The National Council of Welfare released its annual report on welfare incomes last week. As expected, the report is critical of all provincial welfare programs and proposes a minimum national standard for welfare.

The taxpayer funded group is mandated to advise the federal Minister of Social Development on matters relating to social welfare. In its twenty five years, however, the Council gradually but completely transformed itself from an advisory group to in-house lobbyist.

This year's report is littered with inflammatory and partisan language more often associated with a social activist group than a ministerial advisory council. The Council's data, methodology and conclusions are flawed and self-serving.

For example, the report measures the adequacy of benefits in each province by comparing welfare income levels with the poverty line. However, the purported poverty line is in fact an arbitrary measurement, referred to as the low income cut-off (LICO). Statistics Canada developed the measurement and has repeatedly emphasized that LICOs are not a measure of poverty, are not intended to be used as a poverty line and does not endorse their use as such. The advisory group, however, takes its own opinion and states in its report, "the National Council of Welfare regards the low income cut-offs as poverty lines."

Furthermore, the Council's report only measures cash benefits and does not take into consideration any in-kind benefits such as job search workshops or subsidized day care. Provincial assistance programs have offered more in-kind benefits as a result of the National Child Benefit (NCB). One focus of the NCB is on in-kind benefits for individuals that are transitioning from welfare to work. Simply measuring one type of welfare benefit does adequately measure the level of government assistance. The Council concludes that welfare rates in Canada "cannot be described as anything other than punitive and cruel." A harsh statement with no supporting evidence.

The report's data and measurement is intentionally misconstrued and interpreted for dramatic flair. It was not surprising, therefore, to read the stark condemnation of the BC welfare time limits. "The Council is still horrified by the decision of British Columbia to put time limits on the receipt of welfare." It is not enough that the provincial government capitulated and included twenty five exemptions to the time limits, the Council still contends that BC's policy has set a dangerous precedent.

After twenty five years of taxpayer funding the Council has failed to accurately capture poverty in Canada, to provide any constructive solutions and has increasingly functioned as a lobby group. The only suggestion the Council has offered to address poverty is to increase cash benefits. The Council's erroneous reports do nothing to help those families that are actually living in poverty. In order to address any social problem, there must first be an accurate measure of the problem. The National Council of Welfare has outlived its usefulness and its objectivity. For the welfare of all taxpayers, it should be scrapped.