Re-Cap of Poverty Meetings
The Politicians and the Poverty Meetings:
Overall the three poverty meetings Scarborough I am going to discuss were very well attended. The meeting held by Minister Best and the meeting the City held had fairly similar audiences participating. Minister Best gave very compelling remarks that did not appear to be rehearsed, or prepared. Her eyes, voice and body language showed the sincerity in her beliefs. At the City meeting, Councillor Joe Mihevc from St. Pauls (Ward 21) in downtown Toronto spoke. He delivered a prepared speech, heavy on rhetoric and not well crafted for the audience. The only Scarborough Councillor present was Councillor Ainslie from Scarborough East (Ward 43). Councillor Ainslie did not speak at all during the two and half hours. Neither Councillor milled around to actually listen to the discussions happening in the small groups. Both looked at the speakers at the microphones during presentations, but took few notes as City staff were taking notes for Toronto’s submission. Negative comments about the municipal government for whatever reason were not recorded. The CASSA meeting had the best attendance of politicians with Trustee’s Neethan Shan (Markham) and Nadia Bello (Toronto) actively participating, Shan as MC and Bello as the education panelist. Minister Chan also attended the meeting. He appeared to be actively listening and demonstrated this by recalling the key points each of the panelists had made during their portions of the meeting. He gave some brief remarks, and then told the audience he would then deliver his prepared speech. Off the cuff he was very good, on message it was what is to be expected.
Meeting Summaries:
I want to talk first about the meeting dynamics and something that rubbed me the wrong way at Minister Best’s meeting and the City meeting. I am going to be as frank as I can while being weary not offend anyone or be misunderstood.
I want to start by saying I think advocacy groups with grassroots support are integral to democracy and have an important place in the creation of public policy. But some of what I saw during these meetings, which were not intended to be stakeholder consultations as much as they were community consultations did not sit very well with me.
At both meetings those who were most vocal were people involved with organizations that had set agendas on poverty reduction and, at least in my view did not necessarily need to use rare public meetings between elected officials and their constituents to further convey their opinion. Organizations have an ability to meet with a Minister privately, commission reports to gain earned media coverage of their opinions, and send out a news release and have some hope of being quoted. The average citizen can call their MPP or write them a letter and in most cases speak to a constituency assistant who will pass along their concerns, or may schedule a meeting if the MPP and this individual have some shared availability during business hours on a Friday. It seems to me, open forums should be used to allow for an honest dialogue between people and their representatives.
I had hoped much more of the conversation would be dominated by members of the community who were not necessarily affiliated with organizations who either are entirely advocacy based or work on the ground to address some of the effects of poverty. It might be somewhat controversial to say, but I at least found, particularly when these individuals were reporting on behalf of their groups it was very clear the outcomes of the conversations within their groups were heavily influenced by the dominant players.
As someone who has led group discussions that were similar, but not quite focus groups as part of a report for the federal government on democratic reform, I am aware of the ability for two or three people to really control a conversation, simply by being more comfortable speaking. The issues we were discussing were also opinions strongly held and of deep importance to everyone. They are also hard questions. People who do not constantly think about them, do need more time to articulate their position, develop their ideas and the patience of others to do so. With the absence of trained facilitators to encourage discussion and call on those who are particularly quiet, it is almost impossible to ensure they are heard.
Having these individuals present is not necessarily all bad; I guess it really may depend on their level of involvement and openness to allow for other views to come forward. At least two of the participants with clear affiliations, regularly spoke on behalf of their groups and were frequently hostile toward the government at both Minister Best’s and the City’s meeting. The message was very similar, although group memberships were different at both events. I am not suggesting they ignored the other views that were raised, but certainly at the reporting stage the focus was more so on the views they expressed than equal emphasis on everything. Let me contrast this with something really positive a community organization did at Minister Best’s meeting. A local organization that has done tremendous work with youth in our community brought maybe eight or so to participate. The man who works with them did an amazing job in ensuring the youth with got to participate in this discussion, share their opinions and at each reporting stage one of them gave the summary. I was very impressed by this and very happy to see it happen.
During Minister Best’s meeting I sat at a side table just to listen and observe. At the City meeting, I participated in a small group and ultimately reported on it’s behalf towards the end of the session. The group I participated in at the City consultation had an interesting mix to it. I was one of six participants, two were volunteers with a religiously based, but non-denominational charity, two participants worked for a social services agency, I and the other individual were both students. The other student was involved with an advocacy campaign on poverty alleviation, and in fairness, I am involved in politics in both partisan and non partisan ways. We however were fairly balanced and focused our conversations more on people we’ve met, experiences we were aware of and solutions as we see it. No one was particularly driven by anything but the compelling facts each of us brought from our different backgrounds. When I was asked to report on behalf of my group, I initially declined by saying “the night is young“, but opted to in the third round of reporting. We spent a few minutes making sure I had everything in my notes before I spoke, mindful of the need to ensure the conversation, not my own passions were reflected.
The CASSA meeting was probably the best attended and the most informative of all. I have to admit, I was only able to stay for the first half of the agenda as I had to be at work for 9pm. CASSA had done some previous consultations with its member agencies and determined the four main issues that relate to poverty and assembled an excellent panel of individuals within the South Asian community that deal with these issues on the ground on a daily basis. The main thrust behind the CASSA meeting was a need to ensure that the South Asian community is actively participating in the poverty reduction consultations that some of the more unique challenges facing this community are also addressed.
At all three meetings representatives from poverty reduction advocacy organizations handed out pamphlets with their recommendations on what the government ought to do to alleviate poverty, something I found informative certainly. At CASSA’s meeting member organizations also had some brochures present, which really showed some of the quality work they do to ensure among other things, labour standards are known to workers who are prodominately new Canadians.
The common themes that came out of the three meetings include:
These are in no particular order. I think trying to order the reforms required to reduce poverty would make properly ordering the sides of a Rubik’s cube seem easy.
Housing – The discussion was mainly focussed on the need to create affordable, livable housing in our city. Particularly from the CASSA meeting there was a discussion about hidden homelessness and multiple families living in a dwelling intended for a single family. It was a good point that needed to be made because as was said at the meeting, it is something that is often justified away and therefore never really addressed.
Minimum Wage and Income – In general all meetings called on minimum wage increases to a more livable wage. There were some differences of opinion in how fast the minimum wage ought to increase and at what point can the increases stop, level out or adjust to inflation.
Improved Social Assistance – Social assistance was a major part of all discussions. The primary focus was the inadequacies in the amount of social assistance available to those who require various forms of assistance. Barriers to moving off assistance were also mentioned due to the claw back structure as well as opposition to the cutting of the back-to-school allowances and winter clothes allowances to social assistance recipients. Many called on the government to at least restore the cuts Harris made in 1995 (approximately 22%) and adjust it for inflation from 1995 to 2008 and moving forward.
Childcare – Childcare came up repeatedly as a major challenge particularly to low income single parents. Two stories that touched me came out of discussions on child care. A social worker talked about the pregnant teens she works with and advocates for and the challenges of keeping them in school during their pregnancies. She told us that a handful of high school graduates she has been working with were accepted to college or university, but the costs of child care in some cases would keep them from being able to attend. This should not happen. Another story came from a single mother with two children who is pursuing her Masters at University and is aware that when she graduates she will crash into a major financial wall. Her biggest fear was what would happen when she lost her childcare subsidy, not to mention her rent subsidy or the fact that she’ll need to begin paying off a mammoth student loan that in many places could disguise itself as a mortgage.
Heath Care – In more than one meeting the government was called on to end the 3 month waiting period for persons new to Ontario being eligible for OHIP coverage.
Recognizing Foreign Credentials – Particularly as a way to address poverty in communities with high rates of recent immigration the government was called on to make it far easier for foreign credentials to be recognized. The reality for many well educated professionals who immigrate to Canada is search of a new life, find their skills not recognized and then being put in a position of working either through temp agencies or at low paying jobs that do not allow them to sustain their families.
There were other ideas that came out of the conversations as well and of those many involved social programs, but were not necessarily linked directly to poverty alleviation.
I learned quite a bit attending these meetings. In many cases they helped me refine my views a bit, and in some cases re-affirm what I’ve already held to be the best approach to poverty alleviation. Like many Ontarians I am hopeful that the provincial government will come out with a meaningful report with recommendations that will do more than paper over some of the major issues surrounding poverty in this province.
Tags: Poverty, Scarborough, Scarborough Guildwood
Leave a Reply