To the Editor,

Re: Higher wages would help, Opinion, Oct. 10.

While not wishing to comment one way or another on the utility of an increase in B.C.’s minimum wage, I cannot let the egregious error in your editorial pass without comment.

You state that Statistics Canada defines the low-income cut-off (or poverty line) for a single person living in an urban area the size of Nanaimo at about $18,500 a year.

The construction of the paragraph makes it appear that Statistics Canada treats the LICO as a poverty line. Nothing could be further from the truth.

First, the Statistics Canada definition of the LICO is ‘a statistical measure of the income thresholds below which Canadians likely devote a larger share of income than average to the necessities of food, shelter and clothing’.

No mention of poverty there.

Second, and more importantly, Ivan Fellegi, the chief statistician, states in an article published in 1997 that, “For many years, Statistics Canada has published a set of measures called the low income cut-offs. We regularly and consistently emphasize that these are quite different from measures of poverty.”

As made clear in the Statistics Canada definition LICO is a comparative measure, and Fellegi further says in the same article that “being significantly worse off than the average does not necessarily mean that one is poor.”

Basing your editorial figures on the LICO undercuts all the conclusions on B.C.’s minimum wage. However, this mistake is widespread in the media, not least because it overstates poverty in Canada, and higher figures make more sensational stories.

Many in the ‘poverty relief industry’ (and make no mistake it is an industry that generates a number of well-paid jobs) try to define poverty as the inability to live like everybody else.

Items like vehicles, big screen TVs and large houses should be available to all, and, in a perfect world they would be, although anyone who worries about our environment might dispute this.

But a more useful definition would be the lack of the necessities of life.

Obviously there could be reasonable discussion about what these are, but certainly a residence, food and water, access to health care and education would be components. But even within this definition, a discussion might arise on the quality of each item, and any decision would be arbitrary.

The Fraser Institute publishes one of many attempts at setting a poverty level based on income. The utility of these studies may vary, but they can be used to identify families governments should be aiming at when they design programs to alleviate genuine poverty.

In an era of government cutbacks, it is increasingly important that scarce dollars be used to help the really poor people, rather than those who are simply not as well off as their neighbours.

Initially this money would go to increasing incomes, but more complex (and expensive) programs should be designed to enable people to leave poverty behind permanently, and enjoy a full life without government help.

Colin Lowe

Nanaimo