Summary

Social inclusion and material well-being: Getting back to basics

Thursday March 27, 2003 - 2nd Plenary

Lynn McIntyre, Dean of Health Studies at Dalhousie University, spoke about social inclusion and food security. While food used to be called a basic human need, she said it is now seen as a component of material well-being.

In any social well-being model, McIntyre said, adequate nutrition is the single most important determinant of health. In developed countries, food is the most elastic part of the budget. But on an international scale, the political dismissal of hunger is an abrogation of human rights. Hunger and poverty statistics since 1989 show shameful results, and McIntyre said there are gaps in current research.

Research consultant Sharon Chisholm said that, even a few years ago, social inclusion was too complex a topic to catch on in Canada. Now it is an entrenched term, appearing in official plans as an accepted goal that could challenge traditional social policy practices. Shelter is a prerequisite to social inclusion, but Chisholm cited housing as an area where the system works well for top income earners while failing miserably for people with lower incomes. She stressed that the traditional housing market in Canada is not sustainable, noting that cities have been left to address the legacy of cuts to social policy without the resources to do so.

Prof. Roch Hurtubise of the Départment des services sociales, Université de Sherbrooke, said social inclusion research has led to rehabilitation and reinsertion into society for many homeless people, demonstrating that inclusion is possible if services are adapted to target populations. In the last 10 years, research has increased the visibility of homeless people to decision-makers, helped to define the concept of living space, identified street people as a complex group, and helped to modify services to meet the needs of the homeless population. One difficulty is a difference in concepts of time between researchers and practitioners.

Provocateur Graham Riches of the University of British Columbia said one question to be addressed is the usefulness of social inclusion in responding to social crises. There is significant data on unequal distribution of food and housing, and Canadians must recognize the failure of Canada’s welfare state in meeting material well-being. “Why has it failed?” he asked.

Riches noted that there has been no public debate in Canada over the role of the market and that of charity, the role of the state and that of the community. Until there is, the food banks will just continue to grow. “Is this what we want?” he asked.

On the question of human rights, he asked why there has been no domestic compliance with Canada’s ratification of United Nations instruments on food, clothing and shelter. He suggested that a commitment to social inclusion would help Canada down that path.

The panelists discussed intersectoral policy-making. Hurtubise said his area of interest does not fit well into the policy process and called on people involved with social inclusion to engage with other movements with compatible interests. He asked whether participants were aware that the issue of food security rests with Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, and urged audience members to attend conferences and meet people concerned with agriculture and the environment. “They are all talking about the same questions as we are,” he said.

“If we are to generate political will, we’ve got to engage with other sectors,” agreed Riches. He stated that income and labour market policies are not leading Canadians to solve the problems of people outside the labour market, and current approaches to welfare reform are not working.

Riches also stressed the need for new language, suggesting that food on the table can be a metaphor for analyzing social change. It is an intimate commodity—it is the only product that people actually ingest, that everyone has in common. If food and housing were placed at the centre of social policy-making, he said, the result would be a very different scenario from that of the last 20 years.

A participant said there are several thousand organizations across the country that address economic and social issues at the community level. They share a common interest in building a new future from the grassroots up. The participant said the social and political agenda must be informed by activists from this level and suggested a good research priority would be to invest in a participatory action research approach. This would help ensure that community needs inform policy and lead to broader dialogue.

McIntyre cautioned that food banks have been a means of providing short-term daily support, but have done nothing to address the fundamental lack of food.

Chisholm said there are a lot of opportunities for grassroot action and empowerment. When the federal government stopped funding new social housing development in 1994, community development came forward—groups with new ideas were able to exert pressure, beginning with the knowledge that the community does the best work in housing. Another challenge is to get the right kind of resources in place—land, for example.

If developers are only able to do what they do by holding land, Chisholm asked, “why can’t the community development sector do the same thing? Why don’t we ensure that they do?” As a starting point, she said work must be done on capacity and financial support for community agencies. The private sector must be stimulated and enforced to do better, and community organizations must have access to the same tax concessions that are available to developers.

Back to Reporting

For more information about the conference, contact:
 
Sarah Zgraggen
The Willow Group
Tel: (613) 722-8796;
Fax: (613) 729-6206;
e-mail: szgraggen@thewillowgroup.com