Introduction
The Greater Toronto Area has been recognized as one of the most affected provinces in Canada by poverty. This aspect contrasts the distinct image the rest of the world has with regards to the region, especially of Toronto. Stapleton (2015) indicates that Toronto’s economy accounts for almost 11% of the country’s GDP with its exports equaling close to $70 billion in products and services. In addition, it is also a hub for Information and Communication Technology as well as Canada’s media and financial center. As a result, the population in the city is comprised of wealthy professionals working in the city. However, the widely financially successful image of Toronto is contrasted by a larger population which is comprised of the working poor in low-income jobs (Stapleton, 2015).
Toronto is identified as one of the most livable, competitive, and prosperous cities in the world. This image is put to risk as the City of Toronto is identified as a region of sharp contrasts. This is because it is characterized by Canadians from wealthy neighborhoods as well as those from poor neighborhoods. This instance suggests that the image portrayed of the City is fitted to only a small segment of the Canadian population living in the city. In this regards, the other population has low-income levels that are not able to sustain the high cost of living.
The most vulnerable population in regards to poverty is children from 0-17 years (City of Toronto, 2014). As a result, children are forced to wallow in poverty by virtue of the low income earned by their parents. This paper will, therefore, put the issue of child poverty into perspective by examining the underlying causes as well as strategies undertaken to eradicate it.
According to Lee (2013), poverty is defined as the inability to sustain a good quality of life as a result of low levels of income. In this regard, poverty is often manifested in three main areas; homelessness, low quality of health, and food banks. In this regard, individuals who have low-income levels live in deteriorated neighborhoods that may be below international standards of living. High crime rates in such neighborhoods are often a common occurrence. Despite the provincial government’s intervention, the quality of housing has been wanting in Toronto especially among individuals from poor backgrounds. Lee (2013) indicates that almost 30% of the average monthly income is spent on housing. Those from poor backgrounds have to part with tremendously high percentages (up to 65%) of their incomes on housing. The high housing costs in Toronto have been a ticking time bomb as if the present trends persist, individuals will be forced to live in the streets.
The presence of food banks indicates that families and individuals are not able to provide for their basic needs. Food banks are often a government intervention strategy meant to provide food to individuals who may not afford it (Anderson, 2016). Upon their introductions, food banks were considered to be a temporary measure. However, they have become a necessity. According to Raphael (2011), approximately 1.1 million visits are made to food banks on a monthly basis. From these statistics, it is indicated that 38% of these visits are made by children.
Low quality of health is the third main indicator of poverty. In this regard, individuals from low-income backgrounds are not able to afford comprehensive health packages. For this reason, they may be susceptible to fall ill as a result of their low health quality. For instance, homeless individuals have a lower access to healthcare than compared to those with high levels of income. However, through government's intervention, universal healthcare has been implemented in the entire country to enhance accessibility to healthcare services.
The Canadian government has failed to recognize a distinct measure of poverty, causing confusion over the actual poverty statistics in the country. In this regard, the preferred measure is that of Low-Income Cut-Off (LICO). This measure determines an income threshold in which case those earning a low income are likely to spend a larger portion of their income to basic necessities such as food and shelter, compared to the average family. According to Raphael (2011), as of 2011 using the LICO measure, statistics indicate the level of poverty in Canada is placed at 8.8%. In this regard, the LICO identifies seven family sizes and five community sizes from which it is set at 65% of which the average family spends its income on necessities. When considered on an after-tax basis, the average family spends 43% of its income on food, shelter, and clothing.
In Toronto, the situation presents a bleak picture. In this case, Toronto is identified to be the richest city in Canada, yet is the leading city in child poverty. According to City of Toronto (2014), 25% of children below the age of 14 live in poverty. In this regard, children who experience poverty, especially on a persistent basis are more likely to develop behavioral issues, delays in their development, and are at risk of developing health problems. In addition, they are also at risk to fall into the poverty cycle in adulthood.
Childhood poverty is particularly difficult to measure, due to the fact that this population is not identified with a level of income. However, the basis of LICO on the average income of the households they live in provides the needed information. Monsebraaten (2015) indicates that Toronto is Canada’s child poverty capital. In this regard, 28.6% of children live in low-income households. This figure goes beyond the national Poverty Reduction Strategy to eradicate child poverty by 2035. However, to date, no significant change has taken place to this effect. According to Monsebraaten (2015), child poverty levels in 2004 were no different from those in 1989 in which case the Canadian economy went into recession in 1990. According to Raphael (2011), in consideration of after-tax LICO measure, 13% of Canada’s children or 872,000 below the age of 18 lived in low-income households in 2004. This issue is further emphasized in the case of Toronto from which according to Herald Opinions (2016), 1 in 4, or 144,000 children in 2014 lived in households with incomes less than those stipulated in Statistics Canada’s After-Tax Low-Income Measure.
Toronto has the highest rates of impoverished children among Canada’s largest cities. In this regard, among 140 neighborhoods in Toronto, 18 of these have child poverty rates upwards of 40%. This situation is made alarming in comparison to other population groups, thereby providing adequate reasons for an urgent response to resolve this matter. According to Monsebraaten (2015), among poverty rates associated with Toronto children are higher than other age groups. In this case, with child poverty rates reaching 28.6%, the working-age population’s rate is 24%, while senior Toronto residents’ poverty rate is only 10%.
The already bad situation is made worse in children who come from indigenous, non-white, and newcomer households who are more at risk of experiencing child poverty than compared to other population groups. This instance presents societal issues that further exacerbate the child poverty incidence rates (Kirkup, 2016). In order to resolve alarming poverty trends in low-income households responsible for child poverty, it is imperative to understand the causes of poverty in Toronto leading to its accreditation as Canada’s child poverty capital (Goar, 2016).
According to Stapleton (2015), the past 20 years has seen the rise in employment in only two categories; professional/knowledge and service entry jobs. Other job categories in the market have been stuck over this duration. This situation presents the fact that Toronto, regarded as Canada’s economic powerhouse, is driven by professionals in the knowledge category. In order to supplement the resulting services as the rise of this category, the service entry class provides service to the rapidly growing professional class. This instance provides the underlying reason as to why Toronto is the working poverty of Canada.
Not only is Toronto identified by the large numbers of service workers, the majority of whom earn a living making minimum wage in precarious employments, it is also defined by costly living. Monsebraaten (2015) indicates that the city is characterized by its high standards of living that force individuals working minimum wage to dedicate a large portion of their salaries to basic necessities.
Toronto is home to large populations of newcomers who move in the city as a result of the growing number of service jobs. In most cases, these individuals require additional time to settle down and establish themselves. This instance means that during this period, without any reliable income, such individuals are forced to depend on governmental programs for sustenance. According to Price and Benton-Short (2013), approximately 50% of the population in Toronto are foreign-born. In terms of the employment situation, in comparison to other Canadian cities, Toronto has more irregular employment. Price and Benton-Short (2013) indicate that less than 50% of full-time jobs are available all-year round. This figure is compared to over 60% the country’s statistic.
According to Lee (2013), the pledge provided by the House of Commons in the year 2000 has not been kept. In this regard, in the year 2012, more children and their families live in poverty compared to 25 years ago. This comparison is facilitated by a Statistics Canada report that indicated that child and family poverty had increased during this period from 1,066,150 in the year 1989, to 1,331,530 in 2013(Lee, 2013).
In order to rectify the poverty situation in Toronto, changes in economic policy, as well as government interventions, have been proposed and some implemented to improve the lives of people in the city (Shahid, 2016). In this case, the Toronto Poverty Reduction Strategy was established to identify and address the causes of poverty. This objective, as stipulated in the strategy, will be facilitated by the creation of pathways to prosperity through the improvement of quality in jobs available in the city, attracting investors in low-income areas to boost the local economy, and ensure the City's social and economic programs are integrated and focused towards viable interventions.
The federal government has contributed significantly to improving the dire situation among the majority of Toronto’s population (Monsebraaten, 2015). In terms of new government transfers, the Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB) introduced in 2007 provides for federal tax refunds for working and non-working categories of individuals from the age of 19 and above. This approach is meant to supplement the low earnings of individuals in these categories. In addition, the federal Universal Child Care Benefit allows a taxable benefit of $100 per child below six years old (Tinglin and Wilson, 2014).
The existing government transfers include the Canada Child Tax Benefit (CCTB) and the National Child Benefit Supplement (NCBS). The CCTB is a non-taxable income supplement provided to low and middle-income families on a monthly basis. Its counterpart the NCBS is also a monthly, non-taxable top-up provided to low-income families.
Conclusion
Toronto's reputation as the wealthiest city in Canada is put to risk as a result of the growing low-income population that threatens the sustenance of this title. The widening difference between the rich and poor is growing, with the most affected group being children. Upon this recognition, various measures have been implemented to reverse this trend. In this regard, the successful implementation of all federal policies and poverty reduction programs will facilitate this achievement.
References
Anderson, L. (June, 2016). Toronto’s food insecurity can’t be fixed by charity. Huffingpost Canada. Retrieved from http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/wellesley-institute/torontos-food-insecurity_b_10321066.html
Goar, C. (February, 2016). Fine sentiments but no progress on child poverty. The Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/11/24/high-hopes-for-federal-action-to-end-child-poverty.html
Herald Opinions (June, 2016). Voice of the people. Retrieved from http://thechronicleherald.ca/letters/1369422-voice-of-the-people-%E2%80%94-june-3-2016
Kirkup, K. (May, 2016). Poverty rates for indigenous children over twice non-aboriginals, study says. The Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2016/05/17/poverty-rates-for-indigenous-children-over-twice-non-aboriginals-study-says.html
Lee, K. (2013). Urban poverty in Canada: A statistical profile. Ottawa: Canadian Council on Social Development.
Monsebraaten, L. (November, 2015). High hopes for federal action to end child poverty. The Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/11/24/high-hopes-for-federal-action-to-end-child-poverty.html
Monsebraaten, L. (October, 2015). Child poverty widespread in Toronto – area ridings. The Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/10/07/child-poverty-widespread-in-toronto-area-ridings.html
Monsebraaten, L. (October, 2015). Toronto holds onto its shameful title: Child poverty capital of Canada. The Star. Retrieved from https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2015/10/13/toronto-holds-onto-its-shameful-title-child-poverty-capital-of-canada.html
Price, M., & Benton-Short, L. (2013). Migrants to the metropolis: The rise of immigrant gateway cities. Syracuse, N.Y: Syracuse University Press.
Raphael, D. (2011). Poverty in Canada: Implications for health and quality of life. Toronto: Canadian Scholars' Press Inc.
Shahid, M. (May, 2016). Campaign calls for action on child poverty. Orillia Packet. Retrieved from http://www.orilliapacket.com/2016/05/19/campaign-calls-for-action-on-child-poverty
Stapleton, J. (2015). The working poor: In the Toronto region. Metcalf Foundation. Retrieved from http://metcalffoundation.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/WorkingPoorToronto2015Final.pdf
Tinglin, W. & Wilson, B. (2014). Toward a poverty elimination strategy for the City of Toronto: A joint initiative of the alliance for a poverty-free Toronto and social planning Toronto. New York: Routledge Publishers.
