I’ve written about child poverty in Ward 43 before. Listening to resident’s stories during and after the campaign made this the kind of issue for me that it is difficult to see as anything but a social justice issue. Ward 43 has the highest rate of child poverty in Scarborough. Low income Ward 43 residents who are eligible for a child care subsidy have lost access to 97 of those spaces or approximately 10% of child care subsides available to residents since the 2006 election and without any consideration to the impact of the economic crisis that has seen unemployment skyrocket in Toronto to 9.6%.

I am definitely not your average child care advocate. I am male, young, single and without children. But – as someone who has run for public office, and been involved in politics in a community with the highest rate of child poverty anywhere in Scarborough; it’s an issue I’ve come to learn a lot about. Linking the availability of child care to a parents ability to provide a life outside of poverty for a child is a challenge I believe needs to be taken up if we are to unravel some of barriers to employment faced by especially single parents.

Because of this strike, of the 935 families that were able to keep their subsidies after the City of Toronto cut roughly 10% of the subsidies allocated to eligible Ward 43 residents, 25% of those families have found themselves without access to their subsidized child care spot for 29 days and counting. Because the City directly operates 226 spaces in Ward 43 that are available to families eligible for subsidy, and because those day cares are run by unionized workers, 226 low income families have 226 children without access to much needed, affordable day care.

If the other impacts of the strike wasn’t bad enough, these families are now forced to find unsubsidized options of childcare to ensure that they are able to continue going to work to maintain employment. Child care is not a service the City provides to enhance the lives of residents, it is one the City provides that is essential to allow low income earners to remain in the work force, provide for their families and have affordable, safe and accessible childcare for their children. The strike is now depriving them of that. 

Kids make bad political footballs. While garbage may be the most noticeable impact of the current labour disruption, the City shuttering its day cares and providing no alternative to parents whose children were receiving subsidized daycare in the public system is probably the most serious.

Somebody needs to start thinking about the impacts this strike is having on Toronto’s lowest income earners, their children and our future. Children without access to licensed, safe and affordable childcare are at risk. With each day this strike carries out, the 3000 or so kids whose subsidized care has been provided directly by the City are at greater risk. Their families financial situations further tightened, not to mention the tens of thousands of parent’s who rely on parks and recreation programming to provide summer time daycare through the summer camp programming run by the City of Toronto.

My hope is prior to any future labour disruptions, the City can reach an agreement with the unions to ensure that childcare and more importantly child safety isn’t compromised by a future strike. Better yet, the City could end this strike by removing the unnecessary and controversial issue of sick leave pay from the negotiating table, strike an agreement and strive to prevent a future strike by maintaining good relations with union officials and starting negotiations well in advance of the expiration of an existing collective agreement.

Bed Bugs

When running for office, you meet a lot of people. Many stories touch you, but often stories have an ability to make you see an issue through the lens of another, and sometimes, change your own views. Often times, it is anecdotes and the stories of others that give one a far better lens to view an issue through. I met a single father and his eight-year-old boy who did just that. Together they showed me their modest apartment, the plaster less living room wall, the drywall falling into their bathtub and the holes in the baseboard that allow cockroaches to migrate into their apartment. The dad informed me of an eight-month-old maintenance request that has gone unanswered, how his son’s school was implementing a uniform policy and he did not know how he was going to pay for it. What really got me was something each of us ought to be ashamed of; bed bugs infesting community-housing buildings in our city.

Every few months, the father was forced to throw out their furniture, go to the furniture bank and arrange for new mattresses for him and his son. As it was, they had no couch, just a single large chair in the living room, a basic coffee table and a small TV resting on pieces of wood. His son told me about waking up in the night, being bitten by bed bugs, and bleeding for the sores because it was hard not to scratch. As he told me his story, he began jumping up and down, and frantically rubbing his arms and body to show me what it is like for him.

I was shocked that in a city like Toronto, we would allow conditions this bad to exist for our most vulnerable citizens. Simply put, it is not right, and particularly a government run entity should not be forcing people to live in conditions like this. Why should a boy go through his childhood fearing his bed and waiting for the next time it needs to be replaced? I thought back to my childhood, and can only recall having two beds while living with my parents and once since. I simply could not imagine such a frequent need for a new one. The amount of worries this single father had to deal with were daunting enough without having to teach his son life lessons like putting the cereal in the fridge to keep cockroaches from crawling into the box, or worrying about the next time the bed bug infestation would get so bad a new mattress could be the only solution. This day changed me. It showed me something that I could not forget, nor wanted to. It gave me something to fight for and something to want to change.

As the days and weeks went on after meeting this family, I shared the story of a father and a boy living in Toronto Community Housing and going through all they had to. I told people if elected I would fight community housing on things like this, and bring light to the backlog of maintenance requests publicly, even in the Council Chamber if I had to. I met a lawyer who told me each year he devotes two weeks of his time to helping low income tenants with landlord issues for free, and that if I were serious about this, he would help and ask some of his colleagues to help too.

I consider the time I spent in that apartment hearing their story and talking and thinking about it in the days and weeks that followed central to changing my thinking around social justice. It really opened my eyes to people not being served by their government and the need for activism within government as well. More than that though it showed me that we as a society cannot turn a blind eye to those who are less fortunate and struggling to get by. While we may feel that this family having affordable housing is a blessing, we need to also think more about the conditions of that housing and the impact it has on both father and son in this case.

Bed bugs should be declared a health hazard and the City should do absolutely everything possible to rid Toronto Community Housing buildings of their infestations and work with the private landlords and property managers throughout Toronto’s rental community to fight infestations there as well. I have been fortunate in my short experience renting never to live in a unit with cockroaches or bed bugs. But that is because I’ve always made a point of asking prospective landlords before renting whether there were bug problems and what they did about it. 

The impact bed bugs have on a tenant and their family’s ability to enjoy their home is immense. If you are unable to sleep because of the psychological impacts of bed bugs, that will effect your health and the quality of your life. No one should be afraid of their bed or made to keep their cereal in the fridge because behind that seal is the only way to keep bugs out. A city like ours should not have problems like this. 

Tenants in our city, especially in low income buildings are powerless in ridding their units of infestations. You can wash your dishes right after eating, clean you bed sheets weekly, vacuum your furniture and mattresses until you’re blue in the face, if your neighbouring unit has a bug problem, you will too. 

The City of Toronto needs to do more to help tenants in TCH rental units especially. On election day the building I was working in was so badly infested on two floors, you could see glue traps and dead cockroaches and other bugs beside the door frame to apartments. It was the first time, I’ve seen bugs in the hall of an infested building. Imagine what that does to your enjoyment of the building if you are literally walking past a bug graveyard on your way into your unit. 

There is no excuse for the City not having an all out program to fight bug infestations in our community housing buildings. I am glad that Councillor Moscoe has brought the issue of bed bugs up, and hope he will use his position on the Executive Committee to get additional funding in the 2009 budget for a war on infestations in our public buildings. These residents are constantly forgotten by municipal politicians and it is simply wrong the way their issues are continually ignored. 

Clean, well maintained, livable affordable housing units will make for safe, engaged and vibrant neighbourhoods in our city. It is time Council act to show residents of these communities that they understand the problems they face and are going to try to alleviate at least one of them before this term is up. Fighting Bed Bug infestations would be a good place to start.  

If the McGuinty government backs away from poverty alleviation at this point in the game, it will demonstrate probably the single largest set back for poverty reduction since 1995. At least until now, Liberals have talked a good game. But when it was time for action to begin, or at least get close to beginning, suddenly we’re not so sure. I can already tell this post is going to make me unpopular with some of my friends. I say this as a Liberal, and as someone who understands the negative impact poverty has on a community and the hopelessness living in poverty causes people to feel.

I can appreciate that there is a downturn in the economy, and that presents challenges to the government by way of balancing the books. I generally do not support running deficits to cover operating costs, but when it comes to poverty alleviation, I don’t think it is as easy as saying ‘no can do’ and moving on.

“In government, we have to act responsibly in the same way that our families do. If finances get tight in our homes, families make adjustments, and they focus on their priorities,”  - Dalton McGuinty

Sure, governments like families have to act responsibly. The difference is for people in poverty, things are so tight it is strangling them. And unlike government they do not have access to additional money, however dire the situation is. Someone in poverty cannot go and sell bonds, often times they are unable to access non-predatory credit and are in poverty because even while just focusing on their priorities they are unable to get by.

Forty-one percent of children in my part of Scarborough (Ward 43) live in poverty. One in five families lives more than 50% under the low income cut off – the poverty line. These people face impossible situations on a daily basis when it comes to providing simply the basics. I am sure most of the children who live in poverty throughout our province would forgive the Premier for mortaging their future, if he were to provide them with a fighting chance to succeed later in life.

It is also important to note that the solution to poverty does not need to be a grand public program. It can be a patchwork of a number of different things. I will leave out things like affordable housing, as admittedly building housing is expensive and my point here is to demonstrate some other ways the government can approach poverty reduction.

I personally believe that anyone who is able and willing to work should be able to find an income that will allow them to work their way out of poverty. So make a pact with Ontarians. If you can and will work full time, you’ll at be able to earn your way out of poverty.

The 2006 low income cut off was about $ 22 000. For someone to earn that before tax on an annual basis they would need an hourly income of $11. The Premier should continue to scheduled minimum wage increases until the minimum wage eclipses the poverty line, so that any Ontarian working full time can help themselves step out of poverty. If inflation stays around two percent and the government continued to increase the minimum wage by $ 0.75 a year, the minimum wage would meet or eclipse the poverty line in 2014 and then could simply be adjusted for inflation.

That’s only part of the problem, but would then allow for a greater focus on people who are on long term disability and let the government develop a better plan for child care and the other supports a single parent requires to re-enter the workforce.

I want to explain why I am angry that the Premier appears to be backing away, so it can be understood. So many people believed and hoped that finally the government was going to address poverty in Ontario. It showed a real turning of the page, but loose language around actually implementing anything before the government even releases it’s targets for poverty reduction demonstrates a cooling off, on something extremely important. What is worse, is people living in poverty have been given hope that things might actually get better, and now it appears they are in for more of the same.

Incidentally, when speaking to people who are living in poverty about political participation – being continually let down by government is the single largest reason cited. Maybe there is something to their point.

The City has in fact lowered the number of childcare subsidies Ward 43 children are entitled to. This is because child poverty has increased from an average of 29% to 32% across the City between 2001 and 2006. The increase across the City has caused a re-allocation of some of the childcare subsidy spaces. 

The only good news is that children who currently have subsidies do not lose them, but as children come out of the system the spots are re-allocated to other areas within the City. 

The childcare subsidy vacancies in Ward 43 are spots that are open and can be utilized by any resident in the City who has a subsidy. The idea is that parents should be able to find the most convenient childcare option for themselves whether or not it is in their community of residence. 

Graphs made available within Toronto’s Report Card on Children indicate that child poverty has decreased in some areas of Ward 43; predominately in lower density areas, while increasing in high density, low rent areas. The increases in child poverty in Ward 43 have been as a result of intensification, meaning areas that already had rates of child poverty over the city average, have seen the increase. Intensification of child poverty has a huge social impact on children and our community as a whole. With increased intensification, we put additional strain on community schools and risk further isolation of communities most in need of additional resources and supports. 

It was surprising to see that child poverty had increased within Toronto during the 2001-2006 period as the Daily Bread Food Bank had noted that child hunger between 2003 and 2008 fell from 27% to 13% (hunger is defined by not eating at least one day per week).

I would encourage you to take a look at fact sheet two from the Report Card on Children if you’re interested in having a more detailed understanding of some of the more surprising aspects of the growth of child poverty in our city. 

With the fall fast approaching, it is my hope that the Provincial Government’s poverty reduction strategy will specifically address poverty intensification and the impact this intensification has on our city and particularly those who face poverty without adequate assistance from any level of government. I’d also like to see any level of government commit to ensuring at least children from families who live below the low income cut off have access to subsidized, licensed daycare. 

Here is a re-cap of some key facts from my last post on this topic:

Ward 43 has the highest rate of child poverty in all of Scarborough and the third highest rate of child poverty in the city of Toronto. 

41% of children in Ward 43 under 14 live in poverty compared to 30% across the city as a whole. 

In total, Ward 43 has 5125 children under 14 living in families below the low income cut off and only 985 of those children receive subsidized childcare. 503 children are on a waiting list. The City believes of the 24 000 subsidized spaces, Ward 43 is entitled to 1029, still more than 4 000 spots short of even just the number of children below the low income cut off. 

The LICO – Low Income Cut Off is defined as $22,964 for a family of two or $34 572 for a family of four. It is also commonly referred to and generally accepted as the “poverty line”.

Ward 43 Vacancies in subsidy system:

July 10th – 113

July 18th – 110

August 10th – 113

Ward 43 Waiting List:

Number of Children in Ward 43 waiting for subsidized childcare spots (as of July 18th): 503

Number of children in Ward 43 waiting for subsidized daycare spaces (as of August 10th): 482

Ward Equity Target:

Ward Equity Target (stated July 18th): 1029 subsidized spots

Ward Equity Target (stated August 10th): 935 subsidized spots

Number of Children Receiving Subsidized Daycare in Ward 43:

July 18th: 985 (44 fewer than equity target)

August 10th: 988 (53 more than new equity target)

If I am reading the data correctly, Ward 43 went from being entitled to gain 44 additional childcare spaces to losing 53 currently subsidized spaces, meaning these children who already have childcare will lose it. The result is actually 97 fewer spots than the previous equity target. This is unacceptable.

There are still over 5 000 children living in families under the poverty line in Ward 43. Ward 43 still has the highest rate of child poverty in Scarborough and 1 in 5 families living below the poverty line survive on less than 50% of what is considered the LICO.

I don’t understand why Ward 43 would suddenly be entitled to 97 fewer spots, and logic would suggest an additional 4 000 spots (to provide childcare for all children under the LICO) would make more sense.

I’m also concerned that the new equity guideline could put 53 current subsidies at risk for children who have daycare spaces right now and I don’t understand how if there are 988 enrolled and this is 53 spots more than the equity target there can be 113 vacancies within Ward 43, within the subsidy system.

 I have written to Nancy Matthew’s who is the Acting General Manager of Children’s Services at the City of Toronto to see if she can make sense of this and provide some additional information. When I hear back with anything substantive, I will be sure to provide that information here.

Overall the three poverty meetings Scarborough I am going to discuss were very well attended. The meeting held by Minister Best and the meeting the City held had fairly similar audiences participating.  Minister Best gave very compelling remarks that did not appear to be rehearsed, or prepared. Her eyes, voice and body language showed the sincerity in her beliefs. At the City meeting, Councillor Joe Mihevc from St. Pauls (Ward 21) in downtown Toronto spoke. He delivered a prepared speech, heavy on rhetoric and not well crafted for the audience. The only Scarborough Councillor present was Councillor Ainslie from Scarborough East (Ward 43). Councillor Ainslie did not speak at all during the two and half hours. Neither Councillor milled around to actually listen to the discussions happening in the small groups. Both looked at the speakers at the microphones during presentations, but took few notes as City staff were taking notes for Toronto’s submission. Negative comments about the municipal government for whatever reason were not recorded. The CASSA meeting had the best attendance of politicians with Trustee’s Neethan Shan (Markham) and Nadia Bello (Toronto) actively participating, Shan as MC and Bello as the education panelist. Minister Chan also attended the meeting. He appeared to be actively listening and demonstrated this by recalling the key points each of the panelists had made during their portions of the meeting. He gave some brief remarks, and then told the audience he would then deliver his prepared speech. Off the cuff he was very good, on message it was what is to be expected.

Meeting Summaries:

I want to talk first about the meeting dynamics and something that rubbed me the wrong way at Minister Best’s meeting and the City meeting. I am going to be as frank as I can while being weary not offend anyone or be misunderstood.

I want to start by saying I think advocacy groups with grassroots support are integral to democracy and have an important place in the creation of public policy. But some of what I saw during these meetings, which were not intended to be stakeholder consultations as much as they were community consultations did not sit very well with me.

 At both meetings those who were most vocal were people involved with organizations that had set agendas on poverty reduction and, at least in my view did not necessarily need to use rare public meetings between elected officials and their constituents to further convey their opinion. Organizations have an ability to meet with a Minister privately, commission reports to gain earned media coverage of their opinions, and send out a news release and have some hope of being quoted. The average citizen can call their MPP or write them a letter and in most cases speak to a constituency assistant who will pass along their concerns, or may schedule a meeting if the MPP and this individual have some shared availability during business hours on a Friday. It seems to me, open forums should be used to allow for an honest dialogue between people and their representatives.

 I had hoped much more of the conversation would be dominated by members of the community who were not necessarily affiliated with organizations who either are entirely advocacy based or work on the ground to address some of the effects of poverty. It might be somewhat controversial to say, but I at least found, particularly when these individuals were reporting on behalf of their groups it was very clear the outcomes of the conversations within their groups were heavily influenced by the dominant players.

As someone who has led group discussions that were similar, but not quite focus groups as part of a report for the federal government on democratic reform, I am aware of the ability for two or three people to really control a conversation, simply by being more comfortable speaking. The issues we were discussing were also opinions strongly held and of deep importance to everyone. They are also hard questions. People who do not constantly think about them, do need more time to articulate their position, develop their ideas and the patience of others to do so. With the absence of trained facilitators to encourage discussion and call on those who are particularly quiet, it is almost impossible to ensure they are heard.

Having these individuals present is not necessarily all bad; I guess it really may depend on their level of involvement and openness to allow for other views to come forward. At least two of the participants with clear affiliations,  regularly spoke on behalf of their groups and were frequently hostile toward the government at both Minister Best’s and the City’s meeting. The message was very similar, although group memberships were different at both events. I am not suggesting they ignored the other views that were raised, but certainly at the reporting stage the focus was more so on the views they expressed than equal emphasis on everything. Let me contrast this with something really positive a community organization did at Minister Best’s meeting. A local organization that has done tremendous work with youth in our community brought maybe eight or so to participate. The man who works with them did an amazing job in ensuring the youth with got to participate in this discussion, share their opinions and at each reporting stage one of them gave the summary. I was very impressed by this and very happy to see it happen.

During Minister Best’s meeting I sat at a side table just to listen and observe. At the City meeting, I participated in a small group and ultimately reported on it’s behalf towards the end of the session.  The group I participated in at the City consultation had an interesting mix to it. I was one of six participants, two were volunteers with a religiously based, but non-denominational charity, two participants worked for a social services agency, I and the other individual were both students. The other student was involved with an advocacy campaign on poverty alleviation, and in fairness, I am involved in politics in both partisan and non partisan ways. We however were fairly balanced and focused our conversations more on people we’ve met, experiences we were aware of and solutions as we see it. No one was particularly driven by anything but the compelling facts each of us brought from our different backgrounds. When I was asked to report on behalf of my group, I initially declined by saying “the night is young“, but opted to in the third round of reporting. We spent a few minutes making sure I had everything in my notes before I spoke, mindful of the need to ensure the conversation, not my own passions were reflected.

The CASSA meeting was probably the best attended and the most informative of all. I have to admit, I was only able to stay for the first half of the agenda as I had to be at work for 9pm. CASSA had done some previous consultations with its member agencies and determined the four main issues that relate to poverty and assembled an excellent panel of individuals within the South Asian community that deal with these issues on the ground on a daily basis. The main thrust behind the CASSA meeting was a need to ensure that the South Asian community is actively participating in the poverty reduction consultations that some of the more unique challenges facing this community are also addressed.

At all three meetings representatives from poverty reduction advocacy organizations handed out pamphlets with their recommendations on what the government ought to do to alleviate poverty, something I found informative certainly. At CASSA’s meeting member organizations also had some brochures present, which really showed some of the quality work they do to ensure among other things, labour standards are known to workers who are prodominately new Canadians.

The common themes that came out of the three meetings include:

These are in no particular order. I think trying to order the reforms required to reduce poverty would make properly ordering the sides of a Rubik’s cube seem easy.

Housing – The discussion was mainly focussed on the need to create affordable, livable housing in our city. Particularly from the CASSA meeting there was a discussion about hidden homelessness and multiple families living in a dwelling intended for a single family. It was a good point that needed to be made because as was said at the meeting, it is something that is often justified away and therefore never really addressed.

Minimum Wage and Income – In general all meetings called on minimum wage increases to a more livable wage. There were some differences of opinion in how fast the minimum wage ought to increase and at what point can the increases stop, level out or adjust to inflation.

Improved Social Assistance – Social assistance was a major part of all discussions. The primary focus was the inadequacies in the amount of social assistance available to those who require various forms of assistance. Barriers to moving off assistance were also mentioned due to the claw back structure as well as opposition to the cutting of the back-to-school allowances and winter clothes allowances to social assistance recipients. Many called on the government to at least restore the cuts Harris made in 1995 (approximately 22%) and adjust it for inflation from 1995 to 2008 and moving forward.

Childcare – Childcare came up repeatedly as a major challenge particularly to low income single parents. Two stories that touched me came out of discussions on child care. A social worker talked about the pregnant teens she works with and advocates for and the challenges of keeping them in school during their pregnancies. She told us that a handful of high school graduates she has been working with were accepted to college or university, but the costs of child care in some cases would keep them from being able to attend. This should not happen. Another story came from a single mother with two children who is pursuing her Masters at University and is aware that when she graduates she will crash into a major financial wall. Her biggest fear was what would happen when she lost her childcare subsidy, not to mention her rent subsidy or the fact that she’ll need to begin paying off a mammoth student loan that in many places could disguise itself as a mortgage.

Heath Care – In more than one meeting the government was called on to end the 3 month waiting period for persons new to Ontario being eligible for OHIP coverage.

Recognizing Foreign Credentials – Particularly as a way to address poverty in communities with high rates of recent immigration the government was called on to make it far easier for foreign credentials to be recognized. The reality for many well educated professionals who immigrate to Canada is search of a new life, find their skills not recognized and then being put in a position of working either through temp agencies or at low paying jobs that do not allow them to sustain their families.

There were other ideas that came out of the conversations as well and of those many involved social programs, but were not necessarily linked directly to poverty alleviation.

I learned quite a bit attending these meetings. In many cases they helped me refine my views a bit, and in some cases re-affirm what I’ve already held to be the best approach to poverty alleviation. Like many Ontarians I am hopeful that the provincial government will come out with a meaningful report with recommendations that will do more than paper over some of the major issues surrounding poverty in this province.

Child Poverty in Ward 43 (City Ward Report on Child Poverty)

Just to put it in perspective I’m going to start with some City of Toronto data (which I will exclusively rely on for the purposes of this post) and go into some discussion. Stylistically speaking “City” will refer to the municipal government, while “city” will refer to Toronto as a whole. 

Key Facts:

Ward 43 has the highest rate of child poverty in all of Scarborough and the third highest rate of child poverty in the city of Toronto. 

41% of children in Ward 43 under 14 live in poverty compared to 30% across the city as a whole. 

In total Ward 43 has 5125 children under 14 living in families below the low income cut off and only 985 of those children receive subsidized childcare. 503 children are on a waiting list. The City believes of the 24 000 subsidized spaces, Ward 43 is entitled to 1029, still more than 4 000 spots short of even just the number of children below the low income cut off. 

The LICO – Low Income Cut Off is defined as $22,964 for a family of two or $34 572 for a family of four. It is also commonly referred to and generally accepted as the “poverty line”.

In neighbouring Ward 44 where half as many children live in poverty and the incidence is both the lowest in Scarborough and the 4th lowest in the City overall, there are 46% more subsidized childcare spaces than the City feels is equitable. Ward 43 by contrast has 41 fewer subsidized spots than the City believes it ought to.

As of July 10th (when I began to research the hard numbers on vacant childcare spots) there were 113 vacant subsidy spots in Ward 43, representing over 20% of the current waiting list. Ward 44 had 44 vacant subsidy spots and as of July 18, had 48 vacant spots. This represents more than the 41 spots the City believes Ward 43 deserves under the equity guidelines. As of July 18th, Ward 43 had 110 vacancies. Lets hope the City fills vacancies at a faster rate then this usually. Here is a link to the Children Service’s page that makes this information public. 

Discussion of Child Poverty in Ward 43 and Toronto

While I believe child poverty everywhere must be addressed, I think it is important to focus most on neighbourhoods and communities where child poverty is highest. When it comes to practical applications of poverty reduction, I believe the City does have the opportunity to lead through programs and support to low income families. It should start by immediately filling all vacant childcare spots in Wards where the City has stated too few subsidized spots are available to children. The City should re-allocate the vacant subsidies in Wards where the city believes there are too many subsidized spots to those below the equity guidelines. While I do not believe the 24 000 current subsidized spots is enough, particularly when over 100 000 children are eligible for subsidized daycare, I do think that the current spots do need to be distributed fairly first, and that new money also ought to be distributed in a fair way across all city wards in future.

In places like Ward 43 where child poverty is so overwhelming the City should work with local school boards, the province and outside groups to support breakfast programs in all K-8 schools to give children a fair shot at learning. It has been said repeatedly it is far more difficult to learn on an empty stomach. This spring, I spoke with a woman at a community event who runs a breakfast program at a local school in my community. The challenges facing these programs in just ensuring they have the resources to go all year are immense. They ask parents to send $5 a week to school with their child if they are able to help cover the cost, but the reality is many parents cannot afford to. 

In the absence of daycare spaces, after school programs become even more important, especially for school aged kids. Not only do they provide children with an opportunity to either enhance their learning outside of the classroom or participate in some sort of physical activity, but they allow parents to buy time before needing to pick up their children after work. 

I’m going to share some of the graphics that came from the City’s Ward Specific reports on children. Please click the following link and select “High Proportion of Children Living in Low-Income Families” and “Electoral Wards”. The red dots are the high proportions. Notice how Ward 43 is almost entirely red except a small portion of Seven Oaks in the north east corner and all of Guildwood in the south? Because these two neighbourhoods have next to no child poverty, what this means is in the areas that do the incidence is far higher than the reported 41%. There are a bunch of other comparisons you can do between standardized test scores, library registration of children under 12, etc. and incidence of child poverty as well. The data is really compelling, take a look… I can’t discuss it here or this post will turn into a novella in no time!

The next graphic is a chart that compares Ward 43 family income to that of the City of Toronto. I’ve made it as big as I can here.

I want to provide some perspective on these numbers. The LICO – Low Income Cut Off for the purposes of this chart is defined as $22,964 for a family of two or $34 572 for a family of four. Almost 20% of families live on less than half what is considered to be the poverty line. That means a single mother with one child and an income of less than $11 500 or a two parents with two children and an income of less than $ 17 500. Those are nearly impossibly low sums to live on, particularly while raising a child. You will also notice in Ward 43 of families living on less than 50% of the LICO, single parents make up significantly more of these families in Ward 43 than in the city as a whole.

The solution to low income is obviously a having a higher income. But that requires an ability to work, particularly under conditions that will make earning a higher income possible. This generally means full time. Below is a chart I’ve put together using City of Toronto data on average daycare costs. Consider the barrier daycare costs create to even being able to seek employment. 

Keep in mind the costs below are both averages and monthly. 

Just how is a single parent supposed to make it work? How can a two parent family become a double income family with such high child care costs? It seems clear to me that the solution is a program either similar to Quebec’s much discussed $7 a day system of child care or an expansion of Toronto’s income based subsidy system. 

I believe the City should immediately fund the 15 000 children currently on the waiting list to receive daycare subsidies, and begin to budget annually for a ramping up of the childcare subsidy until at least the 112 000 children living in families with incomes under $40 000 who are also eligible have the opportunity for subsidized childcare. The City should also find a way to expand the current system to allow single parents who are looking to enter the workforce to immediately receive a subsidized daycare spot for their child once they’ve formally accepted an offer of employment. This would be a step that would allow parents to re-enter the work force by removing an existing barrier.

I also have an idea for something the City should stop doing.

The text below comes directly from the City of Toronto’s Employee Guide. It is on page 37 between “Fitness Centres” and “Meditation Rooms”. I’ve been having trouble with the graphic, so I’ve included the text in italics below as well.

“Employees who work directly for the corporation of the City of Toronto are eligible for priority admission to any of the City’s 58 directly operated child care programs or its home child care program. In addition, employees may be eligible for a child care fee subsidy. Priority admission does not apply to employees of the agencies, boards, commissions and corporations. 

For more information about child care centres, call 416-392-3317.

For more information about home child care, call 416-392-3366.”

Children’s Services states that Toronto’s current licensed daycare capacity only covers 21% of Toronto children. Further, it would stand to reason that the City’s 58 directly operated child care programs would be prioritized not for city staff, but for low income families. I don’t even want to get started on the “employees may be eligible for a child care fee subsidy” portion. – This should stop. According to the City’s website there are 1921 children on waiting lists for the some 3043 spots the City directly operates. These numbers are as of July 20th 2008. Why should the pool of 33 000 city employees have first dibs on these spots? Do you think the 1921 families with children on waiting lists for City operated daycare spots are aware of this? I wonder if the 88 000 families who are eligible but not receiving subsidies for childcare are aware of the child care provisions made specially for City employees. 

The good news is the City sees the importance of child care to maintaining a solid civil service, the bad news is the City’s approach to maintaining this is compromising the private sector’s ability to compete for a talented pool of people who attempt to balance a family life with a career. 

Below is the basis of my plan on how I am going to tackle this.

Bed Bugs — Basically this is something that really touched me, enraged me and opened my eyes to how real issues like affordable housing, social assistance and persistent poverty are for so many. It’s a personal story about a single father I met in 2006 and what spending half an hour did to me as a person. I will post it tomorrow.

New Voters — A lot of the people who supported me lived in lower income communities, and many were voting for the first time ever or the first time in a long time. I had a lot of frank, and spirited discussions with people who self identified as non voters. A couple of them really touched me even more so than others. I will post this on the 18th.

Poverty Reduction Meetings Re-Cap — I’ve attended three. One held by Minister Best, one held by the City of Toronto, and a third held by a community organization focused on providing services to members of the South Asian community. I will re-cap what came out of these meetings and share it here. I will post it on the 19th.

Child Poverty in Ward 43 — I can’t say much more or this will become the entry devoted to this topic. Let me just say it is shocking and needs to be talked up more and I plan to start that process on the 20th.

Conclusion – Part One – Causes and Effects of Poverty — Here I am going to summarize the often fragmented bits of information that come out in the other posts and try to draw some of it back together. This has been the most challenging part, because poverty as an issue as much more woven into itself than most issues. I’ll post on that on the 21st

Conclusion – Part Two – Solutions to Poverty — I’m going to provide my own thoughts on what government, social service agencies and business should do to help reduce poverty. This will be posted on the 22nd.

Preview of What I Plan to Do – I have no idea when this is coming because much of what is being discussed is still fluid. But I hope it will come together shortly after the rest of these things.

So from personal stories that touched me on issues relating to poverty through a better understanding of the challenges out there, the ideas others have and are calling on the government to act on, and back to personal action. That to me seems like the best way to pull it all back together. Hopefully you’ll read along, think about some of this stuff and maybe even offer to lend a hand when there are some opportunities to actually stand up and do something.

As a final note, I want to thank the people who’ve talked to me about this site, and the things I’ve been writing. It is really nice to hear encouragement and support — especially when it is unsolicited. So thank you for that.

Before I say anything substantive, let me start by saying I don’t dislike John Tory. I don’t agree with his politics, but I can appreciate the struggles he’s gone through over the last half decade and the personal battles he must have faced trying to serve the public. Tory came a close second when he ran for Mayor of Toronto in 2003. He made some sense in that race, and I’m still not sure the city would have burned had he won. He carried a lot of the suburban wards, including Ward 43, where he had the support of Conservative and then local Councillor, David Soknacki. He later became leader of the opposition and ultimately lost a Premier’s race polls and pundits said was within his grasp, and also managed to lose the seat he had staked out for himself. That must have been a tough night for him. Weaker men could not have even surfaced to face their supporters and concede, but he did, and fought on to stay leader of the opposition, but without a seat still to this day.

Anyways, this post is not intended to be about my empathy for the defeats Tory has been dealt, or his personal struggle with the electorate. But, reading his priorities for Toronto — I began to see a glimpse of Tory’s failed strategy to win… and felt it was worth pointing out, because for me at least it is also why much of what he says does not deeply resonate at least for me I think.

Tory picked five issues to deal with, and I’d suggest with varying degrees of success.

1) Attracting Jobs and Growth — He made some sense here, and it is an important aspect of ensuring a world class city, but is it the top priority? Maybe it depends who you are and what you’re most worried about.

2) Clearing Gridlock — He called for increased investment in transit from all governments here. The name was the throw back to a previous issue he tried to make hay out of, and likely would seem more relevant if it was something like “increasing investment in public transit” or “building a world class transit system for Toronto” or really anything that was not a reference to cars stuck in traffic on a highway.

3) Cleaning our city up — I have to say I hoped this would be about a climate of secrecy or a lack of transparency at city hall, but he meant it literally, which is still good. Who is against clean cities? The only point I felt here was unnecessary was his commenting about doing a lot of travelling and Toronto being “far from the cleanest” city he’d travelled too. I mean he is the leader of the opposition for Ontario, so in fairness if he is referring to other Ontario cities, size and scale may be factors. He didn’t say what cities were cleaner so it is hard to say if he is suggesting something like say London, England or London Ontario.

4) Fixing Toronto’s Finances — This isn’t a bad idea either. I don’t like the sound of “trimming municipal expenditure” coming from a conservative, because that will very likely mean Toronto’s social programs. Also it is important to note when the City of Toronto Act was voted on at Queen’s Park, Tory and his party were the only party to vote against it, and the bill did give Toronto significantly more control to plot its financial future.

5) Bringing hope to our troubled neighbourhoods. — I was getting worried Tory might make it through his article and forget so many of Toronto’s residents live in poverty and at risk communities, but it looks like he got it… Or did he? Take a read to his entire point on this one and decide for yourself.

We can’t go on turning a blind eye to the physical and social decline that has spread across our city. It’s unfair, its a tremendous waste of human potential and it’s a root cause of crime.

These neighbourhoods need physical renewal and they need effective programs that don’t duplicate each other or disappear every few months when funding runs out. So, let’s pool all of the resources – governments, private sector, non-profits and community associations – into a comprehensive and funded program, commit the money and resources for the long haul and the big picture and get on helping every neighbourhood in need with a real sense of urgency.

A few questions I have:

When you say “they need effective programs” or there is a need to pool resources into a “comprehensive and funded program” “for the long haul and big picture” – what is the big picture? what will this program even do? It seems hard to take someone seriously when they want to “trim municipal expenditure” and create funded programs for the long haul to reflect a big picture that appears not be to painted before the mechanics of the program are assembled. I thought that is how good ideas become waste in government.

John Tory forgot to say what besides physical renewal is needed to help “these neighbourhoods” he speaks of. He also forgot to tell us what “these neighbourhoods” were, or even some characteristics about them so we could figure it out for ourselves. Are they at risk? High crime? High poverty? Areas with higher rates of recent immigration or child poverty? Or just ones that need physical renewal?

Before designing a program it would be helpful to know.

I would also suggest Tory take a look at the United Way’s Poverty by Postal Code or the Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corporation’s Growth Management and Affordable Housing in Greater Toronto report as each would argue that the physical and social decline may not be spreading, but in fact intensifying in some areas, a problem I would argue is far more corrosive as it separates citizens by income.

Although I’ve never supported Tory when he has sough any political office in Ontario his inability to see any of his near victories through is a frustration to some degree even if you’re not supporting the guy. I mean I am happy when my guy wins, but still puzzled that he managed to let it happen. Tory makes the same mistake in every campaign and it has to do with something really simple. Controlling the agenda. He just turns out to really be bad at deciding what the discussion is going to be about and subsequently gets painted on the wrong side of all of them.

In 2003, Miller went from “also ran” status to Mayor by controlling the agenda. He got citizens all riled up over a bridge that realistically affected a very small percentage of harbour users, and co-ops on the waterfront near Little Norway park, but that and his broom saw him through. Tory could not close the gap and win a winnable fight because people just weren’t interested in what he was selling in comparison, however good it may have been.

In 2007 Ontario’s first fixed election was a bit like a Seinfeld episode. An election about nothing. It was boring. Pollsters could photocopy polls from May of that year in August and still be dead on. But all that changed when McGuinty decided that Tory’s comments about funding religious education was worthy of an election issue. Turned out he was right, Tory tanked, McGuinty rose. All the other ideas he had didn’t matter, because everyone else was talking education.

It’s got to be a tough spot to be in, but as a general idea, talking to people, especially busy people, about something they’re already actively thinking about or have an opinion on is an easier way to build support or start debate around something. Introducing ideas that just aren’t top of mind takes a whole lot more work and runs the risk of ending badly. Tory has shown he’ll take risks, he even has the battle wounds to prove it.

If I was Tory either in person or in pen name and I was writing this, I would have led with the fifth point, and said something coherent. I would have forgotten the third point all together, because most would not argue that our city is not clean, and I’d rename the gridlock argument something transit friendly. I’d probably mould his first point into the fifth and find a nicer way of putting the municipal expenditure bit. That way at least he would be engaging in the debates and discussions that are actually happening in this city, and people may find it easier to resonate.

The last sentence of his article shows his difference from his predecessors. Tory says he loves Toronto, but then throws in a line about helping to “get it back on top, where it belongs”. This rubbed me as too close to the Fraser Institute and COMPAS poll that questionably presented Toronto as in decline. Who knows, maybe if Tory won, he would have found some Potash or Oil under our city. If we built a Scarborough subway, who knows what we’d find buried under all of that land. Just an idea.