The politics of poverty in Canada

Similar to other countries, is a highly contested concept in Canada. In spite of Canada's great wealth and reputation as a kinder, gentler nation than its neighbours to the south, poverty continues to be persistent and pervasive. While most Canadians agree that poverty in Canada is greater than it should be, Canada does not have an official poverty line and there has been much debate in recent years as to how poverty is best measured. This has been somewhat of a distraction from the reality that poverty, regardless of how it is measured, is unacceptable in a country of such great wealth. The problem has only become worse in the post-Keynesian context. Solutions on offer in the current political milieu focus on short term training to meet labour market needs. All too often this results in low-wage, precarious employment that fails to lift people out of poverty.IntroductionIn spite of Canada's great wealth and reputation as a kinder, gentler nation than its neighbours to the south, poverty continues to be persistent and pervasive. This chapter provides an overview of poverty in Canada including discussion about the major obstacles standing in the way of its elimination. This includes a lack of consensus on how poverty is defined and the absence of an accepted poverty line, underlined by a dominant discourse that dismisses the idea that structural failings create the conditions that leave far too many Canadians behind.Poverty DiscoursesSimilar to other countries, 'poverty' is a highly contested concept in Canada and responses are highly political. Ruth Levitas (2003; 2005) developed a typology of 'social exclusion' discourses that is equally useful to describe the various views on poverty that ultimately guide policy responses in Canada and elsewhere. Levitas (2005: 14) emphasises poverty as a prime cause of social exclusion and she outlines three dominant discourses. The redistributive (RED) discourse builds on the earlier work of Peter Townsend (1979: 32) which understands poverty in terms of 'people's ability to participate in the customary life of society...their resources are so seriously below those commanded by the average individual or family that they are, in effect, excluded from ordinary living patterns, customs and activities' (Levitas 2005). This discourse leads to a policy response that integrates comprehensive approaches to increase income and ensure access to a broad range of resources.The second view Levitas describes is the social integration (SID) discourse, which focuses solely on exclusion as a result of a disconnection to paid work. Getting people into the labour market is therefore the sole concern and solution to exclusion.The third model, which Levitas describes as the moral underclass (MUD) discourse, views social exclusion as the result of 'moral and cultural causes of poverty'. Policies and programs that focus on 'reform' of individuals, target 'youth at risk', and aim to 'employ' single mothers and others who are viewed as acting outside of mainstream norms are often modelled on such a view.As reflected in Levitas' RED perspective, poverty and exclusion speak to the limited participation of individuals in all domains of life with the lack of income being central to all exclusion. While access to economic opportunity through employment is the focus of SID, it is but one component of a poverty and social exclusion strategy under the auspices of RED. RED focuses on redistribution of income and wealth, recognising a need for comprehensive measures to address poverty and inequality. Levitas aptly sums up the three discourses. She says, 'from the RED perspective, the poor and excluded have no money, in SID they have no paid work, in MUD they have no morals' (2005: 3).In Canada, the RED model was more evident as the social safety net was weaved after WWII and through to the late 1970s. Since then, there has been a movement away from initiatives that adequately address poverty and social exclusion aligned with the redistributive discourse- ensuring that all citizens have sufficient income, satisfactory housing, accessible child care and access to education and training based on right rather than ability to pay. …

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.