Now that snow and cold weather have finally arrived, we will again have public conversations about shelters, food banks, and general poverty. It seems that those conversations have been heard as a matter of course in B.C. during the past few years.
Here's what we still know about the province: the child poverty rate in B.C. has reached 12% again and is the highest in Canada for the eighth consecutive year; the overall poverty rate in B.C. is the highest in Canada with more than half a million people living in poverty in 2009; and single mothers, aboriginal people and people with disabilities have historically been some of the most susceptible to poverty, but are now accompanied by more and more other groups.
Here's what we know about Nanaimo: more than 5,000 residents used food banks in Nanaimo this Christmas; there were 695 shelter "stays" in Nanaimo just between Jan. 1 and Oct. 31; there are seven (of 16) census areas in Nanaimo where more than 10% of families have members living in poverty (two areas have more than 20%); and the majority of other residents struggling under the weight of poverty tend to fly under the public radar, but are suffering nonetheless and falling farther and farther behind.
Here's what we also know: Despite these staggering numbers over many years, B.C. is one of only three provinces in Canada that still does not have a comprehensive poverty reduction plan. You would think that there would be a province-wide political will to provide the poor with real opportunities to better their own lives with a charitable act of a civilized, caring society.
Failing that, however, you would hope that there would be a desire to help because of a realization that helping the poor actually helps the entire community. A recent, comprehensive study on poverty even speaks the language of our government and points out that helping the poor also makes good economic sense.
The study I'm referring to, The Cost of Poverty in B.C., was completed and presented to the CCPA in July by Iglika Ivanova, an economist and researcher. In short, Ivanova points out that the costs of ignoring rampant poverty are far greater than the costs of preventing it.
Just one part of the lengthy study reveals, for example, that poverty is largely accompanied by poor nutrition, poor or non-existent housing, little opportunity for dental care, vision care, prescription drugs, and so on.
The result? A disproportionately high use of other health services, such as acute care, costing about $1.2 billion annually. Another part of the study points out that "the biggest cost of poverty comes in the form of lost productivity and foregone earnings."
It points out that finding a way to increase household incomes to only $33,500 would inject $6.2 billion into the GDP in B.C., reducing the drain on employment insurance and other social support programs and help to boost local economies.
In other words, after revealing a wide variety of the costs that poverty inflicts either directly on provincial confers or indirectly through a variety of social consequences, the study shows that it makes good economic sense to finally build a plan to reduce poverty in our neighbourhoods.
It crunches the numbers and predicts an $8-$9 billion benefit to the provincial treasury and society in general, a twofold return on the cost of actually investing in a good plan.
The fact that the province did little to help the disadvantaged even during strong economic times is both telling and troubling. It suggests a blind adherence to an ideology that has little to do with fact-based policymaking, which is in the best interest of communities.
Hopefully this study is causing them to think in a different way. - Kim Slater is a retired Nanaimo educator and seniors' advocate. His next column will appear on Feb. 3.