On Tuesday July 19th, the Cambridge Roundtable for Poverty Eradication and the Social Planning Council of Cambridge and North Dumfries convened a community dialogue on the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario, hosted at the Cambridge Self Help Food Bank. This event included a broad community representation from the local social services sector, legal services, labour, employment services, the faith community, immigrant services, and people with lived experience on social assistance.
During this event we heard personal experiences, observations, and comments on issues and challenges with the social assistance system in Ontario and possible solutions for reforming the system to meet today’s realities. The messages were clear:
- Social assistance rates are too low to support a dignified existence.
- People are unable to meet their families’ basic needs.
- The labour market does not always provide a viable path out of poverty.
- The complex rules and changes in eligibility requirements are increasingly stringent and difficult to navigate.
We also heard many ways that the system can be reformed to allow people to move from social assistance to work and adequately support those unable to work.
Though attendees were grateful for the opportunity to have their voices heard, there was consensus that interim report of the Ontario-wide consultations was needed in advance of the October 6rd provincial election.
On Thursday, July 14 Social Planning Toronto hosted a session for the Social Assistance Review Commission.
Over a hundred people, largely SPT members from all over the city, the community support sector and the community at large came to provide their input for the commission.
The input was comprehensive and wide ranging and provided an abundance of information for the commission to consider. The responses were visibly well-received by the two commissioners, Frances Lankin and Munir Sheikh.
Those present dealt with the five topics selected by the commission’s initial report. The initial report had identified the primary social assistance concerns as issues of: the necessary supports and expectations associated with access to employment; the ease of navigating the system; the appropriateness of benefits provided; the long-term viability of the system; and the integration of the Ontario system with other orders of government.
Each issue saw multiple conversations with diverse opinions clearly a reflection of the wealth of experience in the room.
Some highlights of the discussion include a focus on centralizing the dignity of social assistance recipients in efforts to reform the system. Concern was also raised with the over-emphasis on return to employment, especially given the continuing effects of the recession.
(Reproduced from SPT Soundbites, July 22, 2011)
On July 12, Jamie Swift, Director of the Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation Office of the Sisters of Providence of St. Vincent de Paul submitted a brief to the Social assistance Review Commissioners during their visit to Kingston.
The full brief can be found under the Social assistance tab on this web site. The following excerpts relate to the issues of deep poverty and working poverty as discussed in the brief.
Working Poverty
The Commission’s Issues and Ideas background paper indicates that “the nature of work in Ontario is changing.” More precisely, however, work in Ontario has been changing for a generation. The rise of a contingent or just-in-time labour market in the expanding service sector has been recognized since the 1980s. This is a fundamental reason for the rise of poverty and social inequality in the province. Even if a single person has a full-time, year-round job at minimum wage, their income will still be more than a thousand dollars below the poverty line. One in three Ontario children living in poverty were part of families with full-time, year-round work. (LICO-BT) However, many people trapped in the contingent labour force do not have these kinds of jobs, forced as they are into taking fewer hours whenever they can. We must understand that many employers have a stake in this labour market model for the simple reason that they benefit from the low-wage, just-in-time workforce.
Issues and Ideas asks how the needs of employers can be addressed. It asserts that “understanding employers’ needs is critical” in matching employment services to those needs. It is important to locate the interests of different economic sectors here. The largest financial institutions have produced important research on social assistance inadequacy.Toronto’s Board of Trade has promoted social inclusion, better public housing and transportation policy, more green jobs. But the mainstream of the business community has not been conspicuous by its presence in advocacy efforts aimed at improving employment opportunities for people receiving social assistance. This does not mean that efforts to reform the social assistance system should ignore the needs of employers. But it does mean that we must recognize that different economic sectors have different interests. Firms offering contract security and custodial services are likely to offer poverty level wage while major firms in resource, finance and manufacturing offer jobs with decent wage and benefit packages.
For this reason, it is up to government to do two things. 1) Play a facilitating role by engaging employers as partners, assisting them by matching employment services to employer needs. 2) Government also needs to play a stronger regulatory role by developing and enforcing labour standards that protect workers from employers seeking to take advantage of their vulnerability in the face of ample labour supply and the structural changes mentioned above. Newcomers to Canada, uncertain about their rights and fearful with respect to their immigration status, are particularly vulnerable. (see Swift, J. et al, Persistent Poverty: Voices from the Margins, Toronto: BTL, 2010, esp. Chapter 15 “It’s not my Country Yet…”) According to the Workers Action Centre’s 2011 report Taking Action Against Wage Theft,
The Commission needs to take the real world of the labour market — fraught as it is by very real imbalances in power — into account in formulating its recommendations with respect to working poverty. The Commission can remind government in the strongest possible terms that it has an ethical responsibility to ensure that full time work enables earners to receive incomes above, not below the poverty line. This would add momentum to the living wage campaigns currently underway in several Ontario communities, including Kingston.
The Commission also needs to promote an activist approach to social assistance grounded in the principle that it is ethically irresponsible for the government to claw back incomes of social assistance recipients who have managed to secure modest labour market incomes, at least until such time as their total income exceeds the poverty line. A job needs to be a real ticket out of poverty.
Deep Poverty
If a job is currently no guarantee of a ticket out of poverty, social assistance as presently structured guarantees a continuing cycle of hunger and hardship. The Commission’s Issues and Ideas paper acknowledges that people on social assistance cannot afford healthy diets. (This means that the poor get sicker, quicker, with substantial costs to the state — see Persistent Poverty, above, ch. 10 and 12 and a substantial body of scholarly research.) The paper also notes the “difficult trade-off” between allowing people on social assistance to eat well (“providing adequate levels of support”) but doing so “without creating barriers to work.” This balancing act is an example of pragmatism in action. It reflects an assumption, common among many economists, that people are rational actors who will choose dependence on state support over labour market participation because of the ostensible benefits offered by the former choice.
The situation of a single adult in Ontariois a case in point. The program known as “Ontario Works” provides this person with $7,325 annually, just less than 40 per cent of the poverty line (LIM-AT) income of $18,582 annually. This translates into a basic income gap ($11,230) that dwarfs this person’s income. A single parent with one child receives $16,683 on Ontario Works just short of two-thirds of the poverty line. The pragmatism that would have us believe that people choose social assistance over employment assumes that life below the poverty line is somehow bearable. It is not based on evidence, nor an appreciation of the real life experiences of low-income people in Ontario. Those experiences show that a complex set of issues – including unaffordable housing, inadequate child care, low wage work, illness and disability – characterize life on what recipients call “benefits.” The dizzyingly complex maze of rules governing social assistance, of which the Commission will hear, springs from the assumption that poor people will cheat the system and, like chronically misbehaving children, are in need of control. The system’s punitive character is underlined by the fact that Ontario Works requires applicants to divest themselves of virtually all their assets in order to qualify for benefits.
If the Commission were to address but one issue, it would be to put to rest the notion that low-income people depend on the state because they prefer social assistance to working. That said, it is important to recognize that rich countries with vibrant, competitive economies (Scandinavia and the Netherlands) have been able to design systems of public provision for their most vulnerable citizens that, by and large, keep them from falling into poverty. Countries like the U.S.and the U.K., with social assistance regimes more akin to the Ontario model, can hardly be held up as examples of economic success. Indeed, they are characterized by structurally high levels of inequality and poverty. While questions of broad economic and social policy are beyond the scope of the Commission, the northern European countries show clearly that there are alternatives.
The first step in improving Ontario’s social assistance system is the immediate introduction of the $100 per month Healthy Food Supplement as promoted by the Put Food in the Budget Campaign. As we have indicated, progress in poverty eradication is achieved when citizens act collectively in promoting the common good. It is due to the efforts of a province-wide political advocacy effort that the Commission has come into being. The immediate implementation of the Healthy Food Supplement would not only be an important, if modest, step in alleviating suffering and promoting healthier diets. It would also validate and encourage Ontario’s movement for social justice – the principal force for poverty eradication in the province.
We would also urge the Commission to consider the crucial role played by housing costs in perpetuating poverty in Ontario. Kingston presents a classic case study in the housing affordability crisis. Census data from 2006 show that nearly half (48 per cent) of Kingston households spend over 30 per cent of their income on shelter. Equally shocking is that over one in five households (21.79 per cent) spend half or more of their income on shelter. We urge the Commission to recommend implementation of a full housing benefit to limit rental costs for single adults and families living on low incomes to 30 per cent of gross household incomes. Finally, we urge the Commission to develop a meaningful plan for the elimination of deep poverty aimed at ensuring that no one on social assistance is forced to try to live on an income of less than 80 per cent of the poverty line (LIM-AT).
We believe that these suggestions are feasible and realistic in a rich society such as our own. The Commissioners, experienced in government and public life, will be aware that government is about making choices.Ontario can choose to eliminate hunger, homelessness and hardship. Other affluent societies have achieved the virtual eradication of poverty. We can too.
The good we secure for ourselves is precarious and uncertain until it is secured for all of us and incorporated into our common life – Jane Addams
Jamie Swift, Director
Justice, Peace and Integrity of Creation Office
Sisters of Providence of St. Vincent de Paul
Kingston, Ontario
12 July 2011
POLICY AND POLITICS
The Commission for the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario is another welcome – and tentative – step. The destination is the eradication of poverty in one of the richest places in the world.
The Commission’s discussion paper “Issues and Ideas” is all about policy. Which is important because the Commission’s very existence is a recognition that current policies have failed. How else to explain levels of structural poverty (Low Income Measure-After Tax, LIM-AT) of 13.1 per cent, the highest in some thirty years?
But we are wrestling with politics as well as policy. Ontario has clearly failed to deal in any adequate way with poverty because of a lack of political will. It has not been due to lack of knowledge about the problem. We have not summoned the moral and ethical strength to address the savage inequalities that are a stain on the fabric of our province. Over twenty years ago, after extensive consultation and study, the Transitions policy report was published by the Ontario’s last official Social Assistance Review. The organizers of the 2011 version, this Commission, acknowledge that even though Transitions was a “landmark” study, “some of the interim steps it recommended were implemented.” Implicit is the unfortunate fact that little was done with the policy ideas set out in 1988. Things were stalled by the recession that started in 1990 and a lack of political will. Although social assistance rates were raised before 1995, after that time Ontario witnessed an attack on the poor rather than an attack on poverty. Politics intervened.
In 2004, after a change of government, hopes were high that the journey to a socially just Ontario would resume. That did happen, though the steps were small and tentative. The government started to raise the minimum wage, a crucial step forward in any effort to address working poverty. But there was no really sustained effort at poverty reduction – let alone poverty eradication — even though Ontario was at the top of the business cycle. The government made other political choices, concentrating its public provision efforts on health and education spending.
Once again, politics intervened. Social justice advocates recognize that ours is an uphill journey. This is because poverty is seldom a top-of-mind issue for voters. There is a dominant focus on issues such as wait times for medical procedures, class sizes in education or the general economic outlook — issues that concern broad swaths of the voting public. Political technicians, seeing that poverty is not a ballot issue and recognizing that the poor are cynical or resigned and are much less likely to vote, act accordingly. Campaign platforms tend to ignore or de-emphasize poverty. Social assistance reform disappears from sight. Nevertheless, the political advocacy efforts of low income people and social justice advocates have re-established political momentum for poverty eradication in Ontario in the past five years. (The Sisters of Providence have contributed to this provincial effort by supporting the Interfaith Social Assistance Reform Coalition as well as supporting the local social justice movement here in Kingston.)
As this Commission undertakes its consultations and research, Ontario is entering an election campaign. Advocacy organizations, understanding the importance of politics, will be attempting to make poverty eradication an issue during the election campaign. We know, perhaps better than anyone, that this will be a hard slog. For this reason – and because promoting a serious public debate on poverty will enhance the chances of the Commission’s recommendations being acted upon – we urge the Commission to publish an interim state-of-the province report based on your consultations so far. Doing this before the Commission’s scheduled late autumn release of its Option Paper is a politically realistic approach to dealing with pressing policy issues. It is equally important to recognize that we do not live in a political vacuum and that changes will occur only if there is the political will to implement them.
Working Poverty (see appendix, passim)
A canard is not simply the French word for a duck.
A canard is false report, a hoax. One canard that unfortunately persists in discussions of poverty, social assistance and the labour market is that our most vulnerable neighbors are insufficiently motivated to seek employment. The implicit assumption is that life on social assistance is better than work. While it is true that social assistance recipients may be eligible for some benefits not available to low wage workers in the contingent labour force, does this mean that there is a “welfare wall” that tempts people to avoid the world of work? Is it not more appropriate to question the structural changes in the labour market that mean the lower end of this world is populated by workers whose jobs offer them poverty wages and no benefits? Is it not more appropriate to refashion Ontario’s social assistance system, modernizing to confront these structural changes?
The Commission’s Issues and Ideas background paper indicates that “the nature of work in Ontario is changing.” More precisely, however, work in Ontario has been changing for a generation. The rise of a contingent or just-in-time labour market in the expanding service sector has been recognized since the 1980s. This is a fundamental reason for the rise of poverty and social inequality in the province. Even if a single person has a full-time, year-round job at minimum wage, their income will still be more than a thousand dollars below the poverty line. One in three Ontario children living in poverty were part of families with full-time, year-round work. (LICO-BT) However, many people trapped in the contingent labour force do not have these kinds of jobs, forced as they are into taking fewer hours whenever they can. We must understand that many employers have a stake in this labour market model for the simple reason that they benefit from the low-wage, just-in-time workforce.
Issues and Ideas asks how the needs of employers can be addressed. It asserts that “understanding employers’needs is critical” in matching employment services to those needs. It is important to locate the interests of different economic sectors here. The largest financial institutions have produced important research on social assistance inadequacy. Toronto’s Board of Trade has promoted social inclusion, better public housing and transportation policy, more green jobs. But the mainstream of the business community has not been conspicuous by its presence in advocacy efforts aimed at improving employment opportunities for people receiving social assistance. This does not mean that efforts to reform the social assistance system should ignore the needs of employers. But it does mean that we must recognize that different economic sectors have different interests. Firms offering contract security and custodial services are likely to offer poverty level wage while major firms in resource, finance and manufacturing offer jobs with decent wage and benefit packages.
For this reason, it is up to government to do two things. 1) Play a facilitating role by engaging employers as partners, assisting them by matching employment services to employer needs. 2) Government also needs to play a stronger regulatory role by developing and enforcing labour standards that protect workers from employers seeking to take advantage of their vulnerability in the face of ample labour supply and the structural changes mentioned above. Newcomers to Canada, uncertain about their rights and fearful with respectto their immigration status, are particularly vulnerable. (see Swift, J. et al, Persistent Poverty: Voices from the Margins, Toronto: BTL, 2010, esp. Chapter 15 “It’s not my Country Yet…”) According to the Workers Action Centre’s 2011 report Taking Action Against Wage Theft,
“Not only is the Employment Standards Act (ESA) a central feature of labour market regulation, it is also an important social policy tool in fighting poverty. The Ontario
government has stated that poverty reduction is a key goal of the Employment Standards program — poverty reduction will be aided by improving ‘the protection of vulnerable
workers and to ensure fair workplaces by getting tough on employers who contravene employment standards legislation and regulations.’ (Ontario Ministry of Labour) Workers expect the Ontario government to live up to this commitment and to make the changes necessary to make a real difference in their lives.”
The Commission needs to take the real world of the labour market — fraught as it is by very real imbalances in power — into account in formulating its recommendations with respect to working poverty. The Commission can remind government in the strongest possible terms that it has an ethical responsibility to ensure that full time work enables earners to receive incomes above, not below the poverty line. This would add momentum to the living wage campaigns currently underway in several Ontario communities, including Kingston. The Commission also needs to promote an activist approach to social assistance grounded in the principle that it is ethically irresponsible for the government to claw back incomes of social assistance recipients who have managed to secure modest labour market incomes, at least until such time as their total income exceeds the poverty line. A job needs to be a real ticket out of poverty.
Deep Poverty
If a job is currently no guarantee of a ticket out of poverty, social assistance as presently structured guarantees a continuing cycle of hunger and hardship. The Commission’s Issues and Ideas paper acknowledges that people on social assistance cannot afford healthy diets. (This means that the poor get sicker, quicker, with substantial costs to the state — see Persistent Poverty, above, ch. 10 and 12 and a substantial body of scholarly research.) The paper also notes the “difficult trade-off” between allowing people on social assistance to eat well (“providing adequate levels of support”) but doing so “without creating barriers to work.” This balancing act is an example of pragmatism in action. It reflects an assumption, common among many economists, that people are rational actors who will choose dependence on state support over labour market participation because of the ostensible benefits offered by the former choice. As outlined above, this is a canard.
The situation of a single adult in Ontario is a case in point. The program known as “Ontario Works” provides this person with $7,325 annually, just less than 40 per cent of the poverty line (LIM-AT) income of $18,582 annually. This translates into a basic income gap ($11,230) that dwarfs this person’s income. A single parent with one child receives $16,683 on Ontario Works just short of two-thirds of the poverty line. The pragmatism that would have us believe that people choose social assistance over employment assumes that life below the poverty line is somehow bearable. It is not based on evidence, nor an appreciation of the real life experiences of low-income people in Ontario. Those experiences show that a complex set of issues – including unaffordable housing, inadequate child care, low wage work, illness and disability – characterize life on what recipients call “benefits.” The dizzyingly complex maze of rules governing social assistance, of which the Commission will hear, springs from the assumption that poor people will cheat the system and, like chronically misbehaving children, are in need of control. The system’s punitive character is underlined by the fact that Ontario Works requires applicants to divest themselves of virtually all their assets in order to qualify for benefits.
If the Commission were to address but one issue, it would be to put to rest the notion that low-income people depend on the state because they prefer social assistance to working. That said, it is important to recognize that rich countries with vibrant, competitive economies (Scandinavia and the Netherlands) have been able to design systems of public provision for their most vulnerable citizens that, by and large, keep them from falling into poverty. Countries like the U.S. and the U.K., with social assistance regimes more akin to the Ontario model, can hardly be held up as examples of economic success. Indeed, they are characterized by structurally high levels of inequality and poverty. While questions of broad economic and social policy are beyond the scope of the Commission, the northern European countries show clearly that there are alternatives.
The first step in improving Ontario’s social assistance system is the immediate introduction of the $100 per month Healthy Food Supplement as promoted by the Put Food in the Budget Campaign. As we have indicated, progress in poverty eradication is achieved when citizens act collectively in promoting the common good. It is due to the efforts of a province-wide political advocacy effort that the Commission has come into being. The immediate implementation of the Healthy Food Supplement would not only be an important, if modest, step in alleviating suffering and promoting healthier diets. It would also validate and encourage Ontario’s movement for social justice – the principal force for poverty eradication in the province.
The Commission has an opportunity to accelerate the process of change, to implicitly support a movement towards a fair and transparent way of setting social assistance rates so that people can meet their basic needs and lead healthy and dignified lives. Streamlining the now notorious 800 rules governing social assistance is long overdue. We would also urge the Commission to consider the crucial role played by housing costs in perpetuating poverty in Ontario. Kingston presents a classic case study in the housing affordability crisis. Census data from 2006 show that nearly half (48 per cent) of Kingston households spend over 30 per cent of their income on shelter. Equally shocking is that over one in five households (21.79 per cent) spend half or more of their income on shelter. We urge the Commission to recommend implementation of a full housing benefit to limit rental costs for single adults and families living on low incomes to 30 per cent of gross household incomes. Finally, we urge the Commission to develop a meaningful plan for the elimination of deep poverty aimed at ensuring that no one on social assistance is forced to try to live on an income of less than 80 per cent of the poverty line (LIM-AT).
We believe that these suggestions are feasible and realistic in a rich society such as our own. The Commissioners, experienced in government and public life, will be aware that government is about making choices. Ontario can choose to eliminate hunger, homelessness and hardship. Other affluent societies have achieved the virtual eradication of poverty. We can too.
Appendix
The above has been informed by, among other research, the Final Report to the WHO Commission on the Social Determinants of Health (CSDH), Employment Conditions and Health Inequalities (2007). The Employment Conditions Knowledge Network that produced the Report is co-chaired by faculty from the Social Equity and Health Section, Centre for Addiction and Mental Health (CAMH), University of Toronto. The following is from the summary of that report.
“Fair employment implies a just relation between employers and employees that requires that certain features be present: (1) freedom from coercion, which excludes all forms of forced-labour such as bonded labour, slave labour, or child labour, as well as work arrangements that are so unbalanced that workers are unable or afraid to assert their rights; (2) job security in terms of contracts and safe employment conditions; (3) fair income, that is, sufficient to guarantee an adequate livelihood relative to the needs of society; (4) job protection and the availability of social benefits including provisions that allow harmony between working life and family life, and retirement income; (5) respect and dignity at work, so that workers are not discriminated against because of their gender, ethnicity, race, or social class; (6) workplace participation, a dimension that allows workers to have their own representatives and negotiate their employment and working conditions collectively within a regulated framework; and (7) enrichment and lack of alienation, where work is not only a means of sustenance; rather, jobs should be as much
as possible an integral part of human existence that does not stifle the productive and creative capacities of human beings….
Key influences affecting changes to employment relations and conditions over the past thirty years have been the growing influence of powerful corporations and abandonment of Keynesian economic policy and social compacts in favour of neo-liberal ideology and policies, placing microeconomic rationality as the validating criterion for all aspects of social life and thereby universalises market dependence in society. In developed countries, the outcomes of these changes have been a reduced welfare net for the unemployed and disadvantaged; job losses; growth in job insecurity and precarious employment; a weakening (in practice) of regulatory protections and the historical emergence of an informal economy, including home-based work and child labour. The impact has been complicated by increased female workforce participation and an ageing population in these countries…
Given that politics are fundamental for health, as a cause of health inequalities but also as the only remedy to end with these inequalities, we have devoted considerable effort to provide not only a political analysis of employment relations and conditions, but also to provide some recommendations of what can be done to reduce inequalities in health related to employment. Our recommendations place considerable emphasis on social welfare (poverty alleviation, universal education and public health facilities, government inspectorates) and regulation of labour markets (international standards/agreements, laws and enforcement). Governments and their agencies are in a position to provide comprehensive standards and laws, and to enforce them. Welfare policies also set a framework for community expectations that influence other actions. Voluntary measures by employers/corporations have a role to play but are too fragmented and weak to reshape employment conditions and lift standards generally. Historically, it has been government action, often in response to community pressure, that has set social standards. The combination of union and community pressure plays a vital role in ensuring government action.” (emphasis added)
http://www.who.int/social_determinants/resources/articles/emconet_who_report.pdf
11 July, 2011
The Social Justice and Advocacy Committee (SJAC) of the Anglican Diocese of Toronto made its submission to the Social Assistance Review Commissioners on July 13.
Titled “Building Justice”, the brief makes nine recommendations including introduction of the $100/month Healthy Food Supplement as the first step towards adequacy and a commitment to propose a comprehensive reform plan that will end deep poverty in Ontario by 2015.
The SJAC also asks the Commissioners to issue an interim report before the provincial election.
The Executive Summary of the SJAC brief follows and the full brief can be found in the Social Assistance Review tab.
BUILDING JUSTICE
Executive Summary
The Social Justice and Advocacy Committee of the Anglican Diocese of Toronto thanks the commissioners, Frances Lankin and Munir Sheikh, for this opportunity to express our concerns, and makes the following recommendations:
• We ask the Commissioners to propose a comprehensive social assistance reform plan that will end deep poverty in Ontario by 2015 and leave everyone living at least at the poverty line. This plan should include linking social assistance rates to the cost of living, so that rates will continue to be adequate to needs in the future.
• We ask that the Commissioners recommend no clawbacks or benefit reductions be applied against earned income for people on social assistance at least until they reach LIM-AT.
• We ask that the Commissioners recommend, as a first and immediate step, adding a $100/month Healthy Food Supplement to the Basic Needs Allowance for all adults receiving OW or ODSP.
• We ask that the Commission call for a continuing rise in the minimum wage, with a second set of 75-cent increases that would bring the basic minimum wage to $12.15 per hour in 2014, and index the minimum wage annually thereafter.
• We ask that ODSP rates be set at least at LIM-AT, with additional resources made available to meet specialized needs, and that no clawbacks or benefit reductions be applied against ODSP recipients at least until their income reaches LIM-AT.
• We ask the Commissioners to recommend that the Ontario government retain and expand the Special Diet Allowance so that all those who require medically prescribed special diets, whether social assistance recipients or qualifying low-income workers, are able to have full access to the essential food.
• With regard to the possibility of a housing benefit for all low-income people, we support this with certain cautions. First, the addition of a housing benefit must not be offset by a reduction in the shelter allowance portion of overall social assistance benefits, as this would leave social assistance recipients only marginally better off. Second, such a benefit would have to provide full coverage for shelter costs above 30% of gross income. Third, no distinction should be made between families and individuals – no low-income person should be required to pay more than 30% of gross income for housing.
• Special-purpose benefits should not become a substitute for the basic core income required to meet daily living requirements. Instead, we would endorse benefits as a complement to a system that provides more adequate rates of social assistance and a higher minimum wage.
• Finally, given that there will soon be a provincial election, we ask that the Commission release an interim report by the end of September, outlining a possible plan for ending poverty in Ontario. We further ask that the Commission take immediate action in recommending the $100/month Healthy Food supplement.
Brief to the Social Assistance Review Commission
from
The Social Justice and Advocacy Committee of the Anglican Diocese of Toronto
“The commandment we have from him is this: those who love God must love their brothers and sisters also.” — First Epistle of John, 4:21
We thank the commissioners, Frances Lankin and Munir Sheikh, for this opportunity to express our concerns relating to the social assistance system in the province of Ontario, and the need for a comprehensive strategy to end poverty in this province.
As Anglican Christians, we begin with the belief that all human beings are beloved children of God, and all have an inherent right to live with dignity and hope in shared community.
We believe that the health of our society is measured by the well-being of the most vulnerable – including children, seniors and the disabled – and we believe that social policy should be directed to ensuring that no one is marginalized or left out. We are only too aware of the existence of deep poverty in Ontario; we see it every day, in those who come to the doors of our churches and rectories (clergy residences), to our food banks and community meals, because they cannot afford to feed themselves and their families. We see it in those who sleep on the floors of our parish halls because they have no other shelter. We see it in members of our parishes who are struggling to survive on social assistance or minimum wage employment. The recent information from Statistics Canada, reporting that Ontario’s poverty rate had risen to 13.1% by 2009, and that poverty increased most sharply among single adults and seniors, came as no surprise to us.
We, as church communities, are doing all that we can to meet these needs. But we cannot do so by ourselves. The government, which represents the collective interests of all citizens, must also do more to ensure that no one has to go hungry, that no one has to live in a rooming house infested with bedbugs, that no one has to sleep on a church floor in the middle of winter.
We are fundamentally opposed to any policies which create divisions between social groups, or which limit the ability of any members of our society to live full and decent lives.
We believe that many others inOntario, from different faith backgrounds and none, also share these values. We appreciate the work that the McGuinty government has already undertaken on poverty reduction, and we note that poverty rates among children actually decreased in Ontario between 2007 and 2009. This is a strong demonstration of what is possible when the government acts on behalf of the vulnerable.
We are confident that you, the Social Assistance Review Commissioners, share these values as well. We offer you our thanks for the difficult role that you have taken on, and we hope that we will be able to work together to ensure that we can build a province, and a country, in which no one will need to live in poverty.
We see much in your Discussion Paper that is encouraging. However, there are also aspects of the paper that cause us some concern, and areas where we would like to see the Commission take a stronger and more immediate stand.
Deep poverty
At current benefit levels, those people who receive social assistance live in deep poverty; that is, their incomes are less than 80% of Ontario’s Low Income Measure – After Tax (LIM-AT). A single adult on Ontario Works, in fact, receives less than 40% of LIM-AT. A lone parent on Ontario Works or a single adult on ODSP would receive less than 70%.
It is not possible to live a decent or dignified life under these conditions. In concrete terms, these statistics translate into choices between paying the rent and feeding the children, they translate into lining up at crowded food banks, living in substandard housing surrounded by gun violence, doing without necessary medications, sending children to school hungry.
They translate into the inability to look for work effectively, because a social assistance recipient often cannot afford a Metropass or telephone service or appropriate clothing for a job interview. The deep poverty experienced by social assistance recipients is, in itself, often a barrier to employment.
We ask the Commissioners to propose a comprehensive social assistance reform plan that will end deep poverty in Ontario by 2015 and leave everyone living at least at the poverty line. This plan should include linking social assistance rates to the cost of living, so that rates will continue to be adequate in the future.
We also ask that the Commissioners recommend no clawbacks or benefit reductions be applied against earned income for people on social assistance at least until they reach LIM-AT.
We also ask that the Commissioners recommend, as a first and immediate step, a $100/month Healthy Food Supplement to the Basic Needs Allowance for all adults receiving OW or ODSP.
The myth of the “welfare wall”
We are concerned that some of the language of the discussion paper perpetuates a division between social assistance recipients and the “working poor” when it suggests that trade-offs must be made between “adequate income support” and “ensuring that people are better off working.”
There is no evidence that social assistance recipients who are able to work do or would avoid employment, and a great deal of evidence that most of them would prefer to be employed. We hear this day by day from those who come to our churches. Punitively low social assistance rates are not needed to “motivate” people to seek paid work.
Indeed, inadequate levels of social assistance create very significant barriers to finding employment. Inadequate social assistance levels mean a lack of access to transportation, a lack of access to telephone service, poor nutrition that creates ill health and low energy levels, and a limited ability to access continuing education and training. Deep poverty is demoralizing and demotivating. There is good reason to think that higher rates of social assistance would mean that those who can work would be more able to seek and obtain employment.
Moreover, we strongly maintain that the best way to ensure that people are “better off working” is to ensure that everyone working full-time, full-year can live well above the poverty line on what they earn. This is not currently the case in Ontario – a single earner, working full-time, full-year for minimum wage, would still fall significantly below LIM-AT. In 2008, one-third of allOntariochildren living in poverty (as defined by the federal Low Income Cut-Off Before Tax measurement) were in families with full-time, full-year hours of work.
We know that the Commissioners have stated that the adequacy of wages is “outside the mandate” of the review, but we do not believe that questions of social assistance rates can be treated outside of the overall picture of poverty in Ontario. We strongly encourage you to address the larger labour market issues.
In particular, we ask that the Commission call for a continuing rise in the minimum wage, with a second set of 75-cent increases that would bring the basic minimum wage to $12.15 per hour in 2014, and index the minimum wage annually thereafter.
Furthermore, ODSP recipients who are unable to hold paid employment or cannot work full-time should not be penalized for this. ODSP rates must be set at least at LIM-AT, with additional resources made available to meet specialized needs. Furthermore, the current clawback system effectively punishes ODSP recipients who are able to work part-time. We ask that no clawbacks or benefit reductions be applied against ODSP recipients at least until their income reaches LIM-AT.
Finally, we ask the Commissioners to recommend that the Ontario government retain and expand the Special Diet Allowance so that all those who require medically prescribed special diets, whether social assistance recipients or qualifying low-income workers, are able to have full access to the essential food.
The benefit approach problem
The Commissioners have proposed the possibility of special-purpose benefits for all low-income people, whether social assistance recipients or low-income workers. We believe there are strengths to this approach, but also some potential problems, and would advise proceeding with care. Special-purpose benefits should not become a substitute for the basic core income required to meet daily living requirements. Instead, we would endorse benefits as a complement to a system that provides more adequate rates of social assistance and a higher minimum wage.
It is anticipated that the Commissioners may propose a housing benefit for all low-income people. We would be prepared to endorse this approach under certain conditions, primarily if this benefit is a complement to adequate core income rather than a substitute for it.
We would also offer the following cautions. First, the addition of a housing benefit must not be offset by a reduction in the shelter allowance portion of overall social assistance benefits, as this would leave social assistance recipients only marginally better off. Second, such a benefit should provide full coverage for shelter costs above 30% of gross income. Third, no distinction should be made between families and individuals – no low-income person should be required to pay more than 30% of gross income for housing.
Timeline
We are aware that a provincial election is very close, and that we do not know who will form the next government or what their attitude will be to poverty reduction strategies. With this in mind, we ask that the Commission release an interim report by September, outlining a possible plan for ending poverty in Ontario. We further ask that the Commission take immediate action in recommending the $100/month Healthy Food supplement.
We thank you for your attention to our concerns, and we hope that we can continue to work together to build a province in which no one lives in need.
The Reverend Maggie Helwig
Chair, Social Justice and Advocacy Committee
Anglican Diocese of Toronto
In 2010, when questioned by supporters of the Put Food in the Budget (PFIB) campaign about where the $100 a month Healthy Food Supplement (HFS) was in the Ontario Government’s agenda, Finance Minister Duncan offered “everything is on the radar but we have to know how to pay for it”.
PFIB supporters and leaders on the Poverty Free Ontario initiative in communities across the province need to be prepared with some arguments about the inevitable questions on how to finance the kinds of proposals for which we are advocating, even though we realize that the basic issue remains the inequitable sharing of the great wealth that exists in this province and country. On March 10, Anglican Bishop Linda Nichols reminded us of that. Speaking at a PFIB public event at Queen’s Park after a meeting with Finance Minister Duncan, Bishop Nichols said:
“We don’t accept the argument that Ontario can’t afford to help the poor. That’s a morally bankrupt position. We live in a wealthy society.”
Poverty Elimination is “Self-financing” Over Time
We know that allowing people to live in poverty costs our healthcare system in Ontario about $2.9 billion annually (OAFB Cost of Poverty Report, 2008), which is about 18% of the 2011 Ontario deficit.
Research at the University of Toronto by Ernie Lightman, Andrew Mitchell and Beth Wilson tells us that a $1,000 increase in annual income to the poorest fifth of households in Ontario will result in 10,000 fewer chronic conditions and 6,600 fewer disability days lost at work every two weeks (Poverty Is Making Us Sick, 2008).
Notably, PFIB’s proposed Healthy Food Supplement (HFS) would provide $1200 in increased annual income to social assistance recipients, which would produce the scale of savings to the healthcare system noted above by the U of T study.
Since Health is one of the Ontario Government’s priorities, the personal as well as the economic benefits should put the HFS on the government’s radar. Since there are almost 600,000 adults currently on social assistance, this would cost about $700 million. This is a very high caseload because of the recent recession and would be expected to come down as the economic recovery helps more recipients leave the system.
Fiscal Options Exist
It is hard, of course, to convince politicians with arguments of long-term pay-offs when their horizons do not extend beyond the date of the next election. Hard economic times and affordability are used as excuses for inaction, even though there was no political resolve to address the issue when the economy was doing well either.
In good or bad economic conditions, governments always have fiscal options. High tax Nordic countries with the lowest levels of poverty and strong economies have demonstrated that committed and competent governments can work on multiple priorities at the same time. Candidates for elected office in the upcoming provincial election can be challenged to consider the fiscal options that exist to implement measures like the Healthy Food Supplement in the short-term and to end poverty in Ontario in this decade.
Option #1: Maintain Competitive Corporate Tax Rates at 2009 Levels
The 2009 Ontario Economic and Fiscal Outlook presented by Finance Minister Duncan projected a $4.5 billion cut to corporate income taxes between 2009 and 2013 as a way to make Ontario business more competitive in the North American market.
Actually, we will be more competitive by 2013 than we were in 2009, when our combined federal and provincial tax rates at 33% were already below all rates projected for the USA (39.5%) and the Great Lake States, our main jurisdictional competitors. Last year a KPMG competitiveness study placed Canada second only to Mexico and way ahead of the United States on a list of “tax friendly countries for business” (Toronto Star, May 12, 2010).
The Ontario Government’s objective is to reduce rates by a further $2 billion so that by 2013 the combined federal (also coming down) and provincial corporate tax rates will be 25%, making Ontario’s rate more competitive than even the lowest corporate rate in the US – the State of Texas (36%).
Surely business in Ontario can compete on more than just “price” (e.g. education, skill and quality of workforce, state of public infrastructure like the education and healthcare systems). A “Walmartian” competitive strategy based on the lowest “prices” (i.e. corporate taxes) will only further drain the Treasury to the point that it will erode the competitive advantages that we now have in the quality of our public institutions and services.
Do we really have to have corporate tax rates 15% below the American rate by 2013? Even if Ontario were to forego the $2 billion in this corporate tax cut schedule not yet implemented, we would still be 8% below the American rate – reclaiming about $2.0 billion or so to be available for important measures like increasing social assistance so that people in deep poverty can live with some measure of health and dignity.
Option #2: Limit New Tax Benefits to Those in Need
Cutting taxes for individuals and family households also, of course, promises to be a major part of the upcoming provincial election campaign, and, it appears, that the three major parties will do battle on “taxpayer pocketbook” issues.
While we can point to the opportunity cost to reducing and ending poverty of foregoing corporate tax revenue, it is important to point out that personal income tax cuts also have their social costs. The reduction of the cut in the provincial tax rate from 6.05% in 2009 to 5.05% in 2010 on the first $37,100 of individual earnings cost the Ontario Treasury about $1.3 billion. This is a socially inefficient use of scarce fiscal resources. Persons with taxable incomes of $37,100 or more each get $370 in tax savings ($740 in households of many wealthy and advantaged couples). In contrast, people on social assistance get nothing. A single working poor parent with a taxable income of $15,000 gets a more limited saving of $150.
This distribution of tax benefits is socially regressive and unrelated to need. It is a poor use of $1.3 billion in tax revenue, when a Healthy Food Supplement would cost half as much, be directed to those most in need, and provide immediate benefit to local economies in communities across Ontario.
An economist has calculated for the PFIB campaign that it would cost the average Ontario taxpayer $100 a year to fund the HFS – i.e. provide every adult on social assistance with $1200 more annually. While there is political resistance to this investment in the health and well-being of the poorest part of the province’s population, there is no hesitancy to give tax credits to the broad middle class and to broadcast the action. In 2010, a half-page ad in the Globe and Mail proudly informed middle class families making a household income of $125,000 a year that they will be receiving a $790 tax credit in the form of a rebate because of the introduction of the Harmonized Sales Tax.
Even allowing for some level of tax credit related to the HST change, one wonders if middle class families with household incomes well over $125,000 would be terribly averse to getting only $690 of that rebate if they knew that it would support 579,000 people on social assistance to live with more health and dignity. This might even be more compelling to the taxpaying public if it understood the cost savings to the overall healthcare system that a reduced personal tax credit would bring.
But, the Government does not choose to advertise or promote that kind of understanding to the wider public. Rather, it chooses to maximize the benefit of the tax cut to the broad middle class for its own political advantage and there is no contrary evidence that a Government of another political stripe would have acted differently.
Option #3: Extend Deficit Elimination Period to Meet Our Social Priorities
The Full-Day Early Learning Program launched last year fit the Ontario Government’s clearly expressed Education priority. In announcing the implementation of this program at a cost of $1.5 billion over three years, the Government gave no indication that it had made any special provision to pay for it.
Therefore, it must be factored into the Government’s deficit financing – that is, the program’s cost is being covered as part of the Government’s deficit management over the next three to five years. The Government is prepared to let this program add to its deficit and extend its deficit reduction period because it believes that Education is an important priority with returns far down the road in terms of the benefits of early stimulation and learning for child development. It might take a little longer to return to a balanced budget, but the benefits to Ontarians are considered worth the delay.
Similarly, the Government could decide to take the same approach with the HFS or any measure to end poverty in Ontario. It could even legitimately argue that an investment in poverty elimination is one way that it is adhering to its Health priority. As pointed out earlier, in the case of the HFS this is practically “self-financing” over time, given the clear relationship between poverty and costs to healthcare system.
Conclusion
The preceding arguments for financing the Healthy Food Supplement and other needed measures to end poverty in Ontario are compelling. We are under no illusions, however, that they will be readily accepted by the political parties and candidates running for office this October. Even the 21 sitting MPPs who completed the Do the Math survey last year and acknowledged on average that the cost of basic monthly living necessities for adults on social assistance were more than $750 higher than what they received on Ontario Works have taken no serious action to promote the HFS in their caucuses.
Paying for the HFS is not an issue of not having the means or fiscal options to act – it is an issue of the political will to include Ontario’s most vulnerable within a government’s expressed policy priorities.
The alarms are sounding, however, and not from the usual sources. Just this week, the Conference Board of Canada alerted the business community and the public to the growing inequality in our nation (How Canada Performs: Is Canada becoming more unequal? http://www.conferenceboard.ca/hcp/hot-topics/canInequality.aspx ). The gap between the lower and middle income groups and the highest income groups has grown significantly over the last 20 years. The Report shows that government tax and transfer programs have had an important effect in reducing income inequality, but these programs have been seriously eroded since the mid-1990s, leading to higher levels of inequality.
Poverty is a collective issue demanding the concerted effort of all governments. The Provincial Government is responsible for social assistance and labour market policy. Poverty Free Ontario has proposed measures in these areas that would end deep poverty in the province (i.e. 80% or lower of LIM-AT) and bring the general poverty rate down to levels comparable to the historically lowest poverty jurisdictions in the western world (4% or lower). We contend that there are viable fiscal options to finance this collective commitment as outlined in this Bulletin.
PETERBOROUGH – If someone has a disability and is having trouble finding work, a good first-step into the job market might be volunteering to gain confidence and acquire skills.
But people on the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) may not have enough money to buy suitable clothing, if they’re volunteering in an office, or be able to afford transportation to get there.
Ontario should consider allowing people to get discretionary benefits — extra money outside of the regular monthly payments — for these kinds of items for volunteers, said Peterborough Social Planning Council executive director Brenda Dales.
That was one of the ideas proposed on Wednesday at Trinity United Church as about 80 people joined a review of Ontario’s social assistance.
The Commission for the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario was in Peterborough on Wednesday getting ideas for reform as part of its cross-province tour in July.
The commission, which is still headed to Ottawa, Thunder Bay, Timmins and Peel before the end of the month, is to release final recommendations in June 2012.
Better transportation in rural and urban areas is needed to help alleviate poverty because some people are paying for transportation instead of buying food, said Maryam Monsef, one of the participants.
Rates for Ontario Works (OW) and ODSP also need to be raised, she said.
If a single person gets about $600 per month on OW, it’s difficult to pay market-value rent and still have money for eating and basic health needs, added Dorothy Boddy.
“The No. 1 thing is increasing the rates,” Boddy said.
Employers should also offer more part-time jobs and job-sharing for people with disabilities that want to work but struggle, for health reasons, to work a typical 40-hour work week, Boddy said.
Commission co-chairwoman Frances Lankin and co-chairman Munir Sheik were at the Peterborough event.
ebower@peterboroughexaminer.com
http://www.thepeterboroughexaminer.com/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3212231
HALTON – Regional advocates for those living lives of poverty met face to face with two government officials conducting a fact-finding tour about the needs of the downtrodden.
At the invitation of the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction, Community Development Halton and Poverty Free Halton representatives met with Frances Lankin and Munir Sheikh, commissioners of the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario on behalf of the Ministry of Community and Social Services.
“Poverty in Halton is often hidden, buried under the veneer of affluence and well-being,” said John Versluis, co-chair of Poverty Free Halton.
“The gap between the annual income of a family of four on social assistance and that of the median Halton family income is $5,793 per month or approximately $69,230 per year. These people live in different worlds, making bridges of compassion and understanding difficult to build,” Versluis added.
Rishia Burke and Jen Gerrard of Community Development Halton told the commissioners that they, and others from their research team, had crossed the region talking with people living in poverty.
The many stories they heard showed that the basic necessities of life such as food and shelter, along with recreation and opportunities to belong to their community, were out of the reach of those in poverty and especially those on social assistance, who live in “deep poverty.”
“Mental health was always an underlying theme during community conversations. Poor people live under tremendous stress. They do not have enough money to live (off of) and face choices between housing or food. Every day they face the stresses of surviving,” said Burke.
Gerrard told the commissioners that programs and services should respect the dignity of people. They should not feel “less as a result of asking for assistance to meet basic needs.”
As the conversation moved on to social assistance reform, Joey Edwardh, Executive Director of Community Development Halton, said any recommendations for change must be evidence-based.
“Today, there is no evidence-based process for determining social assistance rates and as a result, the benefits have no relation to the cost of living in a community,” said Edwardh.
In a letter on the website for the Ontario Federation of Community Mental Health and Addiction Programs, commissioners Lankin and Sheikh stated that as part of its Poverty Reduction Strategy, the provincial government has given it “… a significant mandate to make recommendations to reform social assistance in Ontario. We need to build a better system that improves employment opportunities and provides security for people who cannot work.”
The commissioners are receiving feedback until Sept. 1, 2011, so they can develop options in late fall/early winter. They will seek further input and expect to make more community visits.
http://www.insidehalton.com/news/article/1042552–poverty-advocates-make-pitch-to-narrow-the-gap
On July 4, 2011 Community Development Halton and Poverty Free Halton, at the invitation of the Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction, met with Frances Lankin and Munir Sheikh, Commissioners of the Review of Social Assistance in Ontario. Halton and its municipalities rarely receive visits from commissions appointed to investigate social issues. As John Versluis, co-chair of Poverty Free Halton commented: “Poverty in Halton is often hidden, buried under the veneer of affluence and well-being.” He continued emphasizing that “the gap between the annual income of a family of four on social assistance and that of the median Halton family income is $5,793 per month or approximately $69,230 per year. These people live in different worlds, making bridges of compassion and understanding difficult to build.”
Rishia Burke and Jen Gerrard of Community Development Halton told the Commissioners that they, and others from their research team, had crossed the Region talking with people living in poverty. The many stories of people painfully showed that the basic necessities of life such as food, shelter, recreation and the opportunity to belong to their community were outside of the reach of those in poverty and especially those on social assistance who live in ‘deep poverty’. Rishia Burke added: “Mental health was always an underlying theme during community conversations. Poor people live under tremendous stress. They do not have enough money to live and face choices between housing or food. Every day they face the stresses of surviving.” Jen Gerrard told the Commissioners; “Programs and services should respect the dignity of people. They should not feel ‘less’ as a result of asking for assistance to meet basic needs.”
As the conversation moved on to social assistance reform, Joey Edwardh of Community Development Halton pointed out that the dialogue and, ultimately, the recommendations for change, must be evidence-based. She observed: “Today, there is no evidence-based process for determining social assistance rates and as a result the benefits have no relation to the cost of living in a community”. She also pointed out that reform of social assistance needs to be based on a new paradigm that not only meets human needs but also respects the dignity of people. She emphasized: “This framework would move beyond that of the ‘welfare wall’ which implies that the benefits of those on social assistance must be kept to a certain level, inadequate, insufficient and punitive, to avoid a disincentive to enter the labour force.” The Commissioners thanked the delegation for their thoughtful and insightful presentation and in the public meeting that followed recognized the recommendation for a paradigm shift.
In the public meeting that followed, a number of people raised the issue of fair taxation as the means of sustaining supportive social supports and adequate benefits. For more information on the Hamilton consultation, read Social Assistance Review: Hamilton Consultation’s Prescription for Reform (July 4, 2011).
