BRIEF FROM THE WOMEN’S ACTION COALITION OF
NOVA SCOTIA
(WACNS)
Executive summary
The Women’s Action Coalition of Nova Scotia (WACNS) is an
independent non-partisan alliance of organizations and individual women. WACNS
advocates for women’s social justice and public policies that ensure equality,
justice, dignity, peace and security for all. WACNS works within Nova Scotia
and in solidarity with women’s social justice groups around the world.
In this Brief we present evidence concerning women’s vulnerability
to poverty and violence and express our support for recent calls in
Parliamentary and Senate Committee reports to develop a federal poverty
reduction strategy to strengthen Canada’s weak social and income security
infrastructure. Until the economic insecurities experienced by many Nova
Scotia women are systematically addressed, real gains for a national economic
recovery, and return to good paying, stable and secure jobs for women and men
in this country, will remain compromised.
We recommend immediate federal action and increased funding for
housing and childcare. Action plans and increased funding in these two crucial
areas for women would not only form the basis for a federal poverty reduction
strategy and contribute to economic development and employment, but help women
living in poverty and/or violent situations to improve the quality of their
lives.
We also express concern that gender analysis—the economic and
social implication of budget decisions on women’s equality and women’s
contributions to social wealth and well-being are largely absent from the
federal budget discourse and decision-making process. It is important to
rectify this because budget decisions often have differential gender impacts
that negatively impact women and in the long run are costly for governments.
Conversely, budgets that take women’s equality and social health and well-being
into account can reap financial benefits. We recommend the immediate
implementation of the 2009 Auditor General’s Report recommendations on
gender-based analysis in the 2012-13 budget.
Women’s vulnerability to poverty and violence
The overall rate of poverty amongst women in Canada has declined
since the 1970s.[i] Yet this decline masks disparities
amongst women and the high rate of poverty amongst vulnerable groups—aboriginal
women, racialized women, immigrant women, women living with disabilities, lone
parent mothers and (increasingly) female seniors living alone. Economic
disparities between women also increase depending on their geographic location
and whether they are in urban or rural locales. In 2001, rural poverty was
prevalent in most of Atlantic Canada and Saskatchewan, but less so in Ontario
and Alberta.[ii]
The poverty rate for female lone parents has declined in Canada
since the mid-1990s when it reached a whopping 52.9%, but in 2008 it still
stood at 20.9%—the highest of any family type. Similarly, the rate of poverty
amongst children declined, but in 2008 36% of all children living in low income
families lived in families headed by a lone parent woman.[iii]
If the government is to live up to its commitment to “end child poverty” it
must address family poverty and particularly amongst single mothers.
Poverty for women who must rely in full or in part on income
assistance is especially dire. Social assistance has always been an unjust and
stigmatizing income support system. It became worse after the federal
government removed national standards in 1995 opening the door to provincial
cuts to assistance and more stringent work requirements. The strengthening of
the Child Benefit since 1998 has helped, but it is still too low to keep many
single parent families out of dire poverty. In 2009 in Nova Scotia the total
welfare income of a single mother with one child was $14,992 or 70% of the
Market Basket Measure—an amount governments themselves have determined is
required live. A single woman deemed ‘employable’ (fit to look for work)
received just over 40% of the MBM. A disabled person received only $9,179 or
60% of the MBM.[iv] In these circumstances,
higher accommodation, energy and food costs make for hard choices about whether
to eat or pay the rent, leading to higher rates of homelessness and greater
reliance on food banks. The situation is not much better for seniors. The
OAS/GIS, once promoted as a way of ensuring no senior would live in poverty, is
no longer adequate to protect the dignity of senior women living alone.
More mothers with young dependent children are now in the labour
market, yet paid work is still not a reliable pathway to economic security for
themselves or their families. Indeed, in families where the major income
earner is female, 16% of individuals were living on low incomes in 2008. When
the major income earner was male, the share was only 6%. In 2008, women
employed full year/full time earned only 71% of what men earned—a situation
that has not improved since the mid-1990s. Moreover, women account for 60% of
minimum wage workers in Canada and it is estimated that 40% of women work in
precarious jobs with no benefits, no pension, and little or no job security.
Women in Nova Scotia often find themselves in particularly
precarious economic positions given the unique political economy of the region,
and the specific economic challenges this province faces. These economic
challenges are compounded because they are less likely to be employed, more
likely to be in seasonal work, and have more issues with childcare than their
urban counterparts. Women’s average earned income overall in Canada is only
65% of men’s, but in Nova Scotia it is closer to 60%.
It has been estimated that failure to
address the root causes of poverty in Nova Scotia costs at least between $1.5
and $2.2 billion dollars per year.[v] These costs are not merely borne by individuals and
families but by the provincial and federal governments, through the economic
costs associated with addressing high levels of crime and the effects of poor
health and school dropout, as well as the lost productivity.
Yet women are not only vulnerable to poverty, many are also
vulnerable to experiencing violence in their own homes and elsewhere. Although
there are signs that some forms of violence against women are decreasing, for many
groups of women violence remains endemic. One in two women in Canada over the
age of sixteen will experience violence during her lifetime.[vi]
Girls are also at high risk of sexual assault both within and outside of the
home. According to police-reported data, over half (59%) of sexual assault
victims were under the age of eighteen, and 82% of those child sexual assault
victims are girls.[vii] In Nova Scotia the rate
of spousal violence is 221 per 100,000 per year for women and 64 per 100,000
per year for men.[viii] Rates of sexual
violence in Nova Scotia stand at a staggering 4,000 per 100,000 per year, with
an estimated 90% of sexual offences going unreported to the police.[ix]
Personal security is also a necessary determinate of well-being and
productivity. Indeed, the World Health Organization and national health
agencies, including Health Canada and the U.S. Center for Disease Control have
demonstrated that domestic violence has a significant impact on the economy.[x]
In the United States “the costs of intimate partner rape, physical assault, and
stalking exceed $5.8 billion each year.”[xi] The equivalent percentage
of Canadian GDP would suggest an annual cost in 2010 of $766,749,244.
The role of government policy in women’s vulnerability to
poverty and violence
Poverty does not cause the violence, but it does make the situation
worse because it makes it more difficult for a woman without adequate means to
leave and establish a life and home of her own, especially when services and
support are inadequate to meet the need. This situation is not inevitable,
however. Governments choose whether or not to allocate public funds for social
programs that can reduce and prevent poverty and violence.
Under the current federal block-funding scheme in place since 1995,
provinces and territories receive money for social services and income
assistance through the Canada Social Transfer (CST). However, while the 2009
federal budget provided for annual 3% increase in the CST through 2011, it did
not address the adequacy of social assistance benefits provided by the
provinces and territories.[xii] According to the
Department of Finance, the money provided by the CST is “notionally earmarked”
for post-secondary education, child care services, and social assistance
programs. Of these, social assistance received the smallest funding increase
from 2007 to 2010. No conditions were attached to ensure that it is more than
“notionally” funded under the CST, or that incomes delivered by the province
adequately met the needs of the most vulnerable women.
Poverty and the provision of social assistance for women in Canada
has been red-flagged by virtually every United Nations body that reviews
Canada’s human rights performance, and the UN has asked the government to
establish minimum standards for social assistance to be applicable at the
federal, provincial and territorial levels.[xiii] This has not happened.
This is partly why women’s and other social groups are calling on
federal and provincial governments to develop poverty reduction strategies.
Ideally, such strategies would have clear goals, include stable and sufficient
funding for a variety of programs that help to lift people out of poverty, and
accountability measures with measurable indicators. While some provincial
governments have begun to heed this call, provinces cannot achieve real and
lasting results on their own. There must be additional federal funding to
achieve objectives.
We therefore believe that the federal government should reconsider
its decision not act on the recommendations of the Parliamentary Standing
Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development or the Standing
Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology. As both these
reports pointed out, poverty take a human toll in lost opportunities, poor
health, and the effects of social exclusion. These affects of poverty also
affect society as a whole and cost governments a great deal of money. We urge
the federal government to consult with other governments, low income people,
advocacy groups and the concerned public to develop a federal poverty reduction
action plan using a human rights framework that also includes women.
One way to ensure that the situation of women is taken into account
in public policy is to incorporate gender based analysis in all budgetary and
policy decisions. Gender-Based analysis is an analytical tool that is used to
assess how policies and programs may differentially impact women and men. It
can also help to achieve the broader policy goal of gender equity. In 1995 the
Canadian government committed itself to implement gender-based analysis
throughout its departments and agencies. Yet recent history is replete with
examples of budgetary decisions and policy shifts that have had negative
impacts on women.
In 1995, the same year that the government adopted GBA, the federal
government ended cost-shared funding and national standards for welfare
provision under the Canada Assistance Plan (CAP) and made large cuts to social
program spending. Women and others living in poverty are still feeling the
effects of these cuts. There were also disproportionately negative impact s
arising from the 1996 changes from unemployment insurance (UI) to employment
insurance (EI), especially for women in seasonal work in Atlantic Canada . [xiv]
Another example is the uneven gendered outcomes of tax expenditures.[xv]
Recent changes to Status of Women Canada have not only had negative
repercussions for women’s equality seeking groups, but also call into question
Canada’s commitment to women’s equality. [xvi] The 2008 infrastructure
program has also been criticized because there was little consideration given
to gender equity.
In the context of increasing economic uncertainty we are currently concerned
about the government’s 2011-12 budget commitment to accelerate the timeline for
deficit reduction through cuts to government programs. These cuts could have
direct and indirect impacts on women through the demise of public sector jobs
(where many women work) or of programs that that primarily serve women. We
therefore urge the government to re-think this course of action.
Budgets that take women’s situation into account, however, can in
the long run save money and reap financial benefits. By reducing their
economic vulnerability and providing women with more comprehensive social
supports (e.g, for their educational advancement, health and wellbeing, and
care for their children and families) women can continue to make, and
inevitably will make substantial economic contributions. With this in
mind, we recommend action in three areas for the 2012-13 budget:
1. Gender-Based Analysis and Budgeting
In 2009, the Auditor General of Canada published a report on the
implementation of gender-based analysis within government departments and agencies.[xvii]
The Report found that although there are GBA ‘champions’ in central agencies,
trained experts in GBA in some departments (including Status of Women Canada)
and some departments have GBA frameworks, there is still no evidence that GBA
is used in designing public policy or government-wide policy requiring it in
government initiatives. Of sixty eight initiatives examined in the audit in
only four was there any evidence that GBA had been integrated in the policy
development process.
Without a full accounting of progress on ending women’s poverty,
closing the wage gap, and increasing the well-being of all Canadians, we cannot
measure the effectiveness of spending. We believe, therefore, that the
recommendations of the Auditor General’s 2009 Report that gender based analysis
should be conducted throughout government, including central agencies must be
implemented without further delay.
2. A Federal Action Plan on Affordable Housing
The vulnerability of women to poverty in combination with the lack
of homeless shelters and affordable housing puts women who are victims of
family violence at a higher risk of not being able to leave or returning to an
abusive relationship. The Senate Report on Poverty, Housing and Homelessness
also found that poverty and the availability of affordable housing are
inextricably linked, noting “there is a housing affordability gap tied to the
shortage of supply of affordable housing and declining income at the lower end
of the income spectrum.”[xviii]
Women are particularly affected by the lack of affordable housing
because they have lower incomes, are more likely to be renters and spend a
higher proportion of their income on rent than men. Sixty percent of sole
support mothers compared with 40% of fathers and 29% of 2-spouse families spend
more than 30% of their incomes on rent. Unattached women are also predominantly
renters and many would qualify for subsidized housing if it was available to
them. Two community based studies conducted by the Affordable Housing
Association of Nova Scotia in 2009 and 2010 demonstrated that the shortage of
affordable housing is a serious problem and provided evidence of considerable
hardship it causes in both urban and rural areas. It is not only making it
more difficult for low income people to cope, but is increasing the incidence
of homelessness amongst vulnerable groups, including women. Numerous other
studies show that Aboriginal women, recently immigrated women, young unattached
women and women leaving abusive relationships are at risk of homelessness.
The Senate Report and most community based studies attribute the
shortage of affordable housing to the withdrawal of federal involvement in
housing policy and decline of federal funding during the 1980s and 1990s and,
despite recent investments, the lack of a coherent strategy to tackle the
problem. They agree that what is needed to tackle the problem of access to
affordable housing is more federal funding and for the government to work with
the provinces to develop a coordinated national affordable housing strategy.
3. A Federal Action Plan for Early Learning and Child-Care
Participation in Early Learning and Child Care (ELCC) is an
important means of reducing poverty for both children and low income families.
For children it provides a foundation for the future by developing social
skills and learning readiness. For parents, especially women, it offers the
freedom to pursue education or employment opportunities than can help lift
families out of poverty.
In Canada, access to affordable regulated childcare is limited due
to cost, availability of subsidized spaces, location, hours of operation, and recruitment
and retention issues. In rural areas availability is also limited due to
geographic distances and lack of public transportation systems. In Nova
Scotia, it is particularly low not only because of availability, cost, and
location but because governments have relied on unregulated care or more
recently, large commercial operators, to fill the gap even though studies show
that non-profit care is not only less costly, but also of better quality, with
superior outcomes for children.
Concern has long been expressed about these issues by research and
advocacy groups in Canada. They are confirmed by a 2005 OECD study that
reported out of 20 developed countries Canada has the lowest ELCC rate. In
2008, about 70% of mothers of young children were in the labour force but of
55% of children in some form of non-parental care, only 20.3% had access to
regulated care. In 2007-08 the number of regulated spaces only grew by 3%,
about one-third of the growth experienced in the few years before a new
national child-care plan was aborted by the current government. The lack of
accessible, quality childcare therefore is a significant obstacle to women’s participation
in employment and the development of our children.
Yet, partly due to lack of funding and reflecting the low-value
society and governments place on “women’s work”, many child-care workers are
themselves living in poverty. While this situation must change, ELCC is an
important source of employment for many women. By addressing family poverty,
supporting child development, and increasing jobs for women, federal investment
in ELCC would pay important social and economic dividends in the short and
longer term.
RECOMMENDATIONS:
We recommend that the 2012-13 budgetary process and all future
budgets demonstrate gender based analysis and provide an evidentiary base for
the development of more effective fiscal, economic and social policy that
promotes women’s equality.
We recommend that the federal government develop and implement a
national plan for Early Learning and Child-Care with more adequate funding in
the 2012-13 budget to increase the number of safe, affordable, non-profit child
care spaces and better match the demand for child-care across Canada.
We recommend that the federal government develop and implement a
national plan for affordable housing with more adequate funding in the 2012-13
budget to increase the number of affordable or subsidized housing units and
better match the demand for affordable housing across Canada.