Welfare food challenge will see Vancouver participants live on $26 for a week

Comments

Vancouver park board commissioner Constance Barnes is among the participants in a challenge next month to eat on welfare rates for a week.

Anti-poverty group Raise the Rates announced the details of its “welfare food challenge” today (September 25), which will see participants spend just $26 for a week’s supply of food.

The challenge will take place from October 16 to 23. Aside from Barnes, the other candidates that have confirmed their participation in the challenge are Paul Taylor, the executive director of the Downtown Eastside Neighbourhood House, registered dietician Colleen McGuire, Brent Mansfield, the co-chair of the Vancouver Food Policy Council, parent and community organizer Trish Garner, and Ted Bruce, the executive director of population health with Vancouver Coastal Health.

Barnes said she experienced a similar challenge first-hand about 20 years ago, when she and her children were on welfare for a couple of years.

“I was on social assistance when they were young, and it was really hard to feed them,” she told the Straight by phone.

Barnes’ father Emery also accepted a challenge to live on welfare rates for a month in 1986 when he was an MLA.

“It’s 26 years ago and we’re still working on this—we still need to address it,” she said.

“It’s not just people in the Downtown Eastside,” she added. “These are people that are all walks of life that have just really fallen on tough times, places are closing down, all of a sudden you’re in a situation that you’re having to reach out for help.”

Barnes recalls her father losing 30 pounds and looking “gaunt” toward the end of his challenge.

“I remember him being really hungry, I remember going to see him when he had a one-room over Heatley, and I remember bringing him food…and he would not accept it,” recalled Barnes.

As part of the challenge next month, organizers are requiring participants to subsist only on the $26 a week, and not to accept any additional meals from friends or from food banks. The amount was calculated based on what welfare participants have left after paying for accommodation, bus tickets, and other basic expenses. The monthly social assistance rate for a single employable person in B.C. is $610.

Bill Hopwood, an organizer with Raise the Rates, acknowledged that while the welfare food challenge won’t affect participants in the same way as those living on social assistance rates over a long period, he expects them to notice impacts on their attitude and morale.

“People, because they’re hungry, they then don’t function so well, then they make bad decisions, or they go for the job interview and they’re not really there,” he said.

Organizers are challenging other B.C. residents to take part in the experience next month. They plan to announce more participants in the coming weeks.

The food challenge follows NDP MLA Jagrup Brar’s experience of living on the welfare rate for a month in January. Brar accepted an earlier challenge by Raise the Rates to all B.C. MLAs.

Comments (50) Add New Comment
2nd Nation
yes, welfare rates are low. Work pays more.
6
8
Rating: -2
Stephanie Williams
It's actually quite easy to eat healthy on the welfare rate - my boyfriend and I eat extremely comfortably on $230/month, and that includes toilet paper, shampoo, etc. We eat very very well - no processed foods or modern junk, just wholesome foods like stews, curries, casseroles, homemade breads and baked goods. For any sensible person, this is not much of a challenge.
5
7
Rating: -2
Mouse Chaser
Good Luck With This One As We All Know That In This Day And Age And With The Cost Of Food Rising Everyday This Ain't Gonna Happen - LOL, Guess She Will Be Able To Buy A Loaf Of Bread, A Package Of Cheese Slices, Maybe A Pound Of Margarine, And Now She Is All Set For Food For A Week, She Just Might Have A $1.00 Leftover. Yummy.
7
6
Rating: +1
tedelection
90% of people are on disability which is $980/month
8
5
Rating: +3
johhnyrotten
Not much of a challenge when you know you can can eat when ever you want to and then when the 'challenge' is over you can just go shopping again. More like a publicity stunt. Nothing more.
5
3
Rating: +2
Dianne
Compliments to all of you willing to take this challenge.

And now to the politicians - get on with urgently needed changes. It is impossible to stay healthy on such a meager amount!

How many more times does it need to be proven by those on welfare/disability and by advocates willing to take a challenge to prove the point again and again and again.
5
4
Rating: +1
Svenmin
I live on 26 dollars a week, a single male, with lots of pasta, and tomato paste. Rice the next week. Oatmeal the next. A whole family cant though.
4
18
Rating: -14
Phillip
I'm a single male, comfortably living on $200 food budget per month regardless of how many weeks there are and have been doing so for several years. I shop mostly in bulk, package my self and freeze. This includes meats & veggies. Knowing where and when to shop is the trick, keep an eye out for sales, when there is a two for one deal, go for it.
6
5
Rating: +1
KimJ
I have no problem with the living on $26/week. I have a problem with landlords charging more than 30% of incomes for a space so small and infested that a third world country would reject. Get rents adjusted correctly and there would be enought money for the necessity of food.
6
4
Rating: +2
unbelievable....
the comments that $26 a week is acceptable, are you frigging kidding me??
pasta, rice, stews, homemade bread...all that sounds just lovely until you consider that there is no FRUIT in that diet, not enough vegetables and decent protein and portioning must be kept up like a Nazi or you will run out. How about getting the lowlife middlers, b&e'ers and employable young men and women off welfare and do a financial overhaul on this messed up system? How about reducing the pay of all city of Van workers? I work for the parks board, I make $20 an hour at a job that should pay $12. Poverty in this city just makes me want to cry.
8
3
Rating: +5
Sean
What don't people get? Welfare is supposed to be low - it's free money and encourages you to go out and find a better paying job. If it was higher, it would encourage others to be lazy. So dumb.
1
3
Rating: -2
Anton
Welfare should be eliminated, it should be sink or swim
2
4
Rating: -2
2nd Nation
@KimI - your landlords are probably trying to make ends meet too. Housing prices in Vancouver have more than doubled in the last 10 years. The same is not true of rent. To make a mortgage payment many evil landlords need rental income. And if they didn't then you probably wouldn't have a suite to call home.
2
2
Rating: 0
Arthur Vandelay
For all the utopians, here's the problem. Solve it, and welfare rates will be where they need to be for those who truly need it.

"Fraud was taking place in the welfare system," as then premier Mike Harcourt recalled in his subsequent memoir. "Our booming economy had a double edge to it: It was attracting many people to B.C. who had little or no interest in seriously searching for work " Two years into his term, with almost 10 per cent of the population claiming social assistance and double-digit increases in the budget, Harcourt intervened. He shuffled the minister in charge, capped rates and vowed (in words he would later regret) a crackdown on welfare "cheats, deadbeats and varmints."
3
2
Rating: +1
Barney Fife
Firemen should be eliminated, If your in a house fire it should be burn or get out.
3
3
Rating: 0
so dumb
The safety net is there for a reason and it goes like this. Wages are low in Vancouver, what gives and to be on farewell you must be without a job while aggresively looking. Good luck with that, as government straves children half to death as jobs are on the line as Ministry of Social Development is the biggest offender. So long houses, but rumor is government welfare will kick in and you can find yourself a comfy place on the streets with enough money for candy because it isn't like you can cook. Hard times are here and get used to seeing grown men hanging around unemployed as the numbers climb without enough food to eat. Can't anyone find work for children so they can eat, I mean seriously government found jobs for disabled people who can't work up to the tune of $800 a month. Only problem there are no jobs and the safety nets rates are so low people end up deathly sick. Try living off $20 for the month, it is what the government has in place for those on welfare who underwent a major crisis and there is no food for the month.
What can $20 buy for food for the month? Major sickness and an early death. It isn't like people on welfare have access to healthscare anyways.
3
1
Rating: +2
our booming economy, not
Alberta whose welfare rates are more in line with present day living would indicate differently because Alberta's economy is hot and BC is not.
Alberta's assistance clients receive more than those on disability in BC while having the availability of others resources. What a difference a government makes. The Liberals have been in the pockets of the poor since they got into office to give to the rich. The poor have no money, so what a waste of time because they never did but they used to be able to live without fear of illiness because they could eat healthy. Is a government as smart as the people it governs? After 3 terms of the Liberals British Columbians are going to pay the price, and pay and pay.
I bet you can find a whole lot of corruption with the rich, cheating on their taxes and I could go on and on and barely nothing with the poor?
1
2
Rating: -1
prenup
yup...that welfare sure motivates you to go out and get a job....go figure.
3
0
Rating: +3
ask Alberta
Why don't you when it comes to welfare rates and how it is a none issue because welfare receipients are hard to find in province where there is plenty of employment.
I remember social assistance having to send money back to the feds during a boom in Alberta because there was so little need for assistance. I like to deal with the facts while others like to just spout off.
2
1
Rating: +1
craig
lets say you need 2000 calories a day to survive comfortably (average person). at 280 calories per potato thats about 7 potatoes per day or 4.6 pounds of potatoes. A 10lbs bag of potatoes cost $3.50. So lets say you eat 3.5 bags a week or 35 lbs of potatoes which will cost about $12.50. Potatoes have enough protein and carbs, so now you need some fruits and vegetables. so lets buy 3 lbs of applies at $1.5/pound ($4.50), 6 lbs of carrots (1$ per 2 pounds at no frills) and your just about done. Now you can eat that for a couple weeks while you save up money for things like olive oil, salt, pepper, and all your other non-perishables. Technically you can survive off of those potatoes and some applies and carrots but it will suck. You wont go hungry though.
3
3
Rating: 0

Pages

Add new comment
To prevent automated spam submissions leave this field empty.