Social and Economic Rights

Last year United Nations Special Rapporteur, Dr.  Oliver De Schutter came under fire from Federal Conservative Immigration Minister Jason Kenney.

De Schutter had expressed concerns about the barriers that many in this country face in getting enough good food to eat.  

“Canada is much admired for its achievements in the area of human rights … but access to adequate diets, too are human rights issues - and here much remains to be done,” De Schutter had said when visiting Canada in May.

Minister Kenney went on the offensive arguing that the Special Rapporteur should focus on countries where there is widespread hunger.  Looking at Canada isn’t a “very intelligent use of resources” and is “completely ridiculous,” huffed Kenney.

But does Kenney really appreciate what is happening around the world on the human rights front?

Bruce Porter, of the Social Rights Advocacy Centre (http://www.socialrights.ca), would say he doesn’t.

I had the privilege to hear Porter speak in Hamilton last summer. He focussed on the “very important new developments in the human rights world particularly in the area of social and economic rights.”

These rights were originally articulated in 1948 in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights - the first global expression of rights to which all human beings are inherently entitled. A bill and two covenants ratified by a sufficient number of individual nations in 1976 meant that the declaration took on the force of international law.

Now domestic judicial bodies must pay attention to rulings in other jurisdictions.  For example, a ruling in a South African case dealt with the Grootman community’s right to housing.  The ruling articulated the concept of “reasonableness.” 

Porter argues that this ruling suggests that governments must “take reasonable measures in conformity with available resources” to address issues like poverty and housing.  (Porter has written about the case at http://www.escr net.org/usr_doc/Porter_and_Liebenberg,_Reasonableness.pdf)

Municipal governments are accountable too.  Martha Jackman and Porter write:

“Recalcitrance on the part of one level of government, however, should not prevent others from implementing their own mechanisms, procedures, and strategies for ensuring meaningful accountability to international human rights. City or municipal charters can be adopted to implement the right to housing and an adequate standard of living within all areas of municipal authority.  (International Human Rights and Strategies to Address Homelessness and Poverty in Canada: Making the Connection Social Rights Advocacy Centre, September 2011.)

Of late the Canadian government has failed to adequately address social issues using the excuse of financial constraints, essentially arguing that dollar concerns trump human rights considerations.  But Porter notes that it is “no longer acceptable to treat social and economic rights as policy objectives.  Government is obligated to provide effective remedies.”

Porter says that many in the U.N. system have become increasingly alarmed with what they are seeing in Canada as, unlike many countries, we have resources available to ensure that no one is hungry or homeless and yet choose to allow violations of social and economic rights. 

Bruce Porter and others spoke at an event in Hamilton on the right to an adequate standard of living.  This video captures some of that event. http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=0TiORUTpCnU

Reforming Social Assistance in Ontario

Earlier this month Tim Hudak’s Ontario Conservative Party released a White Paper on Social Assistance called Paths to Prosperity – Welfare to Work.

If I had to assign it a grade I’d give it an “E” for effort.  It recalled the mark I received (and deserved) for a paper for a university geography course where I relied exclusively on the Book of Knowledge for my “research.”

In its thin twenty-three pages Paths to Prosperity – Welfare to Work manages to squeeze in two full page photos of the Leader of the Opposition, very little analysis but lots of clichés:

Like:

     “The best social program is a job.”
      “It is time to wake up Ontario’s welfare system.”

And a call for:
               
      “Fresh ideas” …“to cut through the cobweb of complicated and complex social service system."                  

That cobweb is, of course, the 800 plus idiotic rules and regulations that govern the system.  The McGuinty government should be justifiably criticized for the slow pace with which it has got around to doing something about those rules.  But the Harris/Eves government of which Mr. Hudak was a proud member created them.  That’s not mentioned in Paths to Prosperity – Welfare to Work.

There is little about the impact the current changes to the system are having/will have on municipalities either other than dangling a carrot that property tax payers will share in the savings that will inevitably come when the Conservatives get power and start kicking welfare recipients around like they did in the nineties.

I’d say that the most important change we can make to the welfare system is to create rates that reflect the real cost of living.

That is talked about in the report of the Commission for the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario. This report, called Brighter Prospects: Transforming Social Assistance in Ontario, charts “a new course for social assistance towards a simpler, more effective, and more accountable system....”

There are controversial aspects to the report, to be sure. One issue, though, that is not contentious is that a new system must be established that incorporates an evidence based method to determine the rates.

The Hamilton Community Legal Clinic/Clinique juridique communautaire de Hamilton has done a lot of work over the years in developing such a method.

The Clinic, where I work, 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.... 

In Brighter Prospects which came out in October there is a recommendation (#27) which calls for a “rational methodology” to set social assistance rates. But such a methodology has already been articulated. So why reinvent the well.

Legislation Introduced in 2007

Many years ago the Clinic worked with Liberal MPP Ted McMeekin and put together a bill to establish an Ontario Social Assistance Rates Board. The former Bill 235 was introduced in the legislature in June of 2007 but “died” when the legislature was adjourned.

You can look at the legislation here on our Fast Facts page at http://www.hamiltonjustice.ca/did-you-know.cfm

This legislation makes as much sense now as it did in 2007 and if passed would make a far more significant impact on Ontario’s prosperity and welfare of its citizens than anything in Hudak’s’ White Paper.

Can't the Pan Am/Parapan Games Benefit the Whole Community?

Today the City of Hamilton (ON)  Council was finally allowed to see the design of the new Pan Am Stadium.  They weren't impressed.  To quote Councillor Clark (from @EmmaatTheSpec) 

"It's a glorified Ivor Wynne. It's not even close to the original (west harbour) design. But we have no authority," says Brad Clark.

I wrote a piece way back on July 13, 2010 on the Spectator's Poverty Blog No Excuses.  I've reprinted here is a bit of history and, OK I can't help myself, as "I-told-you-so.

Bob


I had problems with the pursuit of the Pan Am/Parapan Games but I put those aside when the games were actually awarded last fall.

I'm one of those guys who think these big international events don't really build community and, in fact, can do damage. (In the interest of full disclosure, I was at the Montreal Olympics in 1976 when the unheard of happened and a man had a baby.)

But there's been some encouraging talk about "inclusivity" and "legacy" for these games. Maybe my concerns were unwarranted.

Now, with what appears to be the inevitable move of the stadium to a site apparently not even on the radar until last week, all the promised good stuff is being thrown out the window.

To win the Games, a 245-page pitch called a Bid Book was put together. Read the Legacy section (page 212):

Urban renewal is a priority as in: "Revitalize the communities in which they (the facilities) are located."

Good consultation is the way to go: "Establish consultative processes that allow the region's diverse communities to engage in the decision making in respectful and meaningful ways."

Or hear the words of Mayor Eisenberger in a Spectator piece from early May on the preferred West Harbour location:  

"…a strategic decision and, arguably, one of the most important decisions in the history of our city. Now, we must come together as a community, along with our key stakeholders and Pan Am partners, to get on with the task of planning for the Games.

"The legacy of the Pan Am Games will be social inclusion, healthy and active living, engagement of our young people, economic growth and civic pride. That future starts now."

But here we go, to paraphrase Councillor McHattie, letting private interests dictate what is good for the community.

In April, following publication of its disturbing Code Red series, the Spectator held a public forum.  Terry Cooke, one of the panelists that evening, was quite clear that we've created some of our problems through bad planning decisions: The kind of decisions that promote urban sprawl and ignore the needs of existing neighbourhoods. I guess we haven't learned anything.    

With the clock ticking down, I hope people will speak out in the next month. If we are going ahead with these events in Hamilton (and I think the "if" should now be a consideration), the Games need to benefit the whole community.

More Nimby

I’m getting rusty, I guess.

My plan was to read a city of Hamilton Planning report and provide an update to a story I’d done recently. http://whenthemayorsmiles.blogspot.ca/2012/09/local-governments-and-distance.html

That was the plan but to my eyes the report is pretty much incomprehensible and that is saying something for a planning report.

As a recap the City of Hamilton denied the approval of a “Residential Care Facility” (their word) at 121 Augusta Street in Hamilton.  This would have allowed a mental health program for teenage girls to relocate to this address from the city owned building the non-profit operated.  This building requires   extensive renovations and costly repair. The denial was based this on the City’s Radial Distance Separation (RDS) Policy.

Many believe that   these RDS policies violate basic human rights and the city may be forced to address that matter in an Ontario Municipal Board hearing later this year.

But out the blue and I’ll quote from the planning report here:

“staff’s attention was drawn to the difficulty the applicant had in securing alternative locations within the City limits that were conducive and appropriate for the proposed use.”

Not said here, but important to note, is that the city caused and continues to cause a lot of those difficulties.ck to the staff report:

“On closer examination of the search parameters identified by the applicant, staff determined that the proposed function of the facility will not be that of a Residential Care Facility, and that the characterization of the proposed use as a Residential Care Facility by the applicant’s planning consultant is not representative of the intended use, having regard for how the By-law treats a Residential Care Facility.”

At a preliminary OMB hearing last week the city argued that they don’t want the RDS policy considered.  

That is the same policy, of course,  that they previously used to argue against approval before their “closer examination” produced another planning argument.  The hearing officer reserved judgement on this.

Councillor Brad Clark put it well, I think.

"It’s embarrassing to have the human rights commissioner intervene at the OMB when our vision is to be the best place to raise a child.” http://metronews.ca/news/hamilton/395199/human-rights-chief-will-fight-hamilton-at-the-omb/

Moving Cars Faster

I’ve moved away from Burlington and I must say that the news that is reaching me on events from that beautiful lakefront city is making less and less sense by the day.

Take this one.

Burlington is increasing the speeds on some of its roads.

I’ve said it different ways before but I’m thinking Burlington should change its motto from ‘Stand By’ to ‘We March to a Different Drummer.’

Just last month the Chief Coroner of Ontario came out with a report called the Pedestrian Death Review.  This review examined the circumstances of 95 deaths that occurred from Jan. 1, 2010 to Dec. 31, 2010 in the province.  As coroner’s report do, this one makes recommendations to help prevent future deaths. The 26 recommendations and accompanying comprehensive analysis can be found here.
http://www.mcscs.jus.gov.on.ca/english/DeathInvestigations/office_coroner/PublicationsandReports/PedestrianDeathReview/DI_Pedestrian_Death_Review.html

The thrust of the report is to get municipalities to think about developing strategies to make that will make their roads safer for pedestrians. Cities should develop walking strategies and “complete streets” approach which suggests “streets should be designed to be safe, convenient and comfortable for every user, regardless of transportation mode, physical ability or age.”  Cities need to think about reducing speed limits.

This is, of course, a totally different way of looking at things then is done in Burlington.  Here a new Speed Limits Policy seems designed to acquiesce to citizen requests to be able drive their cars faster.  Just ask and the city will get the traffic engineers to check out what speed 85% of the traffic goes and, if it exceeds the speed limit, well, we should just raise that speed limit.

A recommendation going to Council on Monday October 15th if approved will increase the speed on the Queensway and the section of Upper Middle Road between Brant Street and Guelph line from 50 km to 60 km. 

Upper Middle Road will maintain those 40 kilometre zones. We’ll now see drivers getting nose bleeds as they decelerate in school zones.  Cops who enforce these zones tell me they’re cash cows and do nothing for safety.

And yet staff data demonstrates that cyclists will have more to worry about with these increased speeds.

Read the staff report http://cms.burlington.ca/AssetFactory.aspx?did=22770 and maybe you’ll understand how these changes contribute to vibrant neighbourhoods.  I’m still scratching my head on that one.

Typically, consultation was poor on this issue.  Relevant citizen advisory committees were merely “notified.” 

They’re marching to a different drummer in Burlington, the city by the lake, where traffic engineers rule.   

Local Governments and Distance Separation By-Laws

This past week the City of Hamilton in an attempt to stop the relocation of a teenaged girls group home “changed battle tactics in its war against” the Lynwood Charlton Centre according to the Hamilton Spectator. http://www.thespec.com/news/local/article/801502--city-launches-new-salvo-in-clash-against-group-home

The Spectator reports that only weeks before the commencement of an Ontario Municipal Board (OMB) hearing City staff have come up with a new argument to oppose the request to move from Charlton Avenue to nearby Augusta Street.

They now say that because the “home on Augusta would house both day and overnight programs it should be classified as a comprehensive institution rather than a residential care facility.”

The city looks bad on this.  But, at least, their apparent recognition that separation by-laws violate human rights is a good thing.

I’ve written about this on the Hamilton Community Legal Clinic website’s blog. http://www.hamiltonjustice.ca/blog/?post=Human%20Rights%20Lessons%20from%20Kitchener%20&id=177).

Following is a slightly updated version of another piece from www.hamiltonjustice.ca which provides a little background to how this issue has played out around the province.

Distance Separations – Different Approaches

Recently Kitchener followed through with aspects of a negotiated settlement and scrapped a controversial by-law that had imposed distance separations. City staff will now write a new by-law that will go to a public meeting this month.


According to therecord.com “the new by-law will allow group homes for people with physical, intellectual and emotional challenges to set up anywhere in the city.” Service providers will not have to worry about other group homes in the area. (http://www.therecord.com/news/local/article/745791--city-of-kitchener-to-scrap-minimum-distance-rules-for-group-homes)


A couple of years ago Kitchener, Toronto, Sarnia and Smiths Falls had been challenged under the Ontario Human Rights Act to change their by-laws. Kitchener negotiated a settlement which required changing the offending by-law.
In a story on the ARCH Disability Law Centre’s recent newsletter Centre Jennifer Ramsay of the Human Rights Legal Support Centre wrote about the other three challenged municipalities. (http://archdisabilitylaw.ca/?q=read-july-23-2012-arch-alert)


Incredibly, Smiths Falls had a provision in its bylaws that didn’t allow more than 36 mentally handicapped people to live within its boundaries. They’ve removed that offensive provision but left separation requirements in place. Toronto continues to resist change and has, in fact, challenged the Human Rights Tribunal’s jurisdiction to even hear the case.


But Sarnia took a different approach. In March 2010 Sarnia amended its bylaws to remove restrictions. At the time Sarnia Mayor Michael Bradley was quoted as saying that “the rules are discriminatory and have nothing to do with planning and everything to do with negative stereotypes about disabled people.”


Beginning in 2009 Sarnia staff had reached out and talked with human rights advocates when the issue arose that their bylaw might be discriminatory.
In a report to Council staff wrote that “(W)hile special group home regulations should be based on sound planning principles and conform to the intent and purpose of applicable land use policy documents and legislation a further test is required for conformity with the Human Rights Code.”


Sarnia’s response was proactive. It applied what staff called a “common sense approach” and concluded that “the imposition of separation distances between group homes should not be necessary as they are considered to be residential uses and the impact should be similar to that of a dwelling.”


I’ve got to the point where I think the Ontario government should step in and impose such common sense across the province.


Maybe they can take a look at the concept of “comprehensive institution” too. Sounds like a classic case of Orwellian doublespeak to me.

We Need a National Public Transit Strategy

I’m getting more or more concerned that decision makers aren’t going to get their heads around the need for better transportation and transit planning in this country.

A couple of years ago I was optimistic that METROLINX would make a difference.

I’m not so sure now.

In that context it may make sense to look to the federal scene for leadership.

Stephen Harper, you say?

Well no - but there is a private member’s bill championed by MP Olivia Chow that, if passed, would begin the process of developing a national public transit strategy.  Most countries have one.

Bill C-305 contains goals that most of us could agree with.

Increasing use of transit, reducing commute times, improving economic competitiveness of our communities and reducing greenhouse gases are a few that are mentioned in the Bill.

To achieve these goals certain measure are recommended.  For example, the proposed strategy would include an investment plan, funding mechanisms and a leadership role for the federal government.

If the Bill passed the Minister of Transport would be required to convene a conference within six months.  That conference would include provincial governments, municipal representatives, transit authorities and aboriginal communities.

This group would develop funding mechanisms, set targets for programs and develop principles of an agreement between federal and provincial governments.

To me such a conference would seem at least as worthwhile as those First Ministers’ gatherings that we have become so accustomed to.

It is true private members bills don’t succeed very often.  In fact, not that long ago a Conservative Member of Parliament told that his party doesn’t support other party’s private members bills.  This would seem to defeat the purpose of such bills but don’t get me started.

In the meantime find out more about Bill C-305 (http://www.oliviachow.ca/2012/05/national-transit-strategy-join-the-team/) and consider contacting your Member of Parliament to ask for support.