Writing a Letter

Yesterday I sat down to write a letter to my Member of Provincial Parliament (MPP).

I’ve written similar letters in the past and received no response.  Perhaps I need a new approach. 

Maybe my letters haven’t been clear enough. Do my sentences run on? Does my correspondence suffer from subject verb disagreement?  Surely it must be one of these errors as I ‘m quite certain there would be no disagreement with my theme – fairness.  We all support fairness, don’t we? 

Specifically, my fruitless letters have attempted to address the lack of fairness of the social assistance system in Ontario.

There is much to be said about social assistance.  Space limits me.    First let’s talk about rates. In Ontario there are two basic programs.

The Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) is one. This program is designed to help people with disabilities who are in financial need pay for living expenses, like food and housing. 

Ontario Works (OW) is the other program.  OW helps people in financial need pay for living expenses, like food and housing.  Both programs can also give support in finding a job.
 
You have to qualify.  It isn’t easy.  But more about that later.

There was a time when social assistance rates bore some relationship to the real cost of living.  Not often did that occur but 1993 was a year where it could be argued that some fairness had been achieved.

Then along came Mike Harris.  During the 1995 election campaign, the poverty denying golf pro teed off on single mothers who were receiving assistance depicting them as some sort of boogie monsters ripping off the oppressed taxpayers of Ontario.  

Harris’s fabricated characterization was successful - politically at least. In 1995 he reduced social assistance rates in Ontario by 22%. It was one of the first acts of his new government.

Former Premier Mike Harris
made Big Cuts to Social
Assistance

Let’s be clear. There was no economic rationale for this move – just a mean spirited, ill informed attempt to make social assistance rates unattractive and presumably to make people find jobs that didn’t exist or that they weren’t qualified to do.

Today those rates are far below poverty levels.  How far?  A single parent with two children receives $1989 per month on ODSP.  The shelter allowance for a single person receiving OW is $390 per month.  Try finding a place to live for $390.  

Earlier this year, John Stapleton, a respected public policy guru, took a look at rates. He went back to those fairer 1993 rates and built in the 16.2% inflation that had occurred up to January 2022 and came up with new rates.    OW and ODSP would have to be raised 67% to get back to those levels.

What needs to happen?

A few years ago advocates drafted legislation that proposed a simple idea. An expert panel would be set up.  Each year the panel would recommend appropriate evidence-based social assistance rates to the Provincial Government. There were details but that was the idea in a nutshell.

An Act to Establish the Ontario Social Assistance Rates Board was introduced for first reading as a private member’s bill in the Ontario Legislature in June 2007. Unfortunately, the Legislature was prorogued the next day in anticipation of a fall election, meaning the Bill was effectively discontinued. Similar efforts have been launched since with the same result.

MPP Ted McMeekin proposed
a rates board in 2007

Another less talked about change took place nearly twenty-five years ago when the Family Benefits program was changed to ODSP. 

First, access to social assistance was made much more difficult as people were forced to reduce their assets before qualifying.  Many “stupid rules” were introduced - over 800 according to a 2004 report from the Ministry of Community and Social Services who ironically administered the stupid rules.  Front line workers spent at least 80% of their time on administrative issues, like filling out forms etc…, and not addressing the needs of recipients. 

With these changes qualifying for the program became a big issue. A majority of people applying for ODSP were turned down.  People had the right to appeal internally and then if unsuccessful they could go to a body called the Social Benefits Tribunal, an administrative body that deals specifically with appeals regarding social assistance, for a final appeal. 

A lot of hoops to jump through but if you did the hoop jumping you were usually successful in your appeal.  In fact, if you had legal help your chances of winning were over 90%.  That legal help (usually in the form of a community legal clinic caseworker) was then seen as a problem so the legal clinics’ funding was cut.   

I’m going to take another shot at writing that letter.  There is more that could be said about fairness but I’m fairly certain that any fool can see that the system is unfair.  Why waste time with that argument.       

I need to focus on eliminating those run on sentences and getting the verbs to agree with the subjects.