Provincial Budget, Municipalities and Social Assistance

As we wait to see how provincial budget negotiations between the McGuinty Liberals and the NDP s go over the weekend I’m a little surprised that little very little has been said about the impacts that the budget will have on Ontario’s most vulnerable citizens and our municipalities for that matter.


While the NDP appears to be working to establish a pathetic 1% increase for the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) recipients your blogger’s easily boggled mind is sidetracked by the fact that Horwath and Company have apparently shown no interest in an increase for Ontario Works (OW) recipients.


A long term solution would be to establish evidence based social assistance rates.  Having rates attached to the real cost of living just makes sense.


I’ve written about this before and Craig Foye, a staff lawyer at the Hamilton Community Legal Clinic, has done considerable work to make this idea a reality (see Fact Sheet #1 at http://www.hamiltonjustice.ca/did-you-know.cfm)


In the meantime we should worry about other matters in the budget that will impact our most vulnerable citizens and our municipalities.


A case in point is the Community Start-Up and Maintenance Benefit (CSUMB).

CSUMB is a mandatory benefit provided to eligible recipients up to a maximum in a 24 month period. The CSUMB assists in establishing a new principal residence, to prevent eviction or to prevent the discontinuance of utilities or heating in an existing residence.  CSUMB may also be issued where there is a threat to the health or welfare of a recipient or a member of the benefit unit in a non-start up situation.  There is currently no cap on funding for this crucial benefit.

Right now the amount of the CSUMB payable is up to a maximum of $1,500 for recipients with one or more dependent children in a 24-month period; or up to a maximum of $799 where there are no dependent children in a 24-month period. 

But the budget brought forward on March 27^th calls for the transfer of the CSUMB to the Consolidated Housing and Homelessness Program.  That program is run by municipal government.  Locally that government is the Region of Halton.

This has been called a transfer.  It is not.  The provincial government would only be sending along 50% of its share of the CSUMB funding.   No one knows what the program will look like. 

What is known from the budget document is there will be a limited and lesser amount of funding spread over a greater number of applicants.  

How will that work for municipalities?  Will they step to the plate with more dollars for their vulnerable citizens?  Don’t count on it?

The consequences for individuals and families in receipt of provincial social assistance will be serious.  The proposed changes should be stopped.

Burlington MP leads the Way Reforming Parliament

“So there you go.”

(Mike Wallace at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, December 13, 2011)

We talk primarily about municipal politics here. 

But we ought to learn from all levels of government.

So when former Burlington and Halton Councillor Mike Wallace, now the Burlington MP, brings new procedural ideas to a democratic body such as the House of Commons we pay attention.

On December 13th at the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates (OGGO) Wallace insisted that this committee go into camera to discuss future business of the committee.  Not just at this meeting but at all future meetings. 

There followed some procedural discussion. It appears that Wallace needs to put forward a notice of motion to be voted on before a final resolution of the matter.  Since Wallace’s Conservatives (aka Harper Government) have a majority the outcome of that vote is inevitable – all discussions of “future business” of this committee will take place in camera.

The Globe and Mail reported on this last week. (http://m.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/opposition-attacks-motion-to-make-commons-committee-debate-private/article2271681/?service=mobile)

Their story quoted Michael Behiels, a professor of political history at the University of Ottawa. Behiels said that in the past committees used discretion to decide when to go in camera.

 “You do your best to make sure that as much of the committee’s business as possible is open to the public for scrutiny, and so members, in a sense, can be as accountable as required under the law and under the proceedings of Parliament and under democracy.  Simply to shut all that off legally, I think, is sending a terrible signal to Canadians that much of the government’s business is in fact closed to them.”

Wallace is one of the Vice Chairs of the Committee.  I was his wardmate from 1994-97 and in those days he believed in openness of government.  Have his views changed or is Ottawa democracy just different from the local variety?

The mandate of the OGGO includes the study of the effectiveness of government operations, expenditure budgets of central departments and agencies and more.  It oversees Privy Council Office/Prime Minister’s Office, Treasury Board Secretariat, Public Works and Government Services Canada, Crown Corporations like Canada Post and human resources matters in areas like the Public Service Commission.

It looks like OGGO does important work but most of it will be behind closed doors from now on.

Stupid Questions

I spent a frustrating day this week attending a portion of the Hamilton City Council’s Emergency and Community Services Committee this week.

I lasted three hours, which was about the time it took to wrap up the couple of issues I was interested in.

Way back when in my councillor days I was told you shouldn’t ask a question unless you knew the answer to it.

I’m not sure that all Hamilton councillors got this lesson.  Although, I suppose, you can ask a stupid question and know the answer to it.  Anyway there were a lot of stupid questions asked at this meeting.

But Hamilton councillors would surely come up short if there was an award for the stupid question of the week.That award would certainly go to Toronto Councillor Doug Ford, brother of the mayor.

Bruce Cox Executive Director of Greenpeace was a deputant on Wednesday addressing Toronto Council regarding the environmental impacts of cuts to urban forests and public transit.

Robyn Doolittle, a Toronto Star reporter was live blogging at the meeting and I’ve copied her comments below:

Doug Ford does not disappoint. Asks Bruce Cox if Greenpeace staff are unionized. (Some are). Then he says he just had a great book dropped off at his office "Confessions of a Green Peace Drop out" it's a "fabulous read" he says. When Cox asks if he's read it, Doug giggles and says no, clarifying he was "told it was a fabulous read." Room bursts out laughing. There is an implied "oh snap!" tone. Sadly - Doug Ford has now handed the floor back to budget chief

For some reason the phrase “some mother’s do have them” comes to mind.

Annual Ontario Environment Report Out Today

Gord Miller, Ontario's Environmental Commissioner, came out with his annual report today.

I'll read it - haven't yet although I'm not looking forward to it as the media release that accompanies the report is disturbing.

Basically,  Miller's argument is that the province has lost momentum on addressing the pressing environmental issues.

The report, Engaging Solutions, notes there has been "no shortage of talk about the problems such as climate change, waste diversion, and the loss of biodiversity.  But when it comes to doing something there doesn’t seem to be a lot actually happening, says Miller.

For example:

• On Waste:  The MOE  has written four different reports and discussion papers outlining options for increasing waste diversion in the province" but little action has resulted.
• On Species at Risk:   We are "not doing enough to protect and recover species at risk."
•  On Funding:  Good legislation has not been accompanied by the  additional resources needed  "to oversee and monitor new legislation while also covering ...core responsibilities."
•  On the Great Lakes:  Lengthy negotiations "threaten to paralyze progress towards further" clean-up.  Meanwhile the Americans are making investments.

What most disturbs me is Miller's comment that the "lack of action is not accidental" and is rather "actually the goal of critics of environmental protection."  We can't move forward when responding to people who say there are no problems “by going back to the research findings to debate and explain it all over again." 

These delays open us up to the legitimate criticism that ours is "a culture of inaction and procrastination," the Commissioner concludes.

For the full report, visit http://www.eco.on.ca.  It won't be the most uplifting read.

I'll have more to say later in the week.

YIMBY not NIMBY

Not in my Backyard (NIMBY) is a term coined thirty or so years ago to refer (negatively) to residents’ opposition to development in their neighbourhood.

Usually it’s about housing – like stopping a group home or rallying neighbours concerned about apartment building heights.

There can be legitimate concerns about development, redevelopment or infill projects.
However, too often NIMBY comes out of narrow minded attitudes and uninformed opinions.

Over the years I’ve been developing a list of my favourite examples of NIMBYism.

Like the time when politicians in a neighbouring suburban community forced non-profit housing residents to install uniform and identical window blinds.

Or on another occasion when assertions from residents that the addition of a new city bus route would bring violent crime to the neighbourhood led to the route's cancellation.

Probably my most memorable NIMBY moment, though, occurred when a resident suggested that the addition of a painted centre line to a local street (recommended for safety reasons) would bring down property values.

It is good, then, to see that the lesser known movement YIMBY (Yes in My Backyard) is coming to the fore in Vancouver.

The driving force for YIMBY in this city is the Pivot Legal Society. Pivot uses the law to address the root causes of poverty and social exclusion. To deal with NIMBY they have put together a YIMBY toolkit.

According to a news release this kit “is intended for people who understand the value of addressing homelessness, addictions, and mental illness in a proactive and positive way...” The toolkit will help people “who want to say “Yes in my backyard!” to projects that help people get off the streets.”

The 44 page guide explains the right to housing, offers useful myth busting information and includes some exercises as well. The Cringe Test, for example, challenges you to ask some basic questions in order to tell the difference between discrimination and a legitimate objection to supportive housing.

“If it sounds wrong when you say the same thing about a racial, ethnic or religious minority, then you know you’ve heard a discriminatory statement.” And that kind of statement goes against basic human rights.

The kit also details the human rights and legal framework supporting the YIMBY position, case studies such as the UBC Hospice and success stories like the Rain City Housing and Support Society’s development in Vancouver.

This excellent community building resource can be downloaded at http://www.pivotlegal.org/

(This article was originally published in North End Breezes - (http://www.northendbreezes.com/)

Reforming Social Assistance - Evidence Based Rates

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 and presumably to make people 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 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, 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.  You can read the proposed legislation at http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&BillID=1681&isCurrent=false&ParlSessionID=

Recently the Clinic prepared a submission to the Commission for the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario submission. In that submission we made the following recommendation:

That the Government of Ontario establish 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.

Next month the Commissioners are coming back with a report on Options for reforming the system.  Hopefully, the rates board will be among the options on the table.

You can keep up to date on this matter by checking the clinic website at www.hamiltonjustice.ca

Mississauga Inquiry

"I really believe the citizens of Mississauga have confidence that I've always put Mississauga first in all negotiations during my time over past 33 years," McCallion said during a news conference. "If any citizen feels that I was in conflict, I think the commissioner has clearly indicated that I was not in conflict within the (act)." from CP 24

That’s Mayor McCallion’s opinion. Not all would agree.

Hopefully, though, we can steer clear of a lengthy wrangle on Mayor McCallion's shortcomings and use the report to make necessary reforms to our municipal systems.

Recommendations in Updating the Ethical Infrastructure would take conflict issues out of the realm of individual opinion and make city council’s work more transparent. That’s at the crux of the report.
In the Executive Summary of the 400 page document Justice J. Douglas Cunningham comments on a Mayor’s duties specific to the issues before him:

Re the Mayor’s Obligation to make Reasonable Inquiries

If the Mayor has reason to believe that a relative’s involvement may put her/him in a real or apparent conflict position they need to make reasonable inquiries. In this case “even if Mayor McCallion did not understand” the extent of her son’s interest “she knew her son stood to benefit financially if the World Class Development (WCD) transaction was successfully completed.”

Conclusion: “She should have made further inquiries.”

Re the Responsibility to keep Council informed.

A mayor has an obligation to keep Council up to speed on matters. In this case Council “does not appear to have been aware of the Mayor’s private interventions.”

Conclusion: “She should have identified and disclosed to council the nature and extent of her son’s involvement in WCD.

Re: Duty to Refrain from Official Action where Conflict Exists

A municipal politician should refuse involvement in a file when she/he becomes aware of a real or apparent conflict of interest. Justice Cunningham distinguishes between the Mayor’s legislative and executive roles. Mayor McCallion essentially declared a conflict of interest re her legislative role but not for her executive function.

Conclusion:

“It is no answer ...to say that her actions were done for the benefit of the City Of Mississauga when her son stood to make millions of dollars if the deal was concluded.” She should have refrained from further involvement...and not simply withdrawn from her legislative role.”

Recommendations

Cunninghams’s analysis leads to sound recommendations which, if put in place, will prevent such situations from occurring in Mississauga and other jurisdictions. Specifically, the term “pecuniary interest” should be replaced with “private interest,” guidelines for lobbyists will be prescribed and a strengthened role for integrity commissioners should be put in place. These are just a few of the recommendations that jump out from a quick read of the Executive Summary.

The general thrust of the recommendations is that overall greater transparency “will serve to protect the public interest by removing possibilities for members of council to discharge their public offices in the pursuit of private interests.”

We need to move on this and not get bogged down with Hazel McCallion’s particular and unique situation.