Ontario Government’s Poverty Reduction Strategy

26 posts / 0 new
Last post
rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture
Ontario Government’s Poverty Reduction Strategy

Is to be released in 10 minutes or so.

 It's going to be interesting

We're going to have a defined poverty line at last, and a bunch of other iniaitives.

 But no extra immediate $ in people's pockets.

I'll post more once the 'embargo' is over.

rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture

Toronto Star article - Ontario backs '25-in-5' poverty plan

 25 in 5 press release

25 in 5 backgrounder

 

Basically - it's a start, no one's life is changing today, but it's a start

Mojoroad1

Horsefeathers.

The "plan" put forth by the Liberals is full of caveats (in good economic times/co-operation from the federal government repeated over and over page after page), and completely empty rhetoric.   Addressing child poverty alone is not addressing the problem. This puffed up piece of hot air makes for 1 good news cycle. Watch as nothing happens from this, as "bad" economic times will "prevent" them from actually doing anything except shuffle around a few bureaucrats in a misguided attempt to "trim the fat" / save money.

Olly

I disagree. It's a really substantial step forward. We have a concrete target and timeline. We will have legislation committing government to reporting annually on progress. We will have legilsation committing future governments to setting new targets every 5 years. It's pretty rare for government to give you the two by four to hit them with if they don't live up to their target!

Why wouldn't the feds have to come to the table? They are responsible for about 80% of income security spending in Ontario. Some might call it buck passing, some might call it seeing reality.

 I know NDP supporters have to be critical out of party policy, and seeing "their" issue stolen by the Liberals. But to say it's hot air flies in the face of what activists and people living in poverty are saying. That's why the NDP has lost the issue.

Mojoroad1

Olly wrote:

I disagree. It's a really substantial step forward. We have a concrete target and timeline. We will have legislation committing government to reporting annually on progress. We will have legilsation committing future governments to setting new targets every 5 years. It's pretty rare for government to give you the two by four to hit them with if they don't live up to their target!

Why wouldn't the feds have to come to the table? They are responsible for about 80% of income security spending in Ontario. Some might call it buck passing, some might call it seeing reality.

I know NDP supporters have to be critical out of party policy, and seeing "their" issue stolen by the Liberals. But to say it's hot air flies in the face of what activists and people living in poverty are saying. That's why the NDP has lost the issue.

 

Not even close, bud.  The Star spun it on day 1 as- to paraphrase-  "activists are ecstatic". ..

On day 2, the truth... "activists are pissed". Yes, targets are good, as are time lines.....too bad the Liberals won't do anything to achieve them, unless it's by accident. Also, you might not remember the all party unanimous federal vote to "eradicate poverty" by 2000. Last time I checked, the"campaign 2000" advocacy group is still around (whom I believe was one of the many critics of the Ont Lib plan), & poverty has increased substantially since then. As I said, hot air, do nothing, empty promises.

NDP response:  http://ontariondp.com/mcguinty-plan-makes-poor-wait-yet-again-ndp

 

rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture

Actually Campaign 2000 did issue a release endoresing the plan.

 Those of us that did offer positive feedback day 1, are encouraged by the plan.

The same lot of us on day 2 still said - it's only a start!

 

Le T Le T's picture

I think that the CBC report the response from "activists" as "muted". By activists they meant the middle-class, cleaned-up ones like Frances Lankin, 25 in 5, Campaign 2000 and other liberal (note the small "l") organizations.

Responses from Ontario Common Front groups might be paraphrased as:

1) Child Poverty doesn't exist per se and is just a poor-bashing invention.

2) A "plan" the rests on the Feds paying 1.6 billion is wishful thinking

3)McGuinty and the Liberals have yet to reverse the cuts to OW/ODSP made by Harris - in fact they have continued them because the rates are not indexed and therefore go down every year.

4) McGuinty has a long record of being a total and complete liar who has never done anything for poor people in Ontario.

rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture

links on the CBC bit please

 

nice classist generalization on Frances, 25 in 5 etc.

25 in 5 is actually a coalition of groups, which has an extensive list of grassroots organizations

I really don't think that focusing on 'child poverty' should be a flag to burn.

If we lift children, we are obviously lifting parents.  But the tax paying public can't stomach the idea that we'd be helping single moms etc - so it's phrased as helping 'children' because no one can really argue against it without sounding like a compelte a$$.

The child tax benefit is dependant upon federal input - so?  There are a lot of other good things in the plan.

Yes the rates are nowhere near where they need to be, but atleast there is going to be a review of OW and the like and perhaps an attitude change will help.  I get more complaints about "attitude" and "classism" than I do about actual dollars.

Olly

It's the most aggressive plan in Canada, and the only one with firm targets. I think they deserve credit for that. Everyone may well be right and nothing may happen (although a lot is happening already, including the OCB increases which will likely cover off half the target on its own if the economy doesn't completely tank). But at least we'll have the annual reporting on the progress toward the target, and if no progress is being made we have something to hit them with.

Also, poverty is on the federal table with the coalition's proposed package for the economy. If Harper doesn't pick up on some of that in his January budget, he's done. There will be some federal money because his own survival is at stake.

Le T Le T's picture

rural - Francesca wrote:

links on the CBC bit please

 

nice classist generalization on Frances, 25 in 5 etc.

25 in 5 is actually a coalition of groups, which has an extensive list of grassroots organizations

I really don't think that focusing on 'child poverty' should be a flag to burn.

If we lift children, we are obviously lifting parents.  But the tax paying public can't stomach the idea that we'd be helping single moms etc - so it's phrased as helping 'children' because no one can really argue against it without sounding like a compelte a$$.

The child tax benefit is dependant upon federal input - so?  There are a lot of other good things in the plan.

Yes the rates are nowhere near where they need to be, but atleast there is going to be a review of OW and the like and perhaps an attitude change will help.  I get more complaints about "attitude" and "classism" than I do about actual dollars.

 

The CBC reports that I heard were on the radio. They repeated them every hour the whole day - I don't know if there is any archive of this or if they translate them into print media.

My remarks were not "classist", they are based in the fact that middle-class people do not have as much invested in anti-poverty work. They have always been able to settle for less over longer periods becuase at the end of the day they are comfortable.

I support the "review" of OW, I would agree that the spying, harrasment and constant intimidation is just as bad as the un-liveable amounts. What's worse than having to survive on ~$500/month than being assessed with a $10 000 "overpayment" because some snoop decided that your roomate is your lover?

The OCB is deducted from OW/ODSP rates right now isn't it? Will that change with this new anouncement? I know I heard something about OSAP loans no longer being deducted.

The OCB is a bit of a joke. My partner and I get 50 bucks a month. Our annual family income is around $30 000. We live in Toronto where we rent a 1 bedroom for $950/month. It's almost as insulting as the 100 bucks Harper gives us each month for childcare. We've just been using that for popcorn and beer though.

The child poverty thing is still poor bashing to me. It's the classic act of the rich dividing the poor into good and bad, worthy and unworthy of charity.

By the way, the "tax paying public" is everyone. Despite what you have been taught by the poor-hating government poor people pay more taxes than rich people. There is a CCPA study that illustrates this. There is GST/PST on almost everything and there are increasingly user fees on government services (aka poor tax). So as a member of the tax paying public the only thing that I can't stomach are rich people thinking that they pay anywhere close to their fair share and the well-meaning liberals who then argue that we should focus on "child poverty" so we don't ruffle any feathers.

 

Lola 101

More "middle-class, cleaned up" views from the Workers Action Centre, right?

Tuesday December 9, 2008

Media Advisory

TORONTO: The Ontario government’s announcement of legislation to protect temporary agency workers is good news for temp workers. http://www.workersactioncentre.org/

 

 

Fidel

Handouts too easy an option by Monte Solberg

I guess our conservative government provides every province with adequate transfer and equalization, enough that child poverty and homelessness should not exist in Canada I suppose provinces are just not responsible in the way they spend the generous amounts doled out by Ottawa. "Money doesnt grow on trees." 94% of it is created as interest owing debt since 1991.

Poverty violates women's human rights: UN warns Canada

The UN has issued yet another warning to Canada

rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture

Le T wrote:
  

My remarks were not "classist", they are based in the fact that middle-class people do not have as much invested in anti-poverty work. They have always been able to settle for less over longer periods becuase at the end of the day they are comfortable.

 

Sorry but the assumption that those of us that work for organizations like the United Way - that Frances heads up - are 'middle class' is a classist assumption.

I'm the ED of my United Way and I've known severe poverty.  I've also known upper middle class.

madmax

Lola 101 wrote:

More "middle-class, cleaned up" views from the Workers Action Centre, right?

Tuesday December 9, 2008

Media Advisory

TORONTO: The Ontario government’s announcement of legislation to protect temporary agency workers is good news for temp workers. http://www.workersactioncentre.org/

The Workers Action Centre is the only group that I am aware of that created an anti temp campaign.  They are the ones, busting their tails, and highlighting abuses of Temp agencies. They have had many campaigns, and have broadened their networking across Ontario to fight against the abuses that come with working for these agencies. From what I have seen, the WAC has carried the ball for low income, displaced, on the fringe workers, scarcely able to make ends meet. 

Perhaps you would like to show your anti temp campaign.

 That said, the fact that Workers are going to be exploited this Christmas and New Years, is something that needs to be publicly addressed ASAP. I do not know why the government is hiding behind the January 2nd implementation.

There is lots missing from the Anti Temp legislation, but it is still improved legislation. You want to make it better, call your MPP. 

rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture

The CLC  has a temp agency campaign

madmax

A campaign unseen, unheard and uncoordinated, is not a campaign.  The CLC may have a policy. The CLC may have some ideas. They may even have good will. But they haven't executed any kind of anti temp campaign, or I would be well informed of it. I would see it, and they would have been a visible face fighting these SOB, parasitic organizations.

I would love to see the CLC do a bold campaign. Especially since they have a broader scope then the Province of Ontario. However, as the thread is about Central Canada, and in this particular case the Ontario Governments response to the parasitic infection, I will recognise those who I have broke bread with , in fighting this cancerous disease.

The fact that over 1300 of these agencies are taking money out of peoples pockets and ripping them off in hundreds of different schemes. The racial and age discrimination, preying on immigrants, making people pay for the right to work, taking money for gloves, glasses, and stealing the pay of workers, interfering with WSIB claims, hasn't been front and centre in any CLC campaign. 

The Temp agencies will ride this out and continue with their goodwill campaigns that effectively market their exploitation.

Look at the job growth and job loss numbers. They are dominated by temp agencies and as far as I can physically see the CLC is not a visible prescence in challenging the trend.  The OFL was also slow to address a fast moving government, who want to sweep the temp agencies under the carpet. They Liberals want to say.... we did something about them, because in this next year or two the vast majority of the people permanently let go in layoffs will be working for a temp agency, whether or not they have taken Second Career programs. 

The government does not want to get rid of temp agencies, it wants to make them palatable, because in the governments mind, they are here to stay.

 

 

 

Star Spangled C...

Le T wrote:

 

Responses from Ontario Common Front groups might be paraphrased as:

1) Child Poverty doesn't exist per se and is just a poor-bashing invention.

 

I don't get the notion that child poverty doesn't exist at all. Do you know what they mean by that?

Ken Burch Ken Burch's picture

Olly wrote:

I disagree. It's a really substantial step forward. We have a concrete target and timeline. We will have legislation committing government to reporting annually on progress. We will have legilsation committing future governments to setting new targets every 5 years.

er...we?  Are you an Ontario Liberal Cabinet minister or something? Dalton, is that you?

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
Our Demands Most Moderate are/
We Only Want The World!
-James Connolly

Doug

Star Spangled Canadian wrote:
Le T wrote:
 

I don't get the notion that child poverty doesn't exist at all. Do you know what they mean by that?

Obviously it exists, but talking about it and only it promoted the idea that it's only the poverty of children that matters and that somehow, poor children aren't just a consequence of poor adults. There's lots of poor people who don't have children, after all.

WolfCat

Olly wrote:

I disagree. It's a really substantial step forward. We have a concrete target and timeline. We will have legislation committing government to reporting annually on progress. We will have legilsation committing future governments to setting new targets every 5 years.

 

 ...NOTHING is concrete with governments who can change their minds and their priorities whenever they feel like it.  No new government is ever committed to what previous governments passed.

And as for timelines, wasn't it a unanimous federal government resolution to end child poverty by the year 2000? That was passed... when? Nov. 24, 1989.

Same old, same old.

When the government is rich, poverty is forgotten.

When the government is poor, poverty can't be fixed because of bad times.

What has changed? Only more timidity and acquiescence by advocates and most activists.

             Power concedes nothing without a Demand

rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture

So what do you suggest we do?

We're not stopping anything we were doing before, still working on our "changing attitudes" projects, still providing supports, still communicating with decision makers.

I'm not a marcher, don't do the protest thing.

But I still will advocate, inform and articulate.

I will still find positive where I can and not back down on what I still see needs to be done.

What more is there to do?

Maysie Maysie's picture

I posted a press release from Ontario women's groups over here:

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/feminism/ontario-women’s-groups-decry-lack-gender-focus-province’s-poverty-reduction-strategy

(Hope the link works) 

............

Maysie: the babbler formerly known as bigcitygal.

Champion of Nothing1

I'm new here, but I just want to mention that I believe Cheri DiNovo and Peter Tabuns will be putting forward a private members bill that looks to remove the cost advantage of hiring temporary, part-time workers - similar to what has been done in Europe.

While this won't get passed first reading, it is clearly something that, I think, people can mobilize around.

 

WolfCat

rural Francesco said:

So what do you suggest we do?

I'm not a marcher, don't do the protest thing.

.... THERE is your answer. Until we get in the face of governments and force media to pay attentin, do real analysis and report all sides on this issue, not much will change.

 It is the old dilemma of : "Do I work for positive chenge on the inside or from the outside"?

Some people say "If you are not at the table, you won't have an effective voice"

....Well, a lot of advocates and organizations are still sitting at the table.... the Children's table.... while the power adults make the calls.

 

                     "Power concedes nothing without a Demand"

rural - Francesca rural - Francesca's picture
JMasse

I have to say, I sit on the City of Kingston's Affordable Housing
Committee and even I wasn't invited to the consultations by the Ontario
Government. I would have really liked to go as well.

But I
digress, I think that having at the very least a plan in place is a
start, albeit a minimal one. As far as the statement that the liberals
have taken the NDP's issue, I think you are being a little naive, they
have not done really anything in the way of significant change other
than add more regulations to what Poverty is and come up with a
half-hearted and defined idea of how to attack child poverty.

I won't take away from it, it is a step in the right direction. But
certainly more could have been done with 9 months of "consultation" in
reality this decision was made by Liberal advisers a long-time ago.

Time to wake up and smell the face of politics in Canada, put the bar so low no-one expects you to do anything.