, social service workers, government officials, medical professionals, and other marganizalized people about their experiences with poverty and homelessness and how they feel the system needs to change.

With a desire for bigger and more profound change, VFTS will be focusing on how poor people can have a greater impact on government decision making and will continue to develop ways to enhance the policy skills and capacities of people experiencing poverty.

VFTS will be engaging a new group of participants in the Spring of 2008 and hopes to build on their current successes. For more information about training opportunities, to book a speaker, or to learn more about the program, please visit us at www.voicesfromthestreet.ca http://www.voicesfromthestreet.ca or e-mail speakersbureau@bellnet.ca.

Colour of Poverty Project aims to address the challenge of the ever-worsening exclusion of racialized groups from social and economic opportunities.

Atkinson Co-op will expand the capacity of residents to implement community-driven initiatives in Toronto's Alexandra Park neighbourhood.

Canadian Doctors for Medicare to provide a voice for Canadian doctors who believe in and support Canada's publicly funded system for physician and hospital care, and who categorically reject private insurance and direct payment for these medically necessary services.

BIG IDEAS reception invite

ACF year-end review: A peek in the rear view mirror, on the way to 2009

Year-end review and good wishes:
A peek in the rear view mirror, on the way to 2009...
by Charles Pascal

From our perspective, 2008 has witnessed some progress in our collective quest for more just prospects for those who are disadvantaged through no fault of their own.

Importantly, a large and dedicated group of anti-poverty activists, some of whom have been at it for more than three decades, came together to influence the Ontario's poverty reduction strategy.

The strategy, released just a couple of weeks ago, offers some hope and tangible progress.

But there is one very significant outcome of the grassroots’ work over the past year that won’t be found in the government's final report.

And that is the power of acting together.

For too long and for too many reasons, efforts by individuals and organizations to advance an anti-poverty strategy had been fragmented.

But with the opportunity presented by government to move ahead, the grassroots sector looked at itself and chose to undergo a transformation from a collection of "lone rangers" into a coherent movement acting together for poverty reduction.

This opportunity has brought together a few foundations as well. We are proud, for example, to partner with, and learn from, the Metcalf Foundation in this regard.

The emergence of a more purposeful and more coherent movement bodes well for the kind of push that will be required to bring progress to fruition. To quote the 25 in 5 Network following the provincial strategy's release, "we have the foundation, now the real work begins."

You will note in this e-bulletin news from the Workers' Action Centre regarding its work on supporting the dignity and rights of heretofore exploited workers. Their hard work has culminated in the promise of key temp worker legislation by the provincial government.  This is a remarkable achievement and we salute the determined grassroots leadership and organizing skills of our colleagues at the Centre.

This success story also speaks to the success of foundations thinking for the long-haul and investing in the Centre's work over a number of years. In this case, a handful of foundations, under the coordinating leadership of the Maytree Foundation, understanding the need to be impatient about injustice but very patient regarding the time it takes to make real change.

And there was much more happening at our foundation in 2008. From the Atkinson's perspective, progress on the Canadian Index of Wellbeing, early learning, and the work of our current and past Economic Justice Fellows--Armine Yalnizyan, Roy Romanow, Cathy Crowe, and Uzma Shakir---is a "gift" to all that keeps on giving.

Regarding our founder, Joseph E. Atkinson--and the justice crusade he began in 1899---we published a brand new book, entitled "Big Ideas: The Social Crusades of Joseph E. Atkinson," that we are very pleased to share with you online. It is a compilation of his editorial thoughts that still guide us, push us, to be more effective and strategic in supporting the remarkable work of our partners. It is a fitting complement to the documentary "Fighting Words: The Social Crusades of Joseph E. Atkinson," which we helped launch in 2006.

In 2009, very challenging economic circumstances will present a major challenge to us all in the struggle for progress on social justice.  It is natural for the toughest of times to create a Darwinian "everyone for themselves" kind of world.

But let's hope that the notion of "movement," so well exemplified by our poverty reduction colleagues in 2008, prevails going forward. We must constantly strive for a whole larger than our own narrow organizational wants and needs.

In a forced-choice environment, we need to collectively do fewer things better rather than all things less well.

If this is possible, we might even be able to turn this very intense economic crisis into an opportunity to move forward rather than splinter apart. We need to put all of our respective assets on the table and plot and act together.

On behalf of our president, Peter A. Armstrong, and our dedicated board and my staff colleagues, we wish you and all those you love and care for a renewing holiday season and our very best for a happy, healthy, and prosperous 2009.

Charles E. Pascal
Executive Director

BIG IDEAS: The social crusades of Joseph E. Atkinson

BIG IDEAS: The social crusades of J. E. Atkinson

Book captures Atkinson’s mission as written in the pages of The Toronto Star

Big Ideas: The Social Crusades of Joseph E Atkinson, is a book that captures the Atkinson legacy in the words he wrote or commissioned for The Toronto Star during his 49 years at the helm.

The Atkinson Foundation set out to publish Big Ideas as a valuable resource for Canadian historians and anyone interested in the building of Canada. It documents the influence of Atkinson in guiding and goading Canada to create and enshrine our social safety net and speaks passionately to the causes that Atkinson championed – including social justice, civil liberties, Canadian independence, civic affairs and the rights of workers.

The book is available in pdf format by clicking here (7.6 MB)

ACF E-BULLETIN: December 2008

ACF e-bulletin - December 2008...

ACF E-BULLETIN - December 2008

Atkinson Foundation e-bulletin

Featuring news, views and updates

from the Atkinson Charitable Foundation

and its partners.

IN THIS BULLETIN...

ACF year-end review...

ACF Partnerships: temp workers make gains...

Public Policy Fellowship application deadline...

Boomer Tsunami, Ontario braces for grey wave

CIW on the move...

Atkinson Economic Justice Fellows in action...

Open letter calls for action on child care

Poverty reduction: ACF partners weigh in

J.E. Atkinson’s BIG IDEAS

Social Investments are smart economics

Scroll down for more…

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR’S CORNER

ACF Year-end review…

Very challenging economic circumstances in 2009 will present a major challenge to us all in the struggle for progress on social justice.

Let's hope that the notion of "movement," prevails going forward. We must constantly strive for a whole larger than our own narrow organizational wants and needs.

If this is possible, we might even be able to turn this very intense economic crisis into an opportunity to move forward rather than splinter apart. We need to put all of our respective assets on the table and plot and act together.

DOCS FOR POSTING

Premiers must `make poverty history'