English
Français

Human Rights and Poverty

In this section:

Canada not living up to its human rights committments, NAPO tells the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights April 18, 2006

The National Anti-Poverty Organization will be presenting a report to the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in Geneva on May 1, 2006 on areas where Canada is not living up to its obligations as a signatory to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. NAPO points out that there are problems with Canada's respecting the right to work freely chosen, the right to just and favourable conditions of work including fair wages, the right to social security and the right to an adequate standard of living. See full NAPO submission...

Summary of National Anti-Poverty Organization Submission to CESCR

March 2006

1. Review Process

1.1 NAPO notes that the Concluding Observations in 1998 requested that the State Party “ensure the wide dissemination in Canada of its present concluding observations and to inform the Committee of steps taken to implement those recommendations in its next periodic report.” We are not aware of any follow-up on this by the Canadian government.

1.2 NAPO urges the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights to ask the Canadian government what was done about the Concluding Observations from the 3 rd Review and recommend that more effective follow-up mechanisms be implemented this time.

1.3 The Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights recommended in its Promises to Keep report that a parliamentary Human Rights Committee be created and that it have as part of its responsibilities “reviewing and scrutinizing Canada’s reports to treaty bodies, as well as those bodies’ observations and decisions on complaints concerning Canada.”1

1.4 NAPO urges CESCR to endorse this call for parliamentary review of the human rights reporting process.

2. Article 6 – Right to Work Freely Chosen

2.1 A number of provinces including British Columbia, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have implemented various work training, work search and workfare requirements in order for someone to be eligible or to continue to receive welfare. If people refuse to participate their payments may be reduced, or they can be denied welfare payments. We believe these policies are a violation of Article 6, which asserts a ‘right to work freely chosen or accepted.’

2.2 NAPO urges CESCR to recommend that all training and other work requirements be optional and not mandatory for the receipt of welfare.

3. Article 7 – Just and Favourable Conditions of Work… including Fair Wages

3.1 Up until 1996 the federal government had a federal minimum wage that applied to all workers in federally regulated sectors (about 10% of the work force). Now, the minimum wage rate applicable in regard to workers under federal jurisdiction is the general adult minimum rate of the province or territory where the work is performed. But provincial minimum wage rates are all below the poverty line and vary considerably.

3.2 The minimum wage in every province and territory is $5000 to $9000 below the before tax Low Income Cut Off poverty line for an individual working full time. Rates are even more inadequate if a minimum wage worker has to support a family.

3.3 NAPO urges CESCR to recommend that minimum wages be raised to a level where an individual working full time can escape poverty.

3.4 NAPO believes the federal government needs to reinstate a federal minimum wage set at $10 an hour, indexed annually according to changes in the cost of living index. For provinces with large cities the minimum wage needs to be at least $10 an hour and $9.45 or $9.40 for provinces with smaller cities.

4. Article 9 – The Right to Social Security

4.1 Eligibility requirements for welfare have been tightened up to the point that in many cases people who desperately need help can’t get it. This is one of the reasons homelessness in Canada has increased so much.

4.2 A recent study by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives called Denied Assistance: Closing the Front Door on Welfare in BC found that the acceptance rate for those who apply for welfare has dropped dramatically from 90% in June 2001 to 51% in September 2004 in the wake of changes to eligibility rules and the application system.2

4.3 NAPO urges CESCR to recommend that changes be made to eligibility requirements for welfare to ensure that all those who require social assistance are able to get the help they need.

5. Article 10 – Protection and Assistance for the Family and Dependent Children

5.1 In 1989, Canada’s Parliament vowed to end child poverty in the country. Sixteen years later, 1.2 million children still live in poverty. 17.6% of Canadian children live in poverty despite continued economic growth, rising employment and strong job creation.3 The number of children living in poverty has risen by 20% since 1989.

5.2 NAPO urges CESCR to recommend Canada develop a poverty reduction strategy to reduce child and family poverty with a range of policies, targets and timelines and measures to evaluate progress.

6. Article 11 – The Right to an Adequate Standard of Living

6.1 While there has been strong economic growth for over ten years, low unemployment rates and nine consecutive years with federal budget surpluses, over 4.9 million Canadians or 15.9% still live in poverty.4 While the rate of poverty has increased only slightly from 2001, the depth of poverty (or how far below the poverty line those who are poor fall below the poverty line) has grown significantly as welfare rates and minimum wage rates have fallen in real terms.

6.2 Marginalized groups such as Aboriginals, racialized people, disabled people, youth and seniors all suffer higher rates of poverty, particularly women in these groups. There has been a significant increase in the poverty rate of immigrant families, even though their educational levels have been rising. From 1980 to 2000 the rate of poverty for this group rose by 8.3%.

6.3 Work is no longer a guarantee against poverty. Even households with two low-wage workers cannot earn sufficient income to escape poverty. There has been an increase in precarious, part time and temporary low-wage jobs in Canada. 25.3% of Canadian workers are in low-wage jobs. In 2001, over 41% of poor families had at least one family member who worked at least 910 hours in the year.5

6.4 Welfare rates in every province and territory for every household type are grossly inadequate. The National Council of Welfare, Welfare Incomes 2004 report, issued in August 2005, shows that a single “employable” person on social assistance in New Brunswick is expected to live on just $3168 a year. Even with the addition of the Goods and Services Tax Credit of $220, this puts a social assistance recipient $14,127 below the LICO poverty line of $17,515 or just 19% of the poverty line. In British Colombia a couple with two children on social assistance receives only $18,258, $19,533 below the poverty line of $37,791 or 48% of the poverty line. Even the best rate, for a single parent with one child in Newfoundland, only reaches 70% of the poverty line at $15,228 or $6,576 less then the poverty line of $21,804.6

6.5 Welfare rates have generally been falling in real dollar terms. The National Council of Welfare reports that “many welfare incomes were significantly lower then they were ten or fifteen years ago.”7

6.6 NAPO urges CESCR to recommend increases in welfare rates to ensure an adequate standard of living for all Canadians.

6.7 The National Child Benefit Supplement continues to be “clawed-back” from social assistance recipients, despite the recommendation in the Concluding Observations from the 1998 review that this practice be stopped. Only three provinces, Manitoba, New Brunswick, and Quebec, do not reduce social assistance cheques by the amount of the NCBS.

6.8 NAPO urges CESCR to recommend ending this unfair practice, which discriminates against those receiving social assistance who are among the poorest families in Canada.

1. Standing Senate Committee on Human Rights, Promises to Keep: Implementing Canada’s Human Rights Obligationshttp://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/commbus/senate/com-e/huma-e/06cv-e.htm

2. Bruce Wallace, Seth Klein, and Marge Reitsma-Street, Denied Assistance: Closing the Front Door on Welfare in BC, Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, March 2007. http://www.policyalternatives.ca/documents/BC_Office_Pubs/bc_2006/denied_assistance.pdf

3. Latest available child poverty data is for year 2003. Child poverty data prepared by the Canadian Council on Social Development (CCSD) using Statistics Canada's Income Trends in Canada, 2003, 13F0022XIE and Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics (SLID) masterfile data (1993 to 2003), via remote access. Poor children are those living in families whose total income before taxes falls below the Low Income Cut-Off (LICO) as defined by Statistics Canada. A child is defined as a person under the age of 18 living with parent(s) or guardian(s), excluding those who are unattached individuals, those that are the major income earner or those who are the spouse or common law partner of the major income earner. Statistics Canada data excludes those on First Nations reserves; those in the Yukon, Northwest Territories and Nunavut; and children living in institutions.

4. Statistics Canada, CANSIM table (for fee) 202-0802 and Catalogue no. 75-202-X.
Last modified: 2005-08-12.

5. Canadian Labour Congress, The Economy

6. National Council of Welfare, Welfare Incomes 2004. http://www.ncwcnbes.net/htmdocument/reportWelfareIncomes2004/WI2004EngREVISED.pdf

7. National Council of Welfare, “Fix Welfare Financing and End the Clawback of Child Benefits”, News Release, June 7, 2005.

Using human rights to fight poverty - an overview

1. Seizing the potential of human rights
2. Core human rights concepts
3. Limitations and pitfalls

For many of us, human rights law may seem like a lovely idea, but one that has little relevance to our everyday struggles to feed our kids and ourselves, to secure and/or maintain housing, to get a job, to deal with racist discrimination or to any of the many other injustices we face. However, increasingly, grassroots groups around the world are using international human rights law in a variety of ways. From Indigenous people in Canada, to rape victims in Bosnia, to anti-poverty activists in San Francisco, people are finding that international human rights law has potential far beyond the chambers of the United Nations. More..

Reporting on Poverty to the United Nations

The International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights states that every person has the right to an adequate standard of living, including the right to be free from hunger, to have a job, be paid fair wages and get an education. Canada is a party to the Covenant which requires countries to turn these rights into realities. Yet poverty in Canada continues.

Governments are required to report every 5 years on how they are implementing the Covenant to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights which has been set up by the United Nations to monitor how governments are living up to their international human rights commitments. Canada sent in its most recent Fifth Report in September 2005 and its Fourth Report in October 2004 and will appear before the Committee to answer questions on both of them in the Spring of 2006.

NAPO submitted its own report and contributed to a joint Canadian non-governmental organization report to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in April 2006.

NAPO Submission to the Committee on Econimic, Social and Cultural Rights, May 2006

Summaries of Canadian NGO Submissions to the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, March 2006

 

Tell your story to the United Nations

 
top of page
©NAPO - ONAP 2004