It used to be that employment — especially full-time employment — significantly reduced the risk of food insecurity. But now, more and more working people in Canada are struggling to put food on the table. In fact, for every 100 people who visit a food bank, 19 have employment as their main source of income.
Why is this happening, and what can we do about it? Food Banks Canada took a closer look by conducting:
- A community-based research project involving 87 in-depth interviews, guided by insights from eight peer researchers with experience of food insecurity.
- A survey with a sample of 10,000 people from Canada’s general adult population.
What we heard was striking: many working people are blocked from developing their potential, and stuck in a policy no-man’s land built on the outdated idea that having a job means you’re financially secure. Their stories — and their ideas for change — are shaping the policy solutions we’re bringing forward to governments. Here are five key takeaways from this work:
1. Food insecurity is very common among employed people.
Our research used an established questionnaire to define food insecurity and to determine who was experiencing it. It asked questions such as: “The food I/we bought just didn’t last, and I/we didn’t have money to get more. Was that often, sometimes, or never true for you/your household in the last 12 months?”
In the survey, food insecurity affected 41 percent of the respondents who were employed full-time and 50 percent of the people with part-time or casual work arrangements. “Even working 40 hours a week at a little over minimum wage, I can still barely afford to pay my rent,” reflected an interviewee. “How am I supposed to also feed myself?”
These findings line up with other research showing that since the pandemic, employed people no longer have a lower risk of experiencing food insecurity, on average.
2. For households facing hunger, the biggest work-related money pressures are the rising costs of living, persistently low earnings with no increases in wages, and commuting expenses.
A key insight emerging from the study is that working often entails additional expenses, such as childcare and commuting, so that getting and keeping a job can cost too much compared to the income it provides.
Households experiencing food insecurity reported rising costs of living (56%), low wages (40%) and the rising cost of gas for their commute (31%) as the top financial pressures they were facing related to their employment. The general population — including people who are not food-insecure — also indicated concern about these pressures, though to a lesser extent. “The problem is that the inflation has gone up, groceries have gone up, gas in your car has gone up, bills have gone up, but our wages have not gone up … so it’s hard to make ends meet,” summed up a research participant.
3. The top barriers to quality jobs include limited opportunities, disability or illness, and insufficient qualifications or training.
Survey respondents pointed to limited job options, disabilities or health issues, and lack of access to adequate training or education as key barriers to finding and maintaining a job that pays the bills.
A number of the interview participants told us they were carrying a double burden: they couldn’t get by, and they couldn’t afford to invest in improving their situation, either.
One person had been doing the same job for 20 years with no pay-raises or bonuses. “She is working in the field she trained for. She works very hard and long hours in her late 50s,” summarized a peer researcher. “There is no time or funds to retrain. She is stuck. Very little hope. This is heartbreaking.”
A lot of other people felt equally stuck, unable to spare the time or money to upgrade their current skills due to the day-to-day struggle of keeping their heads above water. “When you’re in survival mode, you don’t think about what job you want,” explained an interviewee. “You think about what will literally get food on your plate today!”
Others shared that family responsibilities, such as caring for children or aging parents, limits their work options. For many, especially in rural or underserved areas, the lack of affordable and accessible childcare makes it impossible to take on full-time or better-paying jobs. These caregiving demands are pushing people — particularly women — out of the workforce. “Affordable childcare is just as much of an infrastructure need to get to work as suitable transportation,” stated one participant.
4. People experiencing food insecurity are more likely to see affordable transportation as a key to quality employment.
Survey respondents — whether they were experiencing food insecurity or not — tended to give high marks to policies such as fully subsidized training for in-demand skills, affordable childcare, and affordable transportation. However, food-insecure respondents were particularly likely to support initiatives such as transportation vouchers or subsidized public transit for low-income earners.
Transportation is a critical yet often overlooked barrier to employment, especially in rural communities. Without access to reliable public transit, many people are forced to rely on personal cars. This makes commuting a major financial burden, given the combined costs of buying and maintaining a vehicle and buying fuel.
Transportation costs accounted for half or more of the pay cheques of some participants in the study, and others said they are entirely excluded from job opportunities because they can’t afford a car or gas.
The high cost of travelling to training or daily work, combined with the rising costs of basic necessities such rent, utilities, and food, makes it nearly impossible to get ahead — even for those who are employed.
5. Even though they currently make up the majority of the people who are facing hunger, working people are not likely to get help from government income-support programs or other benefits.
More than two-thirds of the food-insecure respondents in our national survey reported that they don’t receive government benefits. As barriers, research participants cited a lack of awareness about which benefits exist, complex application processes, and strict eligibility thresholds. They also pointed to benefit amounts that were insufficient to meet basic needs. Some said they were struggling to cover essential expenses but had been disqualified because of their earnings or because their spouse worked.
People also talked about barriers related to rapidly evolving technology, and challenges navigating support systems that are fragmented across multiple programs and agencies, contributing to confusion and difficulty in identifying appropriate resources during periods of crisis.
Ways Forward
When asked what policymakers could do to help, participants’ recommendations included:
- Controlling inflation; putting price controls on necessities; reducing the taxes that contribute to day-to-day hardships
- Expanding income supports and removing barriers that exclude people who are employed
- Enabling more work-related supports; for example, paid training or retraining; investing in affordable transportation, childcare and eldercare; enforcing livable wages and fair hiring practices; creating more jobs
- Better communication about those employment supports that already exist
“I see a recurring theme,” wrote one of the peer researchers. “It’s of people ‘stuck’ in low-paying jobs who seem right on the edge of being able to improve their situation if they could only access the right kind and amount of individualized support.”
These findings make one thing clear: we need policies that allow people to realize their potential. Creating change will take collective effort from governments, community organizations, and employers alike. It starts by understanding that food insecurity doesn’t reflect personal failures, but systemic ones. Together, we can address them and build a Canada where people can get by, and also hope to get ahead.
