Tackling Poverty Together

What it is like to live in poverty in Canada and how the federal government can help

On this page

Alternate formats

Large print, braille, MP3 (audio), e-text and DAISY formats are available on demand by ordering online or calling 1 800 O-Canada (1-800-622-6232). If you use a teletypewriter (TTY), call 1-800-926-9105.

Thank you to our partners

We would like to acknowledge and thank the different partners who contributed to this project:

Saint John – Living SJ, ONE Change, YMCA, Association for Community Living, Salvation Army, and The Human Development Council.

Regent Park – Yonge Street Mission, Christian Resource Centre (CRC), Central Neighbourhood House, Toronto Council Fire Native Cultural Centre, Dixon Hall, Regent Park Community Health Centre, Fred Victor, Centre for Social Innovation, Artscape, and Ryerson University.

Winnipeg – United Way Winnipeg, Ma Mawi Wi Chi Itata Centre, Centre for Aboriginal Human Resource Development, Resource Assistance for Youth, Manitoba League of Persons with Disabilities, Immigrant and Refugee Community Organization of Manitoba Inc., Age & Opportunity, SEED Winnipeg Inc., The Salvation Army – Winnipeg Booth Centre, The Salvation Army – Heritage Park Temple, and University of Manitoba.

Tisdale – Partners to End Poverty, Northeast Newcomer Services, Newsask Community Futures, Salvation Army North East Circuit, KidsFirst, North East Outreach and Support Services, Tisdale Housing Authority, and University of Saskatchewan.

Trois-Rivières – COMSEP, Les Artisans de la Paix, Point de Rue, Moisson-Mauricie/Centre-du-Québec, Centre d’amitié autochtone La Tuque - Point de services pour les autochtones à Trois-Rivières, and Université du Québec.

Yellowknife – YWCA Transitional Housing Facility, NWT Disabilities Council - Safe Harbour Day Centre, The Tree of Peace Friendship Centre, Yellowknife Seniors’ Society, Centre for Northern Families, SideDoor Resource Centre 4 YOUth, Salvation Army, and Aurora College.

National Advisory Committee – Sherri Torjman, Caledon Institute of Social Policy; Sheila Regehr, Basic Income Canada Network; Dr. Robert Brym, University of Toronto; and Dr. Robert Andersen, Western University.

EKOS Research Associates Inc. administered the community surveys.

KIMBO Design prepared the graphic design of this report.

The Tackling Poverty Together project is funded by the Government of Canada.

The opinions and interpretations in this publication are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the Government of Canada.

Project summary

What is the tackling poverty together project?

The Tackling Poverty Together Project offers a rare opportunity to hear directly from Canadians about what it is like to live in poverty in Canada. The project is one of many ways in which the Government of Canada is engaging with the public about the challenges faced by people living in poverty, how federal government programs are helping, and where more support is needed.

The Government started the conversation with the release of the Towards a Poverty Reduction Strategy Discussion Paper. On September 2, 2016, the Honourable Jean-Yves Duclos, Minister of Families, Children and Social Development, officially launched the Tackling Poverty Together Project. Ference & Company Consulting Ltd. led the engagement process.

What are the key messages from Canadians?

  1. Poverty exists in Canada and much of it is hidden. Almost 5 million, or one in seven Canadians live in poverty based on the after-tax low-income measure. Poverty is often hidden and the size of the problem can vary depending on the cost of living and the concentration of poverty in particular neighbourhoods.
  2. Many Canadians cannot pay for basic necessities and face significant barriers to work, which take an emotional and psychological toll. People living in poverty face barriers to work such as personal, health, and disability challenges, mental health and addictions issues, a limited number of good jobs, a lack of education and training, discrimination, criminal records, and structural and historical barriers such as those faced by Indigenous people. People living in poverty cannot afford basic necessities like healthy food, adequate housing, medications, dental care, and transportation. As a result, people feel stressed, frustrated and alone.
  3. Poverty affects some groups more than others. Across the six communities, we heard that single parents, people with mental health and addictions issues, people with disabilities, seniors, and Indigenous people are most vulnerable to poverty. Youth, recent immigrants, racialized people (that is, visible minorities), unattached individuals aged 45 to 64 years, and low-wage workers are also at risk.
  4. Canadians living in poverty are survivors, but they need more support to make a bigger change in their lives. Canadians who have lived or are still living in poverty said they have tried to overcome their challenges by working in multiple jobs, going back to school, getting help from community organizations, keeping a positive outlook, self-healing, budgeting, and getting support from family and friends. But for many, these efforts have not been enough to make a significant change.
  5. The Canada Child Benefit and Guaranteed Income Supplement are making a big difference. The Canada Child Benefit is helping many low-income parents to feed their children. The Guaranteed Income Supplement has gone a long way to reduce poverty among seniors in Canada. Many seniors depend on this benefit to live.
  6. The federal government offers other important programs that could be helping, but very few people are aware of them. The Canada Learning Bond, which helps parents save for their children’s post-secondary school, is not reaching enough parents in need. The Working Income Tax Benefit, which provides an income supplement for working low-income Canadians, is not widely known. There are also gaps in awareness about programs among Indigenous people, particularly indigenous seniors.
  7. Many people cannot access the support they need because of how some programs are designed and delivered. Most people are denied access to the Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit because they do not fit the definition of having a “severe and prolonged” disability. Many low-income workers cannot access the Working Income Tax Benefit because the income cut-off is too low. Countless people who are at risk of homelessness cannot benefit from the Homelessness Partnering Strategy since it targets those who are chronically homeless.
  8. Canadians were unanimous that there is a need for more support in different areas, and by different levels of government, to help people overcome poverty. There is a need for more support to help Canadians living in poverty to access full-time and living wage jobs, affordable housing, community programs, support that is culturally and historically sensitive to Indigenous people, and sufficient government income benefits in order to make a real change in their lives.

Are people hopeful that things will get better?

The sentiment in the discussions ranged from frustration and skepticism to gratitude and hope. People are frustrated that things are not getting better no matter how hard they try to get out of poverty. Most people want to empower themselves by going to school, getting a job with better pay or hours, and providing for their children, but many have been excluded from these opportunities. They want respect. They want a chance to show what they can offer the world. In Winnipeg, a person with a disability talked about spending countless hours applying for jobs and sending resumes with no results. A single mom in Tisdale talked about working evenings and weekends as a restaurant server, but not having enough hours to qualify for subsidized child care. A homeless man in Yellowknife talked about setting up a job pool so he can offer his skills to people who need extra help.

For some, the frustration has turned to skepticism, anger, and sadness. Youth who are barely adults are already jaded and skeptical about the system that is supposed to be helping them. Some people are angry at the mistreatment and discrimination they have faced from both service providers and potential employers based on their race, age, social status, address, and disability. To access support, people often have to recount their story over and over and prove that they are worthy. It is invasive and demoralizing. Others feel sadness that things will only get worse. A mother of a son with a disability lamented that she is at her wit’s end because she was recently diagnosed with cancer and is afraid of what will happen to her son when she is gone. A senior in Saint John struggled with the fact that she has to ask her adult daughter for help, when, as a mother, she should be the one providing support.

In spite of these frustrations, there was an overwhelming sense of gratitude for the organizations and individuals in the community and federal government programs that have helped them. After the discussions, participants were genuinely thankful that someone was finally listening and hopeful that these messages will reach decision makers who need to hear them. Many community organizations were optimistic and expressed a willingness to work with the federal government and other partners to build on the successes and make a change.

Chapter 1: Introduction

Background

In 2015, almost 5 million or one in seven Canadians lived in poverty based on the after-tax low-income measure.Footnote 1 The rate of poverty in Canada is among the highest of the world’s richest countries.Footnote 2

According to a recent study, Canada had the third highest poverty rate out of seventeen similar countries. Income inequality and the gap between rich and poor families is getting wider. In 2008, food, shelter and clothing accounted for about half of total spending among the poorest households, while spending on these necessities accounted for less than a third of total spending among the richest households.Footnote 3 In contrast, Canada is doing relatively well according to key social and economic indicators with strong rates of life expectancy, educational attainment and income per capita.Footnote 4 Unemployment in Canada also declined from 8.7% to 6.9% between July 2009 and July 2016.Footnote 5 So, why do so many Canadians continue to live in poverty?

Purpose of the project

The purpose of the Tackling Poverty Together Project was to learn about what it is like to live in poverty in Canada. Feedback was gathered from hundreds of Canadians living in poverty, the many organizations that work with them, and thousands of other concerned Canadians about the challenges faced by people living in poverty, how federal government programs are helping, and where more support is needed. The results from this project and other engagement activities will inform the development of a comprehensive Canadian Poverty Reduction Strategy. Ference & Company Consulting Ltd. led the engagement process.

The project involved case studies of six communities across Canada: Saint John, Trois-Rivières, Regent Park (Toronto), Winnipeg, Yellowknife, and Tisdale. Information was gathered through surveys of the general public, focus groups and individual interviews with people with lived experience of poverty, and roundtables with community and Indigenous organizations involved in poverty reduction. Local community partners, experts, and municipal and provincial/territorial government organizations helped each step of the way.

Structure of the report

The report is structured as follows:

Chapter 2: Research approach

Focus of the research

Information and feedback was gathered on four topics:

The research focused on six federal government programs. These programs were chosen because they target different groups, focus on poverty reduction and prevention, and some of them have had recent enhancements:

Sources of information

Across the six case-study communities, Canadians shared their experiences and opinions in different ways:

Partners were engaged at all stages of the project. This included contracting with 43 local community organizations to help with the community visits and 10 local and national experts to provide advice on the approach and results, and getting feedback from government and community organizations, and other experts to prepare for the visits. A National Poverty Reduction Advisory Committee was assembled of leading poverty and social policy experts, including Sherri Torjman of the Caledon Institute of Social Policy, Sheila Regehr of the Basic Income Canada Network, Dr. Robert Brym of the University of Toronto, and Dr. Robert Andersen of Western University.

A more detailed description of the research approach can be found in Appendix 1.

Chapter 3: Snapshot of the communities

Canada is a diverse country made up of many communities with different histories, economies and types of people. The six case-study communities were selected to reflect a cross-section of communities across Canada to understand how poverty is similar and how it differs across different contexts. This section gives a snapshot of the six case-study communities.

Key indicators across the case-study communities
Saint John Regent Park
(Toronto)
Winnipeg Tisdale Trois-Rivières Yellowknife
Population 67,575 10,007 705,244 4,148 134,413 19,569
Median household income after-tax $43,125 $30,794 $50,537 $41,717 $41,161 $104,701
People in low-income after tax (LIM-AT) 1 in 5 1 in 2 1 in 6 1 in 7 1 in 5 1 in 10

Sources: Population data: Saint John, Winnipeg, Trois-Rivières, and Yellowknife from 2016 Census; Regent Park from 2011 Census; Tisdale from Government of Saskatchewan Covered Health Population 2014. Income data from 2011 National Household Survey.

Saint John, New Brunswick – Saint John is the second largest city in New Brunswick and the third largest city in the Maritimes. The city is located on the southern coast of the province. Between 1989 and 2003, Saint John experienced a 26% decrease in the number of manufacturing jobs, more than anywhere in Canada.Footnote 6 More recently, the city has focused on developing new sectors such as tourism, information and communication technology, energy, and service sectors. The service sector now accounts for more than three-quarters of all jobs in Saint John.

Regent Park (Toronto), Ontario – Regent Park is a neighbourhood located in downtown Toronto, built in the late 1940s as a social housing project. Three-quarters of the people living in Regent Park are racialized people (that is, visible minorities) and almost half of the residents speak a non-official language at home.Footnote 7 Since 2003, the City of Toronto has been implementing a revitalization project in Regent Park. The project aims to transform the community into a mixed-income, mixed-use neighbourhood.

Winnipeg, Manitoba – Winnipeg is the capital of, and largest city in, the province of Manitoba. One in ten people in Winnipeg self-identify as an Indigenous person, more than any other large city in Canada.Footnote 8 Winnipeg also has a sizable immigrant population. Winnipeg is an economic and regional centre for the province. It has one of the country’s most diversified economies. The main sectors of the economy include trade, manufacturing, education, and health care.

Tisdale, Saskatchewan – Tisdale is recognized as the “Hub of the Northeast” in Saskatchewan due to its central location in the region. The town has a population of about 4,150 and provides services to the greater trade area of about 27,300 people.Footnote 9 The main industries in Tisdale are agriculture and advanced manufacturing for the agriculture industry. Shopping, business, government services, education, sporting events, markets, and concerts attract people from all over the northeast region of the province.Footnote 10

Trois-Rivières, Québec – Trois-Rivières is a city in the Mauricie region of Quebec. It is located where the Saint-Maurice and Saint Lawrence Rivers meet, part way between Montreal and Quebec City. The city is mostly French-speaking. Trois-Rivières was previously known as the pulp and paper industry capital of the world from the late 1920s until the 1960s. The city once had five mills in operation. However, in the 1980s and 1990s, Trois-Rivières experienced an industrial decline and only three mills are left operating today.Footnote 11

Yellowknife, Northwest Territories – Yellowknife is the capital of, and the largest community in, the Northwest Territories. It is located on the northern shore of Great Slave Lake, about 400 kilometres south of the Arctic Circle. About one-quarter of the people living in Yellowknife self-identify as Indigenous people.Footnote 12 Yellowknife is the hub for mining, industry, transportation, communications, education, health, tourism, commerce, and government activity in the territory. The Government of the Northwest Territories is Yellowknife’s largest employer.Footnote 13

Chapter 4: Need for poverty reduction programing

4.1 How big of a problem is poverty?

Poverty in Canada is a very big problem and it is often hidden from plain view.

Most of the six case-study communities have rates of poverty above the national average. Compared to the national average of one in seven people living in poverty, there are higher rates of poverty in Regent Park (one in two), Saint John (one in five), Trois-Rivières (one in five), and Winnipeg (one in six) based on the after-tax low-income measure. Tisdale (one in seven) has a rate identical to the Canadian average and Yellowknife (one in ten) has a lower rate, though the cost of living is higher.Footnote 14

Different factors can influence the size and visibility of the problem. Saint John has high concentrations of poverty in particular neighbourhoods. For example, Crescent Valley has a 77% child poverty rate compared to 31% in the City of Saint John.Footnote 15 Regent Park has a high rate of poverty because the community is made up of mostly low-income social housing. In Yellowknife, Tisdale, and Winnipeg, the cost of living makes it harder for people living in low-income to afford necessities such as shelter and food. The rate of moderate or severe food insecurity in Yellowknife is almost two-and-a-half times the rate in Canada overall.Footnote 16 In Tisdale, much of the poverty is hidden because many people cope with homelessness by couch surfing with family or friends.

People had different opinions about how big of a problem poverty is in their community depending on how visible it is and their experience with poverty. More than half the people surveyed in Saint John, Regent Park, and Winnipeg think that poverty is a big or very big problem in their community. About half the people surveyed in Yellowknife think poverty is a big or very big problem. Just under half the people surveyed in Trois-Rivières and less than a third of the people surveyed in Tisdale think poverty is a big or very big problem in their community. People living in low-income (particularly people with disabilities, unattached individuals aged 45 to 64 years, Indigenous people, parents, and people who are homeless) were more likely to think that poverty is a very big problem.

Percentage who think poverty is a big or very big problem in the community
The textual description of the Chart 1 follows the figure.
Text description of Chart 1:

Chart 1: Percentage who think poverty is a big or very big problem in the community.

Saint John: 82%

Regent Park: 60%

Winnipeg: 55%

Yellowknife: 49%

Trois-Rivières: 44%

Tisdale: 28%

People in Saint John, Winnipeg, and Yellowknife think that poverty is becoming a bigger problem while people in Regent Park and Trois-Rivières tended to think that the situation is more or less the same as it was five years ago.

4.2 Why are people struggling?

Canadians living in poverty face various personal, economic, and historical barriers preventing them from getting adequate work and the services and programs they need, making it almost impossible to break the cycle of poverty.

Canadians and organizations that work with people living in poverty emphasized that people are struggling in their communities because they:

4.3 Who is most vulnerable to poverty?

Poverty affects some groups more than others, particularly single parents, people with mental health and addictions issues, people with disabilities, seniors, and Indigenous people.

Across the communities, Canadians highlighted the following groups as being most vulnerable to poverty:

Participants emphasized that other groups are also vulnerable in some communities, such as:

4.4 What are the major challenges faced by people living in poverty?

Many Canadians cannot afford basic necessities like healthy food and housing and struggle to obtain adequate work. This pressure takes an emotional toll and can lead to other problems like substance abuse and violence, perpetuating the cycle of poverty.

Canadians living in poverty (or who have lived in poverty in the past) most often explained that the challenges they face are:

Although people living in poverty shared similar experiences across the case-study communities and groups, some groups highlighted particular challenges more often:

Single parents

Seniors

People with disabilities

Unattached individuals

Indigenous people

Youth

Recent immigrants

Racialized people

4.5 How have people tried to overcome these challenges?

Canadians living in poverty are survivors, but they need more support to help them to make a bigger change in their lives.

When people who are currently living in poverty (or have lived in poverty in the past) were asked how they have tried to overcome these challenges, people frequently talked about making sacrifices and trade-offs. Some examples include working multiple jobs to pay for child care, collecting bottles on the side of the highway as a source of income, and asking their adult children for help with monthly expenses, even though they feel ashamed. People most often shared that they have tried to overcome their challenges by:

Chapter 5: Impact of Federal Poverty Reduction Programs

5.1 Are people targeted by the programs aware of them and using them?

5.1.1 Awareness of programs

Some federal government poverty reduction programs are widely known, while others are missing the mark because many people are not aware of them.

Parents have overwhelmingly heard of the Canada Child Benefit, most seniors know about the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and most people with disabilities have heard of the Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit. Specifically, 92% of parents surveyed across all six communities were aware of the Canada Child Benefit, 84% of low-income seniors were aware of the Guaranteed Income Supplement, and 76% of working-age people with disabilities were aware of the Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit.

However, not many people are aware of the Canada Learning Bond and Working Income Tax Benefit. Only about one-third of parents surveyed in each of the communities were aware of the Canada Learning Bond. Only 39% of people living in low-income were aware of the Working Income Tax Benefit.

People with higher incomes were more likely to be aware of these programs than people living in low-income, other than the Working Income Tax Benefit.

Awareness and use of programs
The textual description of the Chart 2 follows the figure.
Text description of Chart 2:

Chart 2: Awareness and use of programs.

Government of Canada Program Percent of target group aware (%) Percent of target group accessing (%)
Canada Child Benefit 92 72
Guaranteed Income Supplement 84 54
Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit 76 16
Working Income Tax Benefit 39 11
Canada Learning Bond 36 7

“How is a homeless person, especially in smaller communities, supposed to navigate a government website and services now that everything is online? It is frustrating for the average person, so imagine how it would be for someone on the street.”

– Indigenous roundtable participant, Yellowknife

There were some similarities and differences in awareness across the communities:

5.1.2 Use of programs

Some programs are not reaching low-income Canadians because the application process is too intimidating and the eligibility rules are too strict.

Most people who are aware of and targeted by the Canada Child Benefit and Guaranteed Income Supplement have used the programs. Seventy-two percent of parents surveyed across all the communities receive the Canada Child Benefit, which is close to the percentage who are aware of the program. Just over half of low-income seniors surveyed receive the Guaranteed Income Supplement, which is almost two-thirds of those surveyed who are aware of the program.

Very few people access the Canada Learning Bond and Working Income Tax Benefit. Not many people receive the Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit, even though there is a high level of awareness of this program.

There were some similarities and differences in the use of programs across the communities:

There are different reasons why people might not access the programs. Some of the most common reasons include:

5.2 Do people targeted by the programs find them helpful?

5.2.1 Canada Child Benefit

The Canada Child Benefit is making a big difference in helping low-income parents to pay for necessities for their children like food and clothing.

The proportion of parents surveyed who found the Canada Child Benefit helpful or very helpful ranges from 45% to 77% in the six case-study communities.

Percentage of parents who found the Canada Child Benefit helpful or very helpful
The textual description of the Chart 3 follows the figure.
Text description of Chart 3:

Chart 3: Percentage of parents who found the Canada Child Benefit helpful or very helpful.

Trois-Rivières: 77%

Tisdale: 70%

Winnipeg: 68%

Regent Park: 63%

Saint John: 62%

Yellowknife: 45%

What is working well?

What is not working as well?

5.2.2 Canada Learning Bond

The Canada Learning Bond is not reaching families who need it the most.

The proportion of parents surveyed who found the Canada Learning Bond helpful or very helpful ranges from 12% to 80% in the six case-study communities.

Percentage of parents who found the Canada Learning Bond helpful or very helpful
The textual description of the Chart 4 follows the figure.
Text description of Chart 4:

Chart 4: Percentage of parents who found the Canada Learning Bond helpful or very helpful.

Regent Park: 80%

Winnipeg: 74%

Yellowknife: 69%

Saint John: 46%

Trois-Rivières: 37%

Tisdale: 12%

What is working well?

What is not working as well?

5.2.3 Guaranteed Income Supplement

The Guaranteed Income Supplement is making a big difference helping low-income seniors to survive.

The proportion of seniors surveyed who found the Guaranteed Income Supplement helpful or very helpful ranges from 64% to 90% in the six case-study communities.

Percentage of low-income seniors who found the Guaranteed Income Supplement helpful or very helpful
The textual description of the Chart 5 follows the figure.
Text description of Chart 5:

Chart 5: Percentage of low-income seniors who found the Guaranteed Income Supplement helpful or very helpful.

Trois-Rivières: 90%

Regent Park: 79%

Saint John: 77%

Tisdale: 75%

Winnipeg: 72%

Yellowknife: 64%

What is working well?

What is not working as well?

5.2.4 Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit

Most people with disabilities are denied access to the Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit because their disability does not fit the definition of a “severe and prolonged” disability.

The percentage of people with disabilities surveyed who found the Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit helpful or very helpful ranges from 31% to 54% in the six case-study communities.

Percentage of people with disabilities who found the Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit helpful or very helpful
The textual description of the Chart 6 follows the figure.
Text description of Chart 6:

Chart 6: Percentage of people with disabilities who found the Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit helpful or very helpful.

Yellowknife: 54%

Saint John: 51%

Winnipeg: 45%

Tisdale: 38%

Regent Park: 31%

What is working well?

What is not working as well?

5.2.5 Working income tax benefit

Most low-income workers do not qualify for the Working Income Tax Benefit because the income cut-off is too low.

The percentage of people living in low-income surveyed who found the Working Income Tax Benefit helpful varies from 31% to 68% in the six case-study communities.

Percentage of people with a low income who found the Working Income Tax Benefit helpful or very helpful
The textual description of the Chart 7 follows the figure.
Text description of Chart 7:

Chart 7: Percentage of people with a low income who found the Working Income Tax Benefit helpful or very helpful.

Tisdale: 68%

Yellowknife: 53%

Winnipeg: 52%

Trois-Rivières: 48%

Regent Park: 45%

Saint John: 31%

What is working well?

What is not working as well?

5.2.6 Homelessness Partnering Strategy

The support provided by the Homelessness Partnering Strategy is very small compared to the needs in Canada.

What is working well?

Roundtable participants involved in delivering the Homelessness Partnering Strategy said that it has helped to pay for transitional housing, shelters, transportation, programs related to food security and literacy, and supports for single mothers and youth in many of the communities. For example, the Strategy helped to fund a Residential, Stability and Accompaniment initiative in Trois-Rivières. The Strategy works well because it is governed at the local level and most of the money goes directly to the community.

What is not working as well?

Roundtable participants in four communities said that the level and duration of the funding are not enough to meet the needs. Municipal and provincial/territorial governments often do not have enough funding to continue these programs. Once the funding ends, so do the services. The funding criteria are also a constraint because the program targets people who face multiple barriers and are chronically homeless, but does not sufficiently help people who are at risk of being homeless like those who are couch surfing. Funding in Winnipeg that was targeted for Indigenous organizations had to be redistributed to other areas because there were not enough applicants that fit the criteria. The types of organizations that are eligible and the requirement to fund new programs, instead of effective existing programs, were also constraints in Trois-Rivières.

5.3 Do people think the federal government poverty reduction programs are making a difference?

Canadians overwhelmingly agree that the Canada Child Benefit and Guaranteed Income Supplement are making the biggest difference in reducing poverty in their communities.

Almost half of Canadians surveyed who are aware of the Canada Child Benefit think it is making an important difference in reducing poverty in their community. Forty-one percent of those surveyed who are aware of the Guaranteed Income Supplement think it is making a sizable difference. People living in low-income were more likely than those with higher incomes to say that the programs are making a difference because the support is helping to cover basic necessities such as healthy food and housing costs for families in need.

Percentage of people who are aware of the program that think it is making a big or very big difference in their community
The textual description of the Chart 8 follows the figure.
Text description of Chart 8:

Chart 8: Percentage of people who are aware of the program that think it is making a big or very big difference in their community.

Government of Canada Program Overall (%) Low income (%) High income (%)
Canada Child Benefit 46 51 45
Guaranteed Income Supplement 41 44 40
Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit 32 29 34
Working Income Tax Benefit 20 21 20
Canada Learning Bond 19 24 16

The Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit is the only program where people with higher incomes gave higher ratings than people living in low-income. This is likely since the program is only available to people who have worked and contributed to the Canada Pension Plan. Many Canadians living in poverty struggle to find full-time work and are not eligible for this type of support.

Regardless if they are living in low-income or not, people largely perceived that the Canada Learning Bond and Working Income Tax Benefit are not making as big of a difference in reducing poverty compared to the other programs. Most people do not know about these programs and have a hard time accessing them. These programs could be making a bigger difference if they were reaching more people who needed the support.

There were some similarities and differences across the communities:

Chapter 6: Promising practices and approaches

6.1 What other programs and approaches are helping?

Other programs delivered by different levels of government and at the community level are also making a big difference and complement the federal government support.

People living in poverty and organizations that work with them highlighted a number of promising programs and approaches in the communities, which are also helping people. The programs and approaches focus on food, housing, education, employment, community programs, services for Indigenous people, life skills, parenting and early childhood education, information and referrals, and partnerships and networks.

Healthy food programs. Each of the communities provide programs that aim to make food more affordable for people living in low-income. These programs include food banks, community kitchens, and food buying programs. Food programs complement the federal government programs by making healthy food more affordable for people in need. With lower food costs, people can spend more of their income benefits on other needs. Some examples of food programs include the Good Food Box in Tisdale, Moisson Mauricie/Centre-du-Québec in Trois-Rivières, and Food Rescue in Yellowknife.

Affordable housing programs. Each of the communities offer various types of housing programs. These include city- or provincially/territorially-operated social housing (for example, Toronto Community Housing and Manitoba Housing), programs that offer rental subsidies, and community organizations that offer transitional housing and shelters. Affordable housing programs complement federal government programs since housing is one of the biggest monthly expenses for people living in low-income. Northern United Place in Yellowknife is a self-sustaining non-profit that offers affordable rental apartments.

Education programs. Some communities offer programs that aim to help people build their skills and further their education. These programs complement the federal government supports because they help people to improve their ability to get a better job. Pathways to Education in Regent Park provides high school students with bus tickets, mentorship support, and up to $4,000 in funding for post-secondary school.

Employment programs. Employment support programs were highlighted in a few communities. These programs also complement the federal government supports by helping people to become more self-sufficient and find job opportunities. The Learning Exchange in Saint John offers adult education, training, career development support, and a job placement program. The program works well because coaching and mentoring is provided during and after the placements.

Community centres. Participants in Saint John highlighted community centres because they offer a variety of programs and are centrally located. These types of organizations are important resources for connecting people to federal government programs and providing free services and activities for seniors, parents, and youth. Nick Nicolle Community Centre in Saint John’s North End offers free after-school activities for kids, volunteer opportunities for seniors, and other services, such as help with filing income taxes and information about programs like the Canada Learning Bond.

Indigenous services and programs. Indigenous-led organizations in the communities offer a range of programs and services that are designed and delivered with Indigenous values, culture, and tradition in mind. These organizations offer an important service in helping people to overcome personal challenges, build life and job-related skills, and connect to federal government programs. The Tree of Peace Friendship Centre in Yellowknife offers various programs related to community wellness, education, employment, and culture.

Life skills programs. Programs in some communities are helping people to build life skills, which complement federal government supports. In Winnipeg, SEED Winnipeg helps people to learn to save money and plan for large purchases through their Saving Circle program. If a registrant saves $250 in six months, the program tops it up to $1,000 and the money can go towards a major purchase such as a computer.

Parenting and Early Childhood programs. Parenting and early childhood programs were highlighted in some communities. These programs complement programs like the Canada Child Benefit by helping parents build skills in raising their children to be successful and break the cycle of poverty. Northeast Early Childhood Intervention Program in Tisdale provides support for families and children and is delivered according to Jordan’s Principle, a child-first principle meant to prevent Indigenous children from being denied essential public services or experiencing delays in receiving them.Footnote 28

Information and referrals. Many community organizations act as information and referral services for other supports, such as federal poverty reduction programs. These services and organizations are essential for reaching the most vulnerable groups and connecting them with needed supports and information about federal government programs. Resource Assistance for Youth (RaY) provides a safe, non-judgemental space to help Winnipeg youth who are street-involved and homeless connect to services and supports.

“The biggest help has been community members that have been through the same thing as me. The RaY van goes around and lets people know about it. If there were more people out there telling people about these programs that would make a huge impact in many communities.”

– Youth, Winnipeg

Partnerships and Networks. Several communities have developed approaches for coordinating poverty reduction activities by bringing together different types of organizations and levels of government. These community-level networks and partnerships can complement federal government programs because they work directly with people living in poverty, have a deep understanding of their needs, and can play a key role in testing, assessing, and delivering new programs and approaches. Saint John has a sophisticated and robust network of organizations from the business sector, community, and government that work together to help people living in poverty.

Chapter 7: Opportunities for improvement

7.1 How can federal government poverty reduction programs be improved?

Canadians urged that the federal government could be doing much more to reach and meet the needs of people living in poverty.

Specifically, people most often suggested:

7.2 What other support is needed?

Canadians voiced their concerns that there is a need for more support in different areas, and by different levels of government, to help people overcome poverty.

People highlighted wide-ranging areas that the federal government should work with provincial/territorial and municipal governments across Canada to address. People most often emphasized the need for:

Chapter 8: Conclusions

There is a strong and ongoing need for federal government support to help Canadians get out of poverty.

Poverty exists in Canada and much of it is hidden. The size of the problem can vary depending on the cost of living and concentrations of poverty in particular neighbourhoods. Many Canadians cannot pay for basic necessities and face significant barriers to work, which take an emotional and psychological toll.

Poverty affects some groups more than others and there is a need to better understand these differences in order to target policy solutions to those who are most vulnerable, particularly single parents, people with mental health and addictions issues, people with disabilities, seniors, and Indigenous people and others who are at risk (for example, youth, recent immigrants, racialized people, unattached individuals aged 45 to 64 years, and low-wage workers).

Canadians living in poverty are survivors, but they need more support to make a bigger change in their lives.

The Canada Child Benefit and Guaranteed Income Supplement are making a big difference.

The Canada Child Benefit is reaching most parents who need it. The benefit is well known and easy to get. It is helping many parents to pay for necessities for their children such as food, clothing, diapers, and other costs like saving for their children’s education, after-school activities, and child care.

The Guaranteed Income Supplement is also well known among low-income seniors. Many seniors depend on this supplement to live since it covers their basic needs like housing and food costs. The supplement works well with other programs like subsidized housing and pension programs.

The federal government offers other important programs that could be helping, but very few people are aware of them.

Some federal government programs are not widely known, such as the Canada Learning Bond and Working Income Tax Benefit. There are also gaps in awareness about programs among some population groups, such as Indigenous seniors. More could be done to make federal government poverty reduction programs more accessible to low-income Canadians. People highlighted the following possible solutions to address these gaps:

Many people cannot access the support they need because of how some programs are designed and delivered.

Many people cannot access programs because they have strict eligibility criteria. Most people are denied access to the Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit because they do not fit the definition of having a “severe and prolonged” disability. Many low-income workers cannot access the Working Income Tax Benefit because the income cut-off is too low. Countless people at risk of homelessness cannot benefit from the Homelessness Partnering Strategy since it targets people who are chronically homeless and does not sufficiently address the needs of those who are at risk of being homeless. Canadians emphasized that the eligibility rules for these programs should be reviewed so more people are able to access the support they need.

Some programs are difficult to access because people are required to apply for them. The Canada Learning Bond and Guaranteed Incomes Supplement could be reaching more Canadians in need if they were made automatic.

The Canada Child Benefit could be delivered in a way that better meets the needs of families that are struggling financially. The timing of the delivery of the Canada Child Benefit could be changed from the 20th of the month to the 15th so payments are spread out more evenly with social assistance, which is delivered at the end of the month.

Canadians were unanimous that there is a need for more support in different areas, and by different levels of government, to help people overcome poverty.

People highlighted wide-ranging areas that the federal government should work with provincial/territorial and municipal governments across Canada to address:

Many people living in poverty are frustrated that things are not getting better no matter how hard they try to get out of poverty. Most people want to empower themselves but they have been excluded from these opportunities. They want respect. They want a chance to show what they can offer the world.

Participants are hopeful that these messages will reach decision makers who need to hear them. Community organizations are ready and willing to work with the federal government and other partners to build on the successes and make a change.

Appendix 1: Research approach

Purpose and focus

The purpose of the Tackling Poverty Together Project was to hear from Canadians about what it is like to live in poverty in Canada. Feedback was gathered on the challenges faced by people living in poverty, how federal government programs are helping, and where more support is needed. The project involved case studies of six communities across Canada: Saint John, Trois-Rivières, Regent Park (Toronto), Winnipeg, Yellowknife, and Tisdale. The six case-study communities were selected to reflect a cross-section of communities across Canada to understand how poverty is similar and how it differs across different contexts. The following research questions guided the engagement process:

Research questions

Need for Poverty Reduction programming

Impact of Poverty Reduction programs

Interaction with other programs

Opportunities for improvement

The research focused on six federal government programs. These programs were chosen because they target different groups, focus on poverty reduction and prevention, and some of them have had recent enhancements:

Sources of Information

Information was gathered through surveys, focus groups, roundtables, and other sources and took place between February and May 2017.

1. Surveys of the general public including those living in low-income

Surveys were conducted with the general public in each community with a focus on over-sampling people living in low-income. The surveys were conducted mostly by telephone lasting an average of 17 minutes, while some surveys were conducted online and in-person. EKOS Research Associates carried out the telephone and online surveys. Random samples were developed using a Random Digit Dialing method, where listed and unlisted phone numbers are called and the first person reached is sampled. Screening questions were used to target people living in low-income (see the paragraph below), seniors (that is, 65 years or older), and families (that is, parents with children 18 years or younger). People were screened using an automated Interactive Voice Recorder system. Researchers then followed up with people who fit the target groups.

The Low-Income Measure Before Tax was used to define people as low income in all the communities. The measure is based on total household income and the number of family members living in the home. The measure was used because people were asked to provide their before-tax income in the survey. It also allowed for a larger sample of people to be included in the low-income category compared to other poverty measures.

A different method was used to survey people who could not be reached by telephone, such as those who are homeless or living in transitional housing. A sample of about 70 to 80 people in this category were surveyed in person in each community. These participants were provided with a $100 honorarium for participating in the study.

Surveys were conducted in English, French, Somali, Bengali, Cantonese, Mandarin, and Vietnamese. Attempts were also made to complete surveys in Indigenous languages in Yellowknife.

A total of 4,944 surveys were completed. The response rates for the telephone surveys ranged from 8.0% in Saint John to 20.6% in Yellowknife. The following tables show the total number of surveys completed in each target group and community:

Surveys completed by community and target group

Saint John (Saint John Census Metropolitan Area)
Target group Low income High income Total
Families 89 223 312
Seniors 100 159 259
Other 169 281 450
Total 358 663 1,021
Winnipeg (City of Winnipeg)
Target group Low income High income Total
Families 82 227 309
Seniors 132 192 324
Other 180 273 456
Total 394 692 1,086
Trois-Rivières (Ville de Trois-Rivières)
Target group Low income High income Total
Families 71 239 310
Seniors 146 187 333
Other 167 272 439
Total 384 698 1,082
Tisdale (Tisdale Direct Market Population; 60 km)
Target group Low income High income Total
Families 65 75 140
Seniors 69 131 200
Other 35 115 150
Total 169 321 490
Regent Park (Regent Park and Moss Park)
Target group Low income High income Total
Families 76 33 109
Seniors 59 45 104
Other 124 126 250
Total 259 204 463
Yellowknife (City of Yellowknife)
Target group Low income High income Total
Families 38 259 297
Seniors 19 80 99
Other 83 323 406
Total 140 662 802

After the surveys were completed, the different datasets were merged and cleaned. Open-ended questions were coded based on a review of a sample of one-quarter of the responses across the different communities. The survey data in each community were weighted to population targets for age, gender, number of people in the household, household income, and other considerations in some communities (for example, the proportion of people that self-identify as Indigenous in Winnipeg).

Data tables were prepared for each case-study community as well as the overall results. Responses to particular questions were analyzed by looking first at themes from the overall sample, then at similarities and differences across different demographic indicators such as whether the respondent was in low-income or not. Statistically significant differences (that is, with a standard of error of +/- 5%) were highlighted in the results, where appropriate.

2. Focus groups and in-person surveys with people with lived experience of poverty

Focus groups were held in each community with people with lived experience of poverty. The participants in the focus groups were those who are most vulnerable to poverty based on the research. These included: single parents, seniors, people with disabilities, recent immigrants, Indigenous people, and unattached individuals aged 45 to 64 years. Additional focus groups were held in some communities with youth and racialized people. Target groups for each community were selected based on discussions with municipal and provincial/territorial government organizations and other community organizations and experts.

Focus group participants were recruited by community organization partners, mostly from their own client base. Focus group participants were asked to complete a consent form outlining the purpose of the study, privacy and confidentiality considerations, and the honorarium they would receive as part of participating. Participants were given a list of discussion topics. For each topic, each participant was given a chance to answer. The discussions evolved organically after the first round of answers. The discussions lasted about 60 to 90 minutes. Interpreters and other aides helped participants with the discussion as needed. The discussion questions for the focus groups are listed in the following table.

Focus group discussion questions

  1. What are the biggest challenges you or your family have experienced in terms of covering your day-to-day expenses and maintaining your self-sufficiency?
  2. How have you tried to overcome these challenges? What has made the biggest difference?
  3. The federal government offers different programs that aim to help individuals and families that are struggling financially. Have you heard of any of these programs? (relevant pro-grams listed)
  4. Have you accessed any of these programs? If so, how helpful was the support?
  5. What other programs or services have helped you?
  6. Do these different programs work well together? Why or why not?
  7. Have you had any difficulties accessing the support you need?
  8. Do you have any suggestions of how to improve supports, services, and programs offered by the federal government to reduce poverty in your community? Where is more support needed?

The discussions varied somewhat from session to session, depending on the relevance of different questions and programs to that target group. The following table describes which federal government programs were discussed in each focus group.

Federal government program focus areas
Focus groups: Canada Child Benefit Canada Learning Bond Guaranteed Income Supplement Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit Working Income Tax Benefit
Single parents X X - X X
Seniors X - X - -
People with disabilities* X X X X X
Recent immigrants X X X X X
Indigenous people X X X X X
Unattached individuals X X - X X
Youth** X X - - X
Racialized people X X X X X

*People with disabilities were also asked about: Disability Tax Credit, Registered Disability Savings Plan, Canada Disability Savings Grant, and Canada Disability Savings Bond. Participants in Trois-Rivières were not asked about the Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit since it is not delivered in Quebec.
**Youth were also asked about the Canada Student Loans Program and Canada Student Grants.

After the discussion, participants were asked to fill out a follow-up questionnaire. At the end of the session, participants were provided with a $100 honorarium for their participation as well as a handout with information about the federal government programs discussed. A different group was selected in each community to undertake a PhotoVoice assignment, where participants were provided with cameras, notebooks, and instructions to answer questions by visually describing their experiences and challenges living in low-income.

In addition to the focus groups, in-person surveys were conducted with people with lived experience of poverty. These individuals consisted mainly of people who are homeless and those not likely to participate in a focus group session. The in-person survey responses were combined with the other telephone and online survey responses.

The following table shows the number of focus group and in-person survey participants per target group.

Focus group and in-person interview participants by target group
Target Group Description Communities Total
Single parents Single parents living in low-income and/or with past experience of poverty *Saint John, Regent Park, Winnipeg, Tisdale,
Trois-Rivières, Yellowknife
57
Seniors People 65 years or older living in low-income and/or with past experience of poverty Saint John, Regent Park Winnipeg, *Tisdale,
Trois-Rivières, Yellowknife
58
People with disabilities People with an activity or work-limiting disability living in low-income and/or with past experience of poverty Saint John, Regent Park, *Winnipeg, Tisdale,
Trois-Rivières, Yellowknife
70
Recent immigrants Recent immigrants (i.e., in Canada less than five years) living in low-income and/or with past experience of poverty Saint John, *Regent Park, Winnipeg, Tisdale,
Trois-Rivières, Yellowknife
63
Indigenous people People who identify as First Nations, Métis, or Inuit living in low-income and/or with past experience of poverty Regent Park, Winnipeg, Tisdale, Trois-Rivières, *Yellowknife 61
Unattached individuals aged 45 to 64 years Unattached individuals aged 45 to 64 years living in low-income and/or with past experience of poverty Saint John, Winnipeg, Tisdale, *Trois-Rivières, Yellowknife 48
Youth Youth 18 to 24 years living in low-income and/or with past experience of poverty Regent Park, Winnipeg 16
Racialized people Racialized people (i.e., visible minorities) who have lived in Canada more than 10 years living in low-income and/or with past experience of poverty Regent Park 13
In-person survey participants People who are homeless and/or in transitional housing living in low-income and/or with past experience of poverty Saint John, Regent Park, Winnipeg, Tisdale,
Trois-Rivières, Yellowknife
481
Total participants with lived experience of poverty during community visits 867

*Community in which the group was invited to participate in PhotoVoice.

3. Roundtables

Roundtables were held in each community with federal, provincial/territorial, and municipal government organizations, community organizations, academics, and other stakeholders involved in poverty reduction activities. In most communities, a second, Indigenous-focused roundtable was held with federal and Indigenous government organizations and other Indigenous stakeholders.

Participants were identified based on consultations with provincial/territorial and municipal government organizations, community organizations, and local academic partners.

The discussion questions for the roundtables are listed in the following table. The discussions lasted about two hours each.

Roundtable discussion questions

  1. What are the main factors that contribute to poverty in your community? What groups are most vulnerable?
  2. The federal government offers different programs that aim to help individuals and families that are struggling financially. To what extent are the following programs helping to reduce poverty in your community? Why is that?
    • Canada Child Benefit
    • Canada Learning Bond
    • Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement
    • Canada Pension Plan Disability Benefit
    • Working Income Tax Benefit
    • Homelessness Partnering Strategy
  3. Are there any other federal government programs that are helping to reduce poverty in your community?
  4. Which federal programs are having the greatest impact?
  5. What poverty reduction services or programs are offered by the provincial/territorial or municipal government, NGOs, or other organizations in your community? How do the federal programs complement or overlap with these programs?
  6. What suggestions do you have regarding how to improve poverty reduction services, supports, and programs offered by the federal government? Where is more support needed?

The roundtables included a total of 130 participants. The breakdown in the number of participants per type of organization is summarized in the following table.

Roundtable Participants by Target Group
Target group Total
Community Organizations 52
Indigenous Organizations 20
Other Community Stakeholders 11
Academics/Experts 7
Municipal Government Organizations 10
Provincial/Territorial Government Organizations 7
Indigenous Government Organizations 8
Federal Government Organizations 15
Total Roundtable Participants 130

4. Other Information

Existing research and available statistics were collected to provide context for the information collected in the surveys, focus groups, and roundtables. This included data and research on the location (for example, size, demographics, economy, income, unemployment, education, health status, and other socioeconomic factors), poverty rates, groups most vulnerable to poverty, and factors that contribute to poverty in the communities. Information on poverty reduction activities and strategies in the communities was also reviewed to learn more about poverty reduction activities at the community level.

Partners

The community visits relied heavily on partnerships that were formed with local community organizations and experts working in the area of poverty reduction. Subcontract arrangements were established to compensate partners for their contribution. Partners were involved in the project in the following ways:

Partnerships were formed with a total of 43 community organizations, six local academic experts, and four National Poverty Reduction Advisory Committee experts as part of the project.

Limitations

In reviewing the results, it is important to note that:

Page details

Date modified: