Showing posts with label Ontario. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ontario. Show all posts

Monday, February 12, 2024

The Budget


On a long ago budget day, a procedural quirk
put a simple regional ward councillor
in a position to freeze the police budget.
Ward councillors don’t obstruct police budgets
because, as we all learned as kids,
the police(man) is our friend
does important and dangerous work
protects and keep us safe and
for all of this deserves to be well paid.

These are things that ward councillors,
even simple ones, should understand.
But since the common sense drumbeat
set the revolution in motion
we have come to know that the best government is
to have practically no government at all
and respect for hard earned taxpayer’s dollars
is the order of the day.
Others are compelled to run their ship tightly
while the law and order liner sails unimpeded
through the calm waters of political indifference.

On that budget day, the simple ward councillor
Having, for a time, ascended
to the lofty heights of budget committee member
advanced what was (by his own humble admission)
a particularly persuasive presentation
convincing the one colleague who needed convincing
that police spending should be apprehended and
it was a great day for local democracy
or at least it seemed that way.
But the votes aren’t counted
until the politicians raise their hands
and when they did
the police got their money, as they always do.

No media or public witnessed the sad event though
police brass made time in otherwise busy days
to behold the councillor’s misbegotten manoeuvre.
Following his 15 minutes of small town fame
our councillor drove his car like an undertaker.
Even now, my lane changes are by-the-book perfect
and inviolable police budgets escalate still.

This piece was originally published in the Dream, the Glory and 
the Strife edited by Raymond Fenech, Hidden Brook Press, 2018.

Tuesday, October 31, 2023

Encampment Update

Earlier this year I wrote about a legal case pertaining to homeless encampments.

Justice M.J. Valente of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had ruled that the Region of Waterloo couldn’t evict people living in tents from a vacant lot the Region owns. https://whenthemayorsmiles.blogspot.com/2023/03/encampment-precedent.html

At the time I understood that the ruling was precedent setting and would impact other municipalities.   It seems I was overly optimistic.

According to the Advocacy Centre for Tenants of Ontario (ACTO) municipalities are responding to the needs of their residents in different ways. 

Some are using enforcement and displacement as a last resort.

And some are taking a different approach. Take Cambridge, for example.

They are “focusing on clearing and forcibly removing residents, resulting in people being displaced with nowhere else to go,” claims ACTO, an Ontario specialty legal clinic.

"Some of these people were evicted three times in a matter of two months,” Ashley Schuitema, staff lawyer at Waterloo Region Community Legal Services (WRCLS) told Cambridge Today’s Joe McGinty.  https://www.cambridgetoday.ca/local-news/legal-action-in-the-cards-after-cambridge-encampment-evictions-7652134

Up North, Sault Ste Marie looked at other City’s bylaws and figured they could amend theirs.  Just in time for winter they decided to protect their parks. The only Council opposition came from Ward 3’s Angela Caputo according to CBC News. 

"I think it's imperative that we shift our attention to creating and advocating for a system to end homelessness rather than enacting laws to try and police our way out of it," said Ms. Caputo. https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sudbury/social-services-legal-challenge-poverty-issues-1.6952421

Some cities like Kingston are in court where the arguments revolve around how much housing is available.  There is always lots of debate on such numbers. 

Let’s get real here. It is obvious to anyone that rental rates and availability are beyond the means of increasing numbers of people in the province.

Municipalities are spending taxpayers’ dollars on fighting our fellow citizens in courts.  The Hamilton Spectator reported today that lawyers representing Hamilton tried to recover court costs from those without housing who are in an ongoing human rights battle with the city.  Instead, Justice James Ramsay ruled the City should pay costs of $5,000.  

The last word today goes to ACTO:

“The Charter dictates that unless and until encampment residents are provided with truly accessible accommodation, evictions should not occur. Moreover, encampment residents deserve to be consulted and involved when municipalities are attempting to find solutions for them.”

Wednesday, May 04, 2022

Deserving

(I'm hoping that the 2022 Ontario election campaign looks at the issue of poverty.  Here is a story I wrote on poverty in Ontario.  I made it up but it could be true. This story won the 2021 Norfolk County’s Laureate award for fiction.  It will take you about 18 minutes to read.  

-----------

“You need to tell them where the bodies are buried.”

Councillor Ken Williams could not get that strange phone message out of his head.

There had been that anonymous call left on his voice mail this morning – the fourth consecutive day this had occurred.  Of course, it wasn’t that unusual to get odd calls. 

Somehow, though, this one was different.

What bodies?  Buried where, he wondered.

Williams, Ward 2 Councillor for the City of Clarovista, was headed into a municipal council meeting on this gloomy Tuesday.  It promised to be a long day.  

As he made his way to his seat, Williams was approached by Sharon Smith, the diligent city reporter for the Clarovista Clarion.

“Councillor Williams, could I speak with you about some strange calls we have been getting at the Clarion?”

“I’m not sure I could help you about calls you are receiving Sharon,” Williams answered warily.  

“They have been mentioning your name,” she continued.

“My name? Umm, sure.  Perhaps we could talk after the meeting.”

“Alright then, I’ll catch you after. Doesn’t look like there will be much exciting news to write about from this meeting.”

Just then Mayor Ted Martin, decked out in a designer Grey Notch Lapel Suit complete with chain of office trailed by his executive assistant, glided past Smith and Williams. Late by about ten minutes as is/was his custom.  Now the meeting could commence.

This was Williams’ sixth year on Council.  He’d long ago figured out the routine.  As sure as the rainbow smelt will run into Lake Vista in the spring, staff bring this particular report every April.  It is called The Annual Review of Grants for Agencies and Organizations that Operate Health and/or Social Services Programs. 

The verbose report title mirrored an awkward process that compelled organizations to jump through a nonsensical number of unnecessary hoops. That review would likely take up the bulk of today’s meeting.

The regular April crowd was all there; agency people, community activists, those with lived experience.  Some of Williams’ colleagues referred to these people as members of “special interest groups.” But Williams had learned long ago from his trade unionist grandfather who the real special interest groups were.  

“Kenny,” he’d say, “never underestimate the power of the banks and their shady sidekicks – the developers.”  

This year Council had an additional delegation, an expert on social policy from the university.  Williams knew Dr. Patricia Fleming slightly and had gone to a couple of seminars in which she had participated.

Fleming was called to the lectern by the Mayor and began her presentation with the usual salutary remarks. Then she moved on to territory that was familiar to Williams.
“Ontario’s treatment of the poor goes back to the 18th century and is built on the whole idea that there are two types of poor people - deserving poor and the non-deserving poor,” she lectured. 

Williams knew this; had made the point himself as it related to the current situation in the 
province.
“The first piece of legislation important for you to understand,” Fleming continued, “is the Constitution Act of 1791.”

Oh dear, thought Williams, she will never get through 204 years of Ontario social policy history within her ten-minute time allocation.

“In setting up the governance structure for Upper Canada, or Ontario as we now know it, Lieutenant Governor Simcoe took most elements from Great Britain’s legislation except, and this is paramount, not the poor law.  Other jurisdictions, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, to name two, adopted the Poor Laws.  You must appreciate that this effort to ban a poor law in Ontario promoted the growth of private charities.  All these charities held their own distinct beliefs and this resulted in weakening of public support for those in need.”

Mayor Martin cleared his throat.  

“Mrs. Fleming I’m concerned that you are veering off topic.  I’m having trouble seeing 
what any of what you are saying has to do with what is on the agenda today.”

“It’s Doctor Fleming, sir.  On the contrary Mr. Mayor this history has everything to do with today’s agenda.  May I continue without interruption, please?”

“Before you do, could you tell us a little more about Poor Laws, Dr. Fleming,” piped up Councillor Jim Bristow.

“No, No, Councillor there will be time for questions later. I need to keep Mrs. Fleming, Dr Fleming, on track.” The Mayor liked to be in control.   

Dr. Fleming carried on.

“As I was saying in Ontario, specific forms of outdoor relief (coal, bread, milk) and institutional relief were offered to those who were considered deserving. We are talking here about the aged and infirm, widows, “deserted” mothers, apprenticed children.  In addition, sometimes public work jobs were provided to new arrivals and those considered able-bodied."  

Just as the Mayor was about to interrupt again there was grumbling and shuffling in the public seats.  As Martin reached for his gavel, two determined women rushed the dais.  One grabbed the chief magistrate by his shoulders while the other attempted to yank the chain of office from his neck.  This removal was not without difficulty especially as the mayor’s dutiful assistant had leapt into the fray to save the Mayor from harm.  

Harming the Mayor was not part of the plan though; it was the chain of office the women were after. After a short tussle, the assailants had the chain in hand and were dashing out of the committee room shouting something about justice, a cover up and buried bodies.  Williams recognized these women from earlier protest actions around town.  They were part of a group called Clarovista Coalition for Fairness and Justice (CCFJ).
.
Meanwhile the Mayor lay sprawled inelegantly on the floor.

“We will have a fifteen-minute adjournment,” mewled his worship as he struggled to regain his feet - unhurt but dispossessed of the 130-year-old symbol of mayoral primacy.
Members of the public and those Clarovista bureaucrats assembled for the meeting sat in stunned silence.

“Wow. Now I’ve got a story idea,” Sharon Smith declared. 

As what had happened was unprecedented no one really knew what to do.  The exhaustive Clarovista emergency preparedness booklet that detailed procedures did not cover theft of the chain of office. Consequently no one thought to pursue the thieves.

The Mayor staggered from the room as his executive assistant announced that it had now been decided that the meeting was adjourned at the call of the Chair.  

Dr. Fleming had returned to the dais and was trying to be heard while waving a book over her head.  Her efforts were pointless as no one could hear above the commotion.  

Sharon Smith, the reporter, had found a quiet place to send in her story. 

For his part, Williams meandered to the front of the room to persuade Dr. Fleming that it might be best to send in the remainder of her presentation to the clerk’s department.  They would distribute it to Council members.  She seemed deflated but handed Williams a book entitled Poverty in Ontario 1791-2000.

“I’d like you to have this book Councillor Williams.  I think you will find the chapter that covers the history of the Clarovista Poorhouse of particular interest."

Days went by and yet there was no news of the missing chain of office.

After all that had occurred at the Tuesday Council the meeting that reconvened the following Monday was somewhat of an anti-climax.  

Not to the various agencies who had appealed their grants, of course.  Some of their appeals were successful, others not.  Councillors seized the opportunity to interject their presumed sage advice to the various agencies - Do more with less, build partnerships, consider more fundraising projects.  Always at play was the whole matter of who ought to get service and who was not really entitled to it.  After all the hard-working families of Clarovista could not be expected to dig into their pocketbooks to support every nutty idea the kumbaya crowd chose to advance.

Those same issues were dealt with at length in Poverty in Ontario 1791-1995. Dr. Fleming had written a surprisingly interesting book.  Chapter Sixteen, which dealt with the history of the Clarovista poorhouse, filled in some blanks for Williams who had put aside other reading on the weekend to go through Fleming’s book.

Of course, Williams knew that poorhouses were established in the mid 19th century
to house people who required food, shelter, or care in order to survive.

The poorhouse was a response to the number of people begging on the streets, wandering the countryside, or languishing in jails.

The Clarovista poorhouse existed from 1877 up until 1933 when the municipality decided to sell off assets to raise money during the depression.  The property had been in what is currently Williams’ ward somewhere up in the northeast corner near where Mayor Martin lives.  Williams studied the map that was included in Fleming’s book.  Hold on.

“This is the mayor’s property.  That’s odd,” Williams said aloud.    

Chapter 16 laid out a map of the Poorhouse and its 50-acre site complete with building sketches showing the large stone house built in the Italianate style, barn and various out buildings, the hospital wing and the pest house.  The living arrangements were dormitory style – one side of the house women and children; the other for men.    

There were also drawings of the confinement cells or idiot cells as they were called that were used for discipline purposes. Sadly, two brothers, Harold (Inmate #1238) and Joseph Cook Inmate #1239), incarcerated behind the iron cell doors of the confinement cells perished in a fire in 1933.   The brothers had been locked in the cells for repeatedly violating the curfew and for their inability and unwillingness to find work. 

It was said that they missed curfew as they were travelling to distant towns looking for work that was hard to come by during the depression.  But at the poorhouse rules were rules and the Cook brothers had run afoul of those rules.  
 
Some in the community had called for an inquest but the authorities decided against one as fire deaths were fairly common at the time and there were complications as there was some confusion as to the location of the remains of the deceased brothers. 

The main building had been destroyed contributing to the decision to sell the property. Inmates were relocated to nearby Carson Creek.  

The Keeper, Janek Marcin, left town but turned up several years later living on the same property.  
 
How did one become an inmate at the Clarovista Poorhouse, Williams wondered.

Dr. Fleming had provided her business card with her book.  Her home number was on the back of the card. Williams dialed the number.

“Dr. Fleming, Ken Williams here.  I’m enjoying your book.  Could I ask you a couple of questions?”

“Certainly Councillor, I have some time, go ahead.”

“Well, I’m not totally clear on how people became inmates – inmate that is a horrible word - of the poorhouse.”

“It was fairly simple. Your predecessors were quite involved.”

“The Council was involved?”

“Yes.  People who had been living in Clarovista for at least two years who needed help could apply to the mayor.  The mayor and council would determine whether the Poorhouse was the best fit for the individual or family.   Then they would have to approve a recommendation for the person or people to be sent to the Poorhouse.  It was a public process like authorizing spending for a bridge or approving monies to send a councillor to a conference.”

“This just seems wrong, Dr. Fleming.”

“Yes, of course it is wrong but is it really any different than what Council does these days?  

Last week’s meeting is a case in point.  Agencies having to grovel and answer ridiculous questions from uniformed members of council Not you Councillor, of course.) in order to maintain their organizations funding or get small incremental increases to continue important community work.” 

“The budget is really tight this year, Patricia.”

“But the budget isn’t the issue, Ken.  There is a bigger community picture at play.
They chatted some more. After Dr Fleming hung up Williams was left with an uneasy feeling as he returned to his reading.

In that year of the fire, 1933, thirty percent of the labour force was out of work, and one-fifth of the population was dependent on government assistance. Ironically, the Cook brothers’ grandfather, Jonah Cook, had donated part of his farm to the County as the site for the Poorhouse.

The phone rang interrupting Williams.  It was Sharon Smith from the Clarion.  Williams considered not picking up but did just before the call went to voice mail.

Ms. Smith, how are you today?”

“Fine, Councillor.  I’m looking for a comment.”

“On……?”

“The Chain of Office has been located on the Mayor’s property in a small wooded area.”

“Really!”

“Yes, what do you think of that, Councillor Williams?”

“Well, what I think is that you should ask the mayor about it.”

“I have.  He wasn’t helpful.”

“Wasn’t helpful?”

“He said it was none of my business what was on his property. Stay off his property. He was almost shouting. The Chain of Office has been recovered and that was that.”

“Well, there is some truth to what the mayor said, don’t you think?”

“Sure, some truth.  But the Chain was in a strange spot.”

“Well, of course, it was in the woods on the mayor’s rather nice property.  It is supposed to be at city hall.” 

“No.  That’s not what I mean.  It was around the neck of a scarecrow that was dressed in a grey suit, with a City of Clarovista lapel pin and an official tie.  The scarecrow was dressed to, you know, look like the mayor.  And it had a note pinned to it.”

“A scarecrow with a note pinned to it?”

“Yes.  Here is what it said.  

Knock, knock
Who’s over there?
Harold and Joseph
And no one cares.
  
And this mayor scarecrow thingy is pointing off further into the woods.  Do you understand any of it? What is the story here?”

Williams took a deep breath thinking of how to answer.

“Those calls we’ve been getting are beginning to make sense. Maybe history has something to tell us when we know where the bodies are buried.  That’s what you should write about.”


Wednesday, January 05, 2022

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 


Tuesday, March 09, 2021

Raising Social Assistance Rates

I just read an interesting policy paper from Open Policy Ontario.

Authored by John Stapleton and Yvonne Yuan the paper looks at the question of whether  higher social assistance rates lead to higher caseloads during recessions.

Well, they don’t.  


The authors conclude that when you take a look at unemployment data and minimum wage levels over time you’ll see that that higher social assistance benefit levels will not result in more people on social assistance. 

Stapleton and Yuan recommend immediate implementation of either: 

1. Raising the single Ontario Works assistance rate by 14.3% to $838 per month to equal 40% of full-time minimum wages along with parallel increases for other family sizes or 

2. Raising Ontario refundable tax credits by $1,365 per year so that all low-income single people can benefit from an increase in income. 

They also recommend that minimum wages be immediately increased to $15.00 per hour.

Read the report at https://openpolicyontario.s3.amazonaws.com/uploads/2021/03/culprits-20210219r-sacs.pdf

----------

Fast Facts


  • There has been no increase in rates since 2018 a continuation of a gradual downward slide in the value of social assistance that began with a drastic cut in 1995.  
  • According to the Ontario government, evidence shows that racially diverse, newcomer and low-income communities have been impacted more significantly by COVID-19 than others.
  • The federal government’s response to the pandemic has identified $2,000 per month as a “basic income” for people who have lost their jobs. The current rates for single individuals on Ontario Works (OW) is $733 and for Ontario Disability Support program (ODSP) is $1,169.00 fall far below this “basic income.”. 
  • The annual cost of poverty in Ontario is between $27.1 and $33 billion taking into account loss of tax revenue and increased expenses in the health and justice systems (Feed Ontario. The Cost of Poverty in Ontario 2019, p.4).  

Here is a link to a chart that illustrates how the buying power of social assistance rates has continued to sink over the years, because of minimal or no annual increases to match inflation. 

https://1drv.ms/w/s!AvRzOEPfSVfDvQTzDtVAYONTQ22W?e=LJGTc5







Tuesday, February 16, 2021

Ford Government Turning Its Back on People Living with Disabilities

 

Tuesday's Toronto Star has a story by Brendan Kennedy on delays at the Social Benefits Tribunal. (SBT) https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/02/12/delays-at-the-social-benefits-tribunal-have-tripled-leaving-odsp-claimants-in-extended-limbo.html

The SBT is an administrative tribunal that deals specifically with appeals regarding social assistance.  

The SBT hears appeals from people who have been turned down for the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP).  The law related to this program is called the Ontario Disability Support Program Act (1997). This program is designed to help people with disabilities who are in financial need pay for living expenses, like food and housing.

Why are the delays happening?

One reason is that the Doug Ford government has not been appointing new members to the SBT.  According to the story, there were 38 adjudicators when Ford won election in 2018.  There are only 26 now.

The real issue though is that the provincial government is trying to undermine the social assistance system.  They have no interest in supporting people living with disabilities.

For further evidence take a look at a recent piece in the Toronto Star written by Amira Elghawaby. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2020/12/29/has-the-ford-government-cancelled-2021-for-ontarios-most-vulnerable.html

The story makes it clear that:

1. First-level decision by ministry staff to deny benefits is all about  protecting the public purse. 

2 But Ontario gives applicants right to evidence-based, independent review. 

3 The majority of appeals filed in 2020 have yet to get a scheduled date for a hearing.

4 The 80% success rate in appeals of ministry decisions is a critique of the original decision making not problems with the SBT.


The delays are bad enough but there is speculation that the SBT might be eliminated.

Read a recent letter from Laura Hunter and Michael Ollier, Co-Chairs of the Steering Committee on Social Assistance for Ontario Community Legal Clinic.  The letter is to the Attorney General of Ontario and the Minister of Children, Community & Social Services.  

“The right to an appeal process at the Tribunal is enshrined in legislation, and it is a vital one that needs to be preserved. Even in the best of application systems, it is only fair and reasonable to apply a check on the decision-making of Ministry staff.”  https://hamiltonjustice.ca/en/2020/12/10/alarmed-for-the-future-of-the-social-benefits-tribunal-and-appeals-process/

The Ontario government must preserve the important independent role of the Social Benefits Tribunal.  No one should be wrongly denied the benefits they need for their survival.






Sunday, May 17, 2020

Contracting out employment services in Ford’s Ontario

Less than three months ago I wrote this piece for Canadian Dimension.  At the time I worried that contracting out employment services for social service programs might not be the best idea because maybe there weren't jobs out there.  Then came the C-19 Pandemic and the disappearance of countless existing jobs.  What now?  Maybe a rethink of these prototype projects would be in order.  


----------
Ontario’s self-styled Government-for-the-people has announced new “prototype” projects to run social service employment programs.

Prototype service mangers were revealed in February for Hamilton-Niagara, Peel and Muskoka. 

Employment services for social assistance recipients will now be integrated into a new regional level of bureaucracy called Service System Managers.

The government seems confident that lessons learned from the prototypes should shine a light forward for province–wide changes by 2022. 
Premier Ford -
May find this file more Complicated
than License Plates


But, dare I say, this is a much more complicated file than the recent “Open for Business Invisible-at-Night” car license plate roll-out.

Questions and Concerns

These changes are needed, the government says, because an Auditor General’s report said key Employment Ontario programs were not effective. In that context, handing over more responsibility to Employment Ontario is a curious step.

Let’s look at Hamilton where the service manager will be an American non-profit company.  Fedcap promises “to spread the power of possible.” Hopefully, what’s spread won’t run afoul of authorities like in New York and New Jersey where in 2018 the Labor Department determined that Fedcap stiffed 443 employees out of nearly $3,000,000 of legally required pay and benefits.
An understanding of and a respect for employment laws ought to be a given for those running employment programs.  Knowledge of the local labour market is too and Fedcap lacks that knowledge.

In Peel Region, WCG, a Canadian subsidiary of a multi-national corporation based in Australia, will be the manager. Presumably, they’ll have more Canadian knowledge than Fedcap since they have been operating similar programs in British Columbia and Alberta for some time.

They’re a private company though.  And that’s a concern since the three prototype organizations (Fleming College is the Muskoka manager) will be paid according to how many social assistance recipients they connect to jobs.

A new report by the Maytree Foundation cites research from Australia.  Down under private companies running similar programs had difficulties meeting placement targets that their funding was dependent on.  The companies responded by focussing efforts on helping those clients who had better chances of finding employment. 

That raises more questions.

Does this government understand the system it wants to reform? Are there actually jobs out there to place people in?

The job market has changed significantly in the last 25 years since a previous Conservative government applied their dogmatic Common Sense ideology to these matters.

The old economy featured decent jobs requiring routine skills for which many people were qualified. But today about a quarter of new jobs in Ontario are considered non-standard (temporary, part-time, on-call and self-employed work) and not within reach of many.

And what about the people on social assistance? They are staying on assistance longer because of significant systemic and individual barriers that experts say require a range of service and supports.  

To be fair, the government seems to recognize this need. They’ve indicated that a wrap-around supports model will focus on “life stabilization” for people who would not immediately benefit from employment and training services.  
Typically, with this government details are vague.

This employment services transformation “prioritizes the needs of employers at the expense of social assistance recipients.”  That’s what policy experts at the Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC) say.

I’m afraid they’re right.

This story originally appeared in the March 5th edition of Canadian Dimension https://canadiandimension.com/articles/author/bob-wood
Canadian Dimension is the longest-standing voice of the left in Canada.

Wednesday, July 31, 2019

Basic Income Pilot Cancelled One Year Ago Today

"What I'm announcing today is about restoring dignity to Ontarians.”

That’s Minister Lisa MacLeod  (right) speaking on July 31, 2018 while axing Ontario’s Basic Income Pilot Project (BI).

On that day, mere minutes ahead of that edict, I had an inkling from reading social media posts what was coming.   


I’d picked it up on a live stream feed shortly after 2:00 p.m. In less than five minutes Basic Income was done.

BI was a three-year pilot intended to test this idea:  Can appropriate financial support programs be delivered efficiently while improving health, employment, and housing outcomes?

The concept of Basic Income goes back at least 500 hundred years. A basic income program ran in Dauphin Manitoba from 1974-79.  When the Ontario pilot was set up in 2017 it was one of the largest in the world.  It has been attracting international attention.

How could the government know that the Pilot was not doing what it is intended to do before any data had been collected, the Minister was asked? 

“Here’s the situation," said the Minister dodging the question.  “We have seen the program isn’t doing what it is supposed to do.” 

What about the recipients? 

We will end it “ethically,” the Minister boasted.

That’s the Minister’s story.  A narrative that fits her government’s agenda but is out of sync with the stories of BI recipients.

Hearing from participants we learn that BI gave them the opportunity to plan their lives.  Prior to the pilot project, poverty and the restrictive bureaucratic rules that came with it precluded having a life plan. 

Participants are fighting back by putting their stories out there.

Jesse Golem is leading the way.  She is a photographer, a writer and a Basic Income recipient. When the program was cancelled, she “needed to do something” so she created a photo series called Humans of Basic Income (@HumansBasic) as a way to tell the stories of those who had been participating in the project. 

Some snapshots from the photos:

I can finally buy Christmas Presents for my Children

It has given me a Chance to Recover My Future

Now I have the Dignity to go back to School

Helps me Stay Healthy

I Felt Human Again

I’m a late convert to BI. I’d always thought that we should live in a society where everyone has decent housing; where people are able to earn an adequate income and, if for whatever reason, they aren’t able to provide for themselves, there will be a safety net that takes care of them. 

But I was naive. Others have been too. Why do we trust these in-the-dark politicians who can’t countenance pilot projects, especially other people’s pilot projects?  So, when the government changed…well, we should have seen it coming.  That is what happened with Mincome in Manitoba nearly forty years ago.

We’ve got no data but the stories tell us that such programs have value; changing lives in ways that decision makers can’t or won’t understand.

Let’s keep getting their stories out there.


Saturday, May 12, 2018

More from Doug Ford

William Lyon Mackenzie was a rebel, a writer and publisher and Toronto’s first mayor.

As a “provincial” politician he was expelled from the legislature five times - not just for the day but for good - until the voters sent him back.

Mackenzie was a nasty man, at least when it came to calling political opponents names.

And yet it was Mackenzie's strong belief that information should be available to the people.  He put considerable effort into this by publishing written documents and transcripts of debates in the Colonial Advocate and at public gatherings so that people could discuss and form their own opinions on issues.

I wonder what he would have made of today’s eight second sound bites and twitter politics.

This thought ran through my head as I mused about the current provincial election in Ontario.  Like Mackenzie, Conservative Leader Doug Ford is railing against the elites although arguably not the same elites who Mackenzie attacked in 1837.  Perhaps if Mackenzie was still around he would adapt to the modern person’s idea of communicating by twitter.  We thought we would try out this idea by putting out Doug Ford’s ideas in limerick form so they could fit into tweets.

Here they are with sources and but a few words of introduction.
----------

Doug Ford’s favourite book is How to Win Friends and Influence People.

                                           Dale Carnegie

               Just read How to Win Friends and Influence People
               It is a book that has certainly no equal
               I’ve read it from back to front
               and folks just let me be blunt
              Genuine sincerity is the key to it all.

(Source John Filion -The Only Average Guy, p 33)

-----------
Ford engaged in a public debate with famous author Margaret Atwood when, as a City of Toronto Councillor, he was pushing to close libraries.

         
                                Power Politics

              I wouldn’t have the slightest clue
              If she walked by me, would you?
              well good luck to @MargaretAtwood
              I don’t know her, think I should?
              I fight 4 the people, what’s she do?
           
(Source: John Filion -The Only Average Guy, p 177)

----------
Doug Ford talks about the political platform of Ford  Nation.


        Subways, Subways, Subways


Folks we just represent the people & that’s it
We’re as grassroots as they come & you’ll have 2 admit
#FordNation stands up 2 the political elite
Gives quality service, finds ways 2 unseat
Unreachable leaders & build underground transit.

(Source:  Ford Nation p 7, 271)

----------
Some have compared Ford  to American President Donald Trump.


                     We Were First

         Lots of signs and big rallies for our base
         Trump did it too but just in case
         You thought it was his idea
         Cause you read the lefty media
         We put that winning formula in place

(Source:  Doug Ford - Ford Nation: Two Brothers: One Vision p 110)

                                                       ----------
Like many populists Doug Ford differentiates himself from regular politicians.


                   The Average Politician

          He is blowing the smoke where the sun don’t shine
          The average politician does it all the time.
          In front of the people
          They are always agreeable
          People aren’t stupid they see this fake line.

        (Source:  City News October 13, 2016)


Monday, May 07, 2018

Doug Ford - In His Own Words (more or less)


I’m not sure if anyone has noted that the three so-called major party leaders in this June’s provincial election all got their start as elected officials at the local level.


Premier Kathleen Wynne served one term as a Toronto District school Board trustee in 2003.  She then won the provincial riding of Don Valley West in 2003, 2007 (defeating John Tory), 2011 and 2014.


NDP Leader Andrea Horwath was in her third term as a Councillor in Hamilton when she won a by- election in the riding of Hamilton East in 2004.  She was subsequently re-elected in the riding of Hamilton Centre in 2007, 2011 and 2014.


Conservative leader Doug Ford served one- term as a City of Toronto Councillor (2010- 2014), ran for Mayor in 2014 and was about to run again when he somewhat suddenly became leader of his provincial party.



It is probably fair to say that province wide Ford is the least known of the three leaders. Two books shed light on Ford’s beliefs and background.


The first was John Filion’s excellent 2015 work The Only Average Guy, Inside the Uncommon World of Rob Ford.  More recently (2016) Doug Ford’s own book was released.  It is called Ford Nation: Two Brothers, One Vision.


I’ve used those sources and others to let you know a bit more about Doug Ford mostly using his words, limerick style.


Dale Carnegie was a big influence on Doug Ford, as he told John Filion.

                                                           
                                                                   Dale Carnegie

                                        Just read How to Win Friends and Influence People
                                        It is a book that has certainly no equal
                                        I’ve read it from back to front
                                        and folks just let me be blunt
                                       Genuine sincerity is the key to it all.
                            
                              (Source John Filion - The Only Average Guy, p 33)


Monday, July 24, 2017

A Taxing Time

(An earlier version of this story appeared in the Sherman Hub News and North End Breezes.)

I’ll receive my municipal tax bill in the mail this week.

Just about everyone has an opinion on taxes, right?

Take President Donald Trump. On paying taxes Donald apparently doesn’t.  “That makes me smart," he said during a debate last year.

Others have funny ideas about tax avoidance.  “Dear IRS, I am writing to cancel my subscription. Please remove my name from your mailing list.” (Snoopy - aka Charles Schulz)

I’m partial to Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr.’s adage:

“Taxes are the price we pay for a civilized society.” 

In that context, most of us look for fairness in our tax systems.  What exactly “fairness” is remains subject to debate.  Indicators, though, should include simplicity, ability to pay and transparency.

That said, multi-residential property taxation in Hamilton fails the fairness test.

Today, there is a greater awareness by tenants that they pay taxes through their rent.   Ten years ago, the Clinic and community partners reached out through the I am a Tenant and I Vote Campaign to bring this reality to public attention.

At the time, tenant advocate Tom Cooper noted that many tenants were unaware that they were, in fact, paying much higher taxes than those in single family homes.

Writing in Raise the Hammer (https://raisethehammer.org/article/577/tenants_and_taxes), Cooper used real property to property comparisons.

Tenant tax rates were, in some cases, “three times higher than the 'residential property tax rate' their neighbors in the bungalow down the street are levied,” maintained Cooper.

More recently, Don McLean, co-founder and coordinator of Citizens at City Hall (CATCH), told a tenant’s conference that the tax rate on multi-residential units in Hamilton continued to be set at 2.74 times the rate on single-family homes.

“Tenants are effectively paying 20% of their rent in the form of municipal taxes,” said McLean in March 2016.

It is a fact that Hamilton is the one of the leaders in the dubious category of taxing tenants unfairly. While cities like Toronto have set out to address the disparity, Hamilton has turned a blind eye.

Finally, the province has taken note of this injustice and last year announced a review of the property taxation of multi‐residential apartment buildings. In April, they told municipalities that property taxes for new multi-residential apartment buildings must be charged at a similar rate as other residential properties.  It is thought that this will encourage developers to build more new purpose-built rental housing.  This is a good thing.

Meanwhile, some municipalities like Hamilton have had a freeze put on any increases in the property tax burden for multi-residential apartment buildings. The freeze is in place while the issue is studied.

Let’s see what happens.  Tenants have been waiting a long time for fairness.