Main menu:

History of RPE Thought

Posts by Tag

RSS New from the CCPA

  • Boom, Bust and Consolidation November 9, 2018
    The five largest bitumen-extractive corporations in Canada control 79.3 per cent of Canada’s productive capacity of bitumen. The Big Five—Suncor Energy, Canadian Natural Resources Limited (CNRL), Cenovus Energy, Imperial Oil and Husky Energy—collectively control 90 per cent of existing bitumen upgrading capacity and are positioned to dominate Canada’s future oil sands development. In a sense they […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • A new Director for CCPA's BC Office: Message from Mary Childs, Board Chair October 24, 2018
    The CCPA-BC Board of Directors is delighted to share the news that Shannon Daub will be the next BC Director of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. Last spring, Seth Klein announced that, after 22 years, he would be stepping down as founding Director of the CCPA-BC at the end of 2018. The CCPA-BC’s board […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Who Owns Canada’s Fossil-Fuel Sector? October 15, 2018
    The major investors in Canada’s fossil-fuel sector have high stakes in maintaining business as usual rather than addressing the industry’s serious climate issues, says a new Corporate Mapping Project study.  And as alarms ring over our continued dependence on natural gas, coal and oil, these investors have both an interest in the continued growth of […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Pharmacare consensus principles released today September 24, 2018
    A diverse coalition representing health care providers, non-profit organizations, workers, seniors, patients and academics has come together to issue a statement of consensus principles for the establishment of National Pharmacare in Canada. Our coalition believes that National Pharmacare should be a seamless extension of the existing universal health care system in Canada, which covers medically […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
  • Kate McInturff Fellowship in Gender Justice September 19, 2018
    The CCPA is pleased to announce the creation of the Kate McInturff Fellowship in Gender Justice.This Fellowship is created to honour the legacy of senior researcher Kate McInturff who passed away in July 2018. Kate was a feminist trailblazer in public policy and gender-based research and achieved national acclaim for researching, writing, and producing CCPA’s […]
    Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives
Progressive Bloggers

Meta

Recent Blog Posts

Posts by Author

Recent Blog Comments

The Progressive Economics Forum

Social Assistance in Ontario

Two weeks ago, the report of a government-appointed panel on Ontario’s social assistance system was made public.  The report, entitled “Recommendations for an Ontario Income Security Review,” was written by the 11-member Ontario Social Assistance Review Advisory Council, which had been struck in December 2009 by the McGuinty government. 

The Council had been asked to make recommendations on the “scope and terms of reference that would guide the development of [a] social assistance review.” In other words, members were charged with advising the McGuinty government on how to go about creating a process that would in turn advise the government on how to go about improving its social assistance system. (At least the McGuinty government can’t be accused of rushing this!)

I have two general comments on the report.  First, I was relieved to see it recommend that the Ontario Income Security Review “[d]evelop standards for a liveable income and a process to use those standards to assess the adequacy of Ontarians’ incomes.”

Such a recommendation may sound straightforward to some, but in fact it’s been well-known for years (especially since the mid-1990s) that welfare rates do not even come close to reflecting what a household needs to live in Ontario, most notably in a major urban centre.  Moreover, I have found that many policy dialogues over social assistance tend to stay clear of this specific topic all together, preferring instead to focus on more “publicly acceptable” policy objectives, such as reducing marginal tax rates for welfare recipients and increasing child benefits.  In other words, it seems much more appealing for some experts to focus on the so-called “deserving poor” (i.e. those who have a realistic shot at finding work or those with children) than it is to focus on the so-called “undeserving poor.” So, kudos to the panel for this recommendation!

My second observation has to do with the council’s assertion that “[t]he development of a housing benefit paid outside of social assistance should be a priority.” As I have argued elsewhere, I support the idea of a “housing benefit,” especially in response to a recession.  But I do hope that the advantages of building non-profit housing are not lost in this process.  Indeed, as I argued in a 2007 paper, building non-profit housing offers many benefits that “housing benefits” (similar to “rent supplements,” “shelter allowances” and “housing allowances”) do not.

Enjoy and share:

Comments

Comment from John Stapleton
Time: July 5, 2010, 9:47 am

Hopefully,a carefully designed Housing Benefit would go a long way to creating the climate needed to build affordable housing.

Comment from Dr. Fullmore
Time: July 10, 2010, 2:47 pm

In the context of the dangerous homeless crisis, public housing is urgently needed.

A housing benefit is only a tiny fraction of the solution, entirely incapable of solving our homelessness crisis.

but, is it a needed and laudable baby step.

Write a comment





Related articles