Summer 2008 Profile:
Elaine Power

Director of LIFE ON THE CHEQUE

                                                                            Chris Peck

Name: Elaine Power

Age: 46

Location: Kingston, Canada

Became a Soulbird on: May 7, 2008

SB: What areas of activism or community organizing/projects are you involved in?

EP: I consider my main area of activism these days is via my job teaching as a university professor. Not that I am trying to persuade students in my classes of a particular political point of view, but I want them to be able to see the world from a different perspective than the dominant one in which they are immersed. I want them to be able to think critically, not take the status quo for granted, and develop the moral imagination that I think is critical for a healthy, inclusive society. I understand all knowledge and education to be political, whether explicitly recognized as such or not. In particular, I teach a first year course, Health 101, which examines what are known as “social determinants of health”. These are the broad structural factors that affect why some groups of people are sicker and die earlier than others. Poverty is one of the primary social determinants of health, but others include homelessness, unemployment, racism, gender, and food insecurity. Like public health more generally, this field of study is intensely political because the research shows very clearly that poverty is bad for your health and longevity. In fact, we’ve known this (off and on) for thousands of years: the founders of the Western medical tradition, Hippocrates and Galen, observed inequalities in health related to social circumstances over two thousand years ago. We’ve recently “re-discovered” this relationship, and now we have an immense amount of scientific data to back up the observation. The problem always seems to be translating this knowledge into politics and changing the ways we operate as a society.

I am also involved in other forms of activism, including letter-writing to newspapers and politicians, writing newspaper editorials, meeting with politicians, and supporting and participating in social justice groups, campaigns, and demonstrations.

SB: How did you first get involved in activism? What motivates you?

EP: I was involved in activism as a high school student, organizing a petition in 1977 in my home town in Cape Breton, against pesticide spraying of the forests for spruce budworm — part of a campaign that included the current leader of Canada’s Green Party, Elizabeth May (launching her career in environmental activism), and the campaign was ultimately successful. I also remember writing a letter to the editor of a national magazine, protesting the portrayal of women in one of their articles. As an undergraduate (on two campuses), I was involved in Amnesty International (an enduring cause), the Student Christian Movement (a campus-based student organization that advocated social justice), the Student Pugwash Movement (for the responsible use of science), and OPIRG (the Ontario Public Interest Research Group).

What motivates me? I think it is some combination of compassion and indignation; a sense that it is mostly luck that I am not in similar circumstances, and that we can and must do better as a society to look after each other.

SB: Has the situation for women and children living in poverty improved in Canada, in North America, and around the world, since you began your research and community work into poverty issues? Do you anticipate any short-term or long-term improvement with how society in general deals with poverty issues?

EP: Interesting that you ask this. With respect to Canada, on 23 May 2008, Statistics Canada released a report entitled “Low Income Children” that shows that in 2004 there were 872,000 children living in poverty in Canada, or 13% of all Canadian children — essentially the same rate of child poverty as in 1989, despite strong economic growth since the middle of the 1990s, and despite the introduction of the Child Tax Benefit in 1998, a federal program specifically developed to reduce child poverty. The comparison to 1989 is particularly apropos because it was the year that there was a House of Commons (federal government) unanimous resolution (supported by all political parties) to end child poverty by the year 2000. Obviously, that is another political promise broken. Over the same time period, rates of poverty among seniors were cut in half, from 12% to 6%, part of an ongoing decline that reflects concerted political action to address this problem. Another troubling aspect of this report is the widening gap between low-income children and well-off children, due to the increased economic well-being of wealthier Canadian families.

Around the world, economists love to point out how living standards have improved for millions of people, particularly in China and India. And it is true and important that many more people live in less desperate circumstances than they once did. But while levels of absolute poverty have declined, global income inequality has increased dramatically. Even with improvements in their material well-being, the world’s poorest are now even farther away from the standards of living in affluent countries.

With respect to how society deals with poverty, there are some glimmers of hope in Canada. For example, Newfoundland & Labrador, and Quebec now have Poverty Reduction Strategies, and the Ontario government has recently set up a Cabinet Committee on Poverty Reduction. The dark clouds include the current federal government and the weakening economy in most of Canada, which will provide an “excuse” not to move on poverty reduction. There is seldom “easy” progress on poverty. The biggest impediment to poverty reduction, in Canada and around the world, is the dominance of neo-liberal political ideology, which aims to reduce the role of government in most realms, and to promote the role of markets and private enterprise, and thus profits for shareholders, at the expense of workers, social programs, and public health.

SB: Most people often associate poverty issues with societies in upheavals and those in developing countries. Are the poverty issues and economic disparity in the relatively affluent North American society any different from those in developing countries? If so, do the poverty issues in relatively affluent societies need to be dealt with differently, from how poverty issues are approached in developing countries?

EP: It is interesting to me that some of the Canadian mothers who live in poverty I have interviewed tell me that they consider themselves fortunate compared to many other people in the world, and that they remind their children of their relative good fortune when the children complain about their poverty relative to Canadian standards. Poverty is measured in two main ways: absolute poverty and relative poverty. Measures of absolute poverty consider things like having a roof over one’s head and enough food to prevent malnutrition. Measures of relative poverty consider a society’s poorest in comparison to the average. There are people in North America who are poor in an absolute sense, notably those who are homeless. Statistics Canada measures poverty in a relative sense, a comparison to average incomes. Many argue that the poor in North America are much better off than those in developing countries and the poor in other time periods; however, to my mind, the comparison is spurious. The issue is whether people have the resources they need to live a dignified life, and to be able to fully participate in the society in which they live.

SB: How do you think the current global food crisis and soaring food prices will affect those living in poverty, in Canada, in North America, and around the world? Will women and children who are living in poverty be more acutely affected by food hoarding and soaring food prices?

EP: Those who have the least are always affected the most by crises such as the current food crisis. Within poor households, research in Western affluent countries shows that women usually suffer disproportionately than men and children from food scarcity; in less affluent countries, girls are also affected.

SB: What kind of community-based social action have you found to be most effective, in lobbying the government and the private sector, and in addressing the issues of women and children living in poverty?

EP: That is the million-dollar question that I wish I had the answer to! What I know is that changing social policy takes commitment, dedication, and often a long time; it involves a combination of the political environment and people working together and speaking out. Ideas to change social policy are often kept alive by dogged and determined individuals and groups, sometimes for years and years, and then when there is a shift in the political winds, an opening or an opportunity, they are there, ready and able to push their ideas through. (This is true whether the change is for progressive or regressive social policy.) Recently at a conference, I heard social policy compared to a sweater: it takes a long time to knit and a very short time to unravel. It’s a sobering thought, that reminds us that we always have to be on guard, not just to struggle for improved social policy, but to safeguard and protect what has already been won.

I think a related issue that I caution my students about is the different between charity and social justice. Charity is appealing because it is direct and immediate (e.g., feeding a hungry family), and it makes those who donate their time and money feel good. It can also bring people who are more privileged into direct contact with those who have less, which can promote education and understanding. But charity does not address the underlying problem of why people are poor in the first place. It also keeps a band aid on poverty, indirectly supporting government inaction, and can give the appearance of “doing something”, so that attention is diverted away from the real issues. Charitable works are important and unfortunately necessary in our society, but it is important to remember that charity does not tackle the causes of poverty.

SB: Soulbird is collaborating with you on the making of your documentary film Life on the Cheque. Can you tell us more about the history of this project?

EP: This project has its roots in the research I did as a doctoral student, examining what it was like being a single mother living on social assistance in a small town in Nova Scotia. I met Soulbird co-founder and documentary film maker, Paul Lee, at a party hosted by a mutual friend in Toronto in 2002, and when I told him about the research, his response was that it would make a great documentary film. I had never thought of turning the research into a film, but when Paul mentioned the idea, I knew that he was right. Paul remained interested and encouraging all these years, and always maintained that when the time was right, the project would come together. Once again, he was right. It’s been amazing how quickly the pieces have come together, with Paul’s active guidance and support.

SB: What do you hope to achieve, through making Life on the Cheque?

EP: First and foremost, I hope the film will be a potent advocacy tool for anti-poverty activists who are working to decrease poverty rates in Canada, and improve the lives of men, women and children who currently live in poverty. These struggles include campaigns to improve social assistance rates, increase the minimum wage, provide affordable housing and child care, and in some provinces, like Ontario, to end the clawback of the Child Tax Benefit. Documentary film is a powerful educational tool, a way of showing the realities of other people’s lives very vividly. Canadians who live privileged lives (including those in positions of power) often have little or no contact with Canadians who live in poverty, and few opportunities to challenge stereotypes of poverty. I hope this film will provide an opportunity for many Canadians to see and to understand something about the realities of poverty and the difficulties of escaping it, and then to work to change it. And for those who already live in poverty, I hope the film will provide a validation of their experiences, and a sense that they are not alone in their struggles.

SB: Are you working on any other projects now? What are some of your plans after this documentary film is finished?

EP: I am currently working with some colleagues on a research project that examines grocery shopping experiences and decision-making in low-income families living in Toronto. Next year, I plan to start another research project that looks at Canadian school nutrition programs as an example of how social programs are developed in neo-liberal political times, dependent on community and volunteer resources, with small contributions from the private sector and the state. And with another colleague, I also plan to write an introductory textbook on the social determinants of health.

SB: Has your community work in Canada brought you in contact with a larger network of fellow activists and community organizers from around the world? How has your community work been influenced by such contacts?

EP: My personal contact with fellow anti-poverty activists around the world has been limited to date, though I would love to make more of those contacts. Perhaps this is one of the ways that the Soulbird network can help me advance social justice in Canada.

SB: And finally, how can the Soulbird network help you to advance your human rights and social justice community work in Canada?

EP: One of the benefits of the Soulbird network is its global reach. We Canadians are often rather complacent about social justice issues in our own country, preferring to believe the mythology of our “goodness” as a country. Sometimes it takes publicity and attention from other countries to provide a more accurate mirror of the problems within our society, and to spur us to action.