Social Assistance Rates and the Ontario Election

Social assistance rates should have some relation to the real cost of living but almost never have. 

(See http://whenthemayorsmiles.blogspot.com/2020_10_19_archive.html)

Rates in 1993 under the Bob Rae NDP government were set at a level that arguably reflected the real cost of living. They don’t now.

With a provincial election coming up in June it is interesting to speculate on what the major parties will offer on the policy front re social assistance rates. (Note: We are talking about what is politically possible not what is right.) 

John Stapleton, a respected public policy guru, looks at the issue in https://openpolicyontario.com/16-2-in-22-a-social-assistance-litmus-for-2022/

There has been one small increase of 1.5% to Ontario Works (OW) since the Ford government was elected in 2018.  Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) had a single 1.5% increase as well that was, in fact, a rollback of a promised 3% boost.

Stapleton takes those 1993 fairer rates and calculates that OW and ODSP would have to be raised 67% to get back to those levels. Politically that is a non-starter.

In the 1995 election poverty denier Mike Harris succeeded in portraying single mothers receiving assistance as some sort of boogie monsters ripping off the oppressed taxpayers of Ontario

One of Harris’ first acts as premier was to cut social assistance rates by 21.6%.  

Stapleton takes 1995 as a starting point, builds in the 16.2% inflation that has occurred since then and comes up with new rates.   

“… the OW single rate would climb by 16.2% from $733 a month to $852 a month… a  similar 16.2% increase to ODSP (would) take the single rate from $1,169 to $1,359 a month.”

It is doable.  The Ford government is spending less on this file.  Since the beginning of the pandemic in April 2020, the number of social assistance beneficiaries has fallen by 15% or over 146,000 beneficiaries. 

I’ve written to MPP (see below) and hope you will too.  We should expect a commitment from all provincial parties to do something about the injustice of inadequate social assistance rates.   

This story has been updated to reflect the fact that OW rates were increased by 1.5% in 2018.

---------------

December 22, 2021
Toby Barrett 
MPP Haldimand Norfolk 
 

 Dear Mr. Barrett, 

Re: Raising Social Assistance Rates for Individuals 

Nearly a year ago (January 26, 2021) I wrote to you about the need to raise social assistance rates.

Other than acknowledgement that my letter was received, I have not received a reply from you.

For social assistance recipients the situation has worsened over the past year. 

Rates are the same and continue to be well below poverty levels.  Canada’s Consumer Price Index has risen 4.4% the highest rate since 2003.

Meanwhile your government has made no meaningful investments or taken any action on programs or policies that would improve income security for low-income Ontarians. 

In terms or digital access, the government seems to believe that building infrastructure is all that is needed.  While you have pledged $2 billion in broadband infrastructure, no money has been provided to assist low-income Ontarians pay for Canada’s high internet and data costs. Now, Tribunals in Ontario are moving to a digital-first approach.  Investing in subsidizing internet costs for people on social assistance and all low income Ontarians is essential for both access to caseworkers and access to justice. 

It is imperative that social assistance rates be raised to reflect the real cost of living in Ontario.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.  I look forward to your response.   

Sincerely, 
Bob Wood 

Paul Martin and the Common Sense Gang

I recall standing with a one-term Ontario New Democratic MPP on Pine Street in Burlington.  It is a beautiful spring day in 1995.  A newly built non-profit housing project, Wellington Terrace, was celebrating its grand opening.  Balloons, refreshments and there is a ribbon is ready to be cut. 

“You know if we aren’t reelected there will be no more places like this built,” he told me.

No more built, I thought.  While I was sympathetic to his perspective, the view seemed more self-serving hyperbole than realistic forecast.

But the MPP was right. You know the story. 

Following World War II the federal government jumped into the housing field in a big way. Polices were slanted towards home ownership. While social housing and creation of rental housing weren’t high priorities, there were some initiatives.

Major cuts to government funding for social housing began in 1984. The Brian Mulroney government slashed national affordable housing spending by almost $2 billion. In 1993, Mulroney’s successor, Kim Campbell, cancelled all new funding for affordable housing.

Then things worsened with Paul Martin’s 1995 budget. 

Paul Martin

On February 27 that year, Martin put on his budget boots and kicked responsibility for social housing down to the provinces.  He cancelled all spending on new social housing projects. The Finance Minister hung his hat on many of the popular clichés of the day calling for “hard choices” and “real change,” “smaller and smarter government,” bucking the status quo and “simple common sense.” 

The rhetoric mattered not at all to those who were struggling to find housing that was safe and affordable. What really mattered, as we have discovered, was that Canada now had no housing strategy; the only developed country without such a plan. 

Back to that spring day in 1995:  As I enjoyed the opening of one of the last non-profit housing communities built in Ontario, we were just months away from more cuts from the new Mike Harris government.  Their idea of common sense (in fact, they called it a revolution) included the cancellation of 17,000 units of co-op and non-profit housing that had been approved but not completed.

Reforming Social Assistance - Evidence Based Rates

Of course, we need social assistance rates that have some connection to the cost of living.  Here is a story I wrote and posted on my blog on that topic nine years ago.  I’ve updated it slightly.

------

In the mid-nineties Mike Harris’ government reduced social assistance rates in Ontario by 22%. 

There was no economic rationale for this move – just a stupid, mean spirited, ill informed attempt to make social assistance rates unattractive.  By doing this it was presumed that to people would find jobs that didn’t exist or that they weren’t qualified to do.

In addition, getting on to social assistance was made much more difficult as people were forced to reduce their assets before qualifying.  What kind of reductions?  Well, today (2011) a single person applying for Ontario Works is permitted to have a maximum of $592 in assets in order to qualify so that they can receive a maximum of $7,104 annually.

The issue of inadequacy of social assistance rates must be addressed.  At the Hamilton Community Legal Clinic, where I work, we believe that social assistance rates need to have some relation to the actual cost of rent, food and other basic necessities in communities across Ontario.

A few years ago the Clinic, with the leadership of staff lawyer Craig Foye (pictured below) drafted legislation that proposed the idea of setting up an expert panel that each year would recommend evidence-based social assistance rates to the Provincial Government. “An Act to Establish the Ontario Social Assistance Rates Board” (Bill 235) was introduced for first reading as a private member’s bill in the Ontario Legislature by MPP Ted McMeekin on June 4, 2007.

Unfortunately, the Legislature was then prorogued the next day in anticipation of a fall election, meaning the Bill was effectively discontinued. The Bill has not yet been reintroduced. Since that time the Clinic and others have continued to advocate with government to implement a process for determining evidence-based social assistance rates.  

 The Clinic has advocated for: 

an arm’s length body to recommend evidence-based social assistance rates on an annual basis. Those rates should be based on an analysis of the actual costs of rent, a healthy food basket, and other basic necessities in communities across Ontario, and should provide a level of assistance that will allow individuals and families to live with dignity. An example of such a body is the Ontario Social Assistance Rates Board as proposed in the former Bill 235 introduced on June 4, 2007.

The NDP’s Paul Miller has championed a similar bill over the last several years. https://www.ola.org/en/legislative-business/bills/parliament-42/session-1/bill-60

In its current form, passage of the bill would establish the Social Assistance Research Commission. The Commission would recommend social assistance rates and makes other recommendations about social assistance policy. The Commission would consist of people with expertise relevant to the Commission’s work.

The Minister would be expected to prepare a written response to the recommendations in the annual report.  That written response would be available to the public within 60 days after the Minister received the report.

Ontario: No Place to Stand

It seemed appropriate on the 25th anniversary of Mike Harris being elected Premier in Ontario and days after an elderly protester was pushed to the ground by police in Buffalo that I reprint this story of mine from August 2000.

----------

Gordon Askwith recalls visiting the provincial legislature in 1990 for a large open house.

On that October evening over 5,000 people wandered through the legislature.

That seems like a long time ago to Askwith now.  Nearly ten years later on June 15th (2000), the 79-year old was knocked to the ground at Queen’s Park during a riot.  He believes it was the police who put him there.

Askwith was not part of the demonstration that day.  He had been attending a course at the University of Toronto, just a stone’s throw away (no pun intended), and decided to come over and see what was going on. 

Photographs Askwith took that day document a smoke bomb going off on the steps of the legislature, mounted police officers moving into the crowd and more.

The one picture that is missing is of a woman being arrested by six officers.  Askwith was preparing to take that shot when he suddenly found himself upended.

He tells me he was well away from the demonstrators at this time, under some trees.  The only individuals close him were Toronto police.

I have known Dr. Askwith, a Burlington resident, for some time.  An artist, veteran of World War II, social worker, active in his church and on peace and social justice issues, he doesn’t know why he couldn't stand under some trees approximately 75 metres from the legislature’s doors.

This should concern us.  There seems to be nowhere for those who disagree with the policies of the Harris government to stand.  In days gone by, protesters could expect to convene outside the legislature and criticize the government of the day.  Opposition politicians and government representatives would be cheered and jeered.  That is what is supposed to happen in a democratic society.  But that opportunity doesn’t exist anymore

The demonstrators had gathered some distance from Queen’s Park, listening to the emotional accounts of the 22 homeless people who had died since last November.

Brenda Dolling, a retired schoolteacher who was part of the protest, says they proceeded to Queen’s Park “in an orderly, calm fashion.”

(Other accounts, mainly from a Harris-friendly media, suggest some had come looking for the fight they got.)  Ontario Coalition Against Poverty (OCAP) leaders demanded an opportunity to address the legislature.

Now, Premier Harris will stand in his place and accept responsibility for creating a housing crisis in Ontario before OCAP leaders will be given the opportunity to speak to our Provincial Parliamentarians.  OCAP knows this.  But apparently, they believe the symbolism of not being allowed to speak makes an important statement.  Unfortunately for their cause, this “statement" got lost in the mad media rush to denounce the protesters as instigators.  An inquiry now being called for by a coalition of community groups and unions may, in fact, show that it was the police who were out of control,

Whatever is proved, it’s clear that OCAP has not been successful at getting its message to the broader public.  What do opponents of the Harris government need to do?

Alan Borovoy, general counsel of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has spent a lifetime fighting for justice.  His tactics, described in Uncivil Obedience – The Tactics and Tales of A Democratic Agitator, could provide a blueprint for those wanting to develop a broad coalition.

Simply put Borovoy believes that there is no justification in a democratic society for breaking the law to get justice.   Borovoy believes that there are enough legal tools at the disposal of activists to right injustice without resorting to breaking the law. 

“We should obey the law but stick it to the government anyway,” he writes.

Some recommendations from Borovoy:

• Exert enough pressure to make authorities negotiate but not so much they will lose. Arguing against the use of violence for moral and tactical reasons, Borovoy believes the key to any kind of victory is public opinion.  You have to get the fence-sitters on your side and the way to do is to negotiate and compromise.

• Speak over the heads of those attending.  While only the converted may attend a rally or demonstration, the message must go over the heads of those present to be effective.  A well organized event achieves this.

• Use the strength of your opponent.  Borovoy recognizes that publicizing the extreme positions of his opponents was often the key to success.  Pull your adversaries’ tails and they will squeal obligingly.

To be effective groups must use strategies like these to broaden their collation and present effective alternatives.

When this happens people like Gordon Askwith may feel at home at Queen’s Park again.

----------

This story originally appeared in FOREVER YOUNG in August 2000.