FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE GREAT RECESSION IN NIAGARA

Have you read the news lately?

The Bank of Canada, The RBC and TD Canada Trust have arrived at a consensus that Canada is now in a recession. or at least heading for one.  Bank of Canada is considering slashing its bank rate again, following many prior reductions in order to spur more investment.  Polls are suggesting that most Canadians believe we never left the Great Recession.  That Poll, conducted by Pollara states that more than fifty percent of Canadians in mid-2014 believed the economy was shrinking.  However, our Finance Minister Joe Oliver refuses to believe we are in a recession, as his government is slated to go to the polls this fall.  This is despite both private and public sector economists warning that we are either already in a recession, or we are facing one very soon.

One would think that our lower dollar would help resurrect our ailing manufacturing sector, which prior to the 1990's was the main private sector producer of middle-class jobs.  But it seems my spider sense, and those of many others, sees this is not happening.  As extraction, refining and transportation in the oil and gas sector is facing major competition in the South, Alberta is for the first time in many years sliding into a recession as well.  This is being felt by Canadian people across the country, both in their perception of their own economic opportunities, as well as economic growth in general.  For the first time, in May 2015, Albertans went to the polls and elected their first NDP government, after years of iron-clad conservative rule.  This party has also been leading in the polls federally as well.   More than fifty percent of Canadians view the NDP as the best effective change from the current government.  Mulcair's party continues to enjoy a steady lead over the other two main parties.

Recessions affect all of us.  Traditionally, our governments have been cost conscious and tight fisted when it came to spending on programs to relieve the impacts of a recession.  While many on the right would argue that governments cannot spend their way out of a recession,but conversely making cuts and tightening up program spending on vulnerable communities does not 'cure' a recession either.   Over the past few years, more and more commentators and even wealthy business people have come forward to protest what we all knew already:  the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and more and more people are saying this is not a good thing.  Nick Hanauer, a billionaire investor stated in his TED Talk video that when communities don't have consumers to spend their money, business at all levels suffers.  Tax cuts for the rich and cuts to social programs supporting the lower income has not ever led to more and better jobs.  In fact, the less money the public has to spend at small businesses in their communities, the less likely these business will hire additional staff.

This issue has been brought to the fore by the Occupy movement that claimed the 1% is taking from the further impoverished 99%.  Hugh Segal, former Conservative Senator, has been raising the spectre once again of a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians.  This would mean creating an income floor that nobody falls below to ensure that nobody lives in poverty and can meet their basic needs.  He critiques the current welfare measures applied today, which do more to discourage work and crush incentive than they lift anybody out of poverty, while citing an unconditional guaranteed annual income for all Canadians will increase local spending, as well as eliminate disincentives for Canadians to accept paid work.  While discussions about a guaranteed annual income (GAI) still need to be focused, issues around amounts required per person, per family or household, as well as what - if any - clawbacks would exist - as the recipients of the GAI begin to increase their paid work - need to be finalized to ensure we are not replacing one bad welfare system with another one.

At the same time, last Sunday a referendum was held in Greece, in which 61% of those who voted elected to say NO to further austerity measured imposed on them by the European Union, European Central Bank and the IMF, from which bridge funding has been provided over the past five years and has not yet been renewed.  Greeks have lived the effects of austerity, enduring deep cuts in pensions, public sector wages and program spending, leaving many people without enough funds to pay for their basic needs.  There have been public suicides, business closures and large public protests, which led to Greece electing a far left government that agreed with its people: austerity has to end.  Greece is in a difficult spot, not necessarily a result of profligacy, but a result of many factors (e.g. poor enforcement of tax collections, insufficient value added tax or VAT, previous attempts at cuts, as well as pressures resulting from having an economy and currency controlled by others -- countries with more stabilized funding and a significant resource base).  More austerity is not going to cure Greece, nor is kicking them out of the "euro: either.  These next few weeks are going to prove interesting as Greece's new government attempts to work with its European partners and creditors to get a plan to get itself out of this mess.

In Canada, our right wing has constantly pushed for further austerity measures on its people; in particular, people who are most vulnerable.  I don't understand how cutting the amounts people get in unemployment insurance, disability and welfare allowances is going to create jobs, or get these people into stable, middle class positions/  I have witnesses the effects of this philosophy over the past ten to fifteen years and have only seen a downward drift in wages, in business confidence and a noticeable spike in social problems (e.g. family breakdown, mental illness, hate crimes, etc.)/  People talk about not having enough to eat and to pay for their housing in the same month, so how would it be possible for them to spend any money at their local restaurant, movie house or bowling alley?  The downward trend is being accompanied by the disappearance of manufacturing jobs and transition to other types of less labour intensive industries, such as the knowledge sector, personal services and to some extent, financial services.  Many jobs are also being automated, leaving many more people out of work now or in the future ...  . a future vision of self-driving cars, cell phone apps, e-mail and video communications, and so forth, eliminate many jobs as we speak.  A recent article in The Atlantic entitled "A World Without Work" hypothesizes further social breakdown and economic crashes if our policy makers are not cognizant about leading interventions to make this transition smoother for all concerned and again, raises the spectre of a GAI.

As the owner of a small legal practice in Niagara, I know that if I were to remain successful and grow my business, as in hiring new people, I need more clients.  That means, I need more people who have discretionary funds to pay my office to assist them in various legal matters.  If government austerity policies continue to shrink the pocketbooks of the middle class, who remain our biggest customer, my business would not be able to function, nor would any other business - apart from discount grocery stores, second hand clothing shops and low cost rentals.  As more people fall into this decline, the demand for these basics will only go up, while supply is limited.  Many anti-poverty spokespersons, most of whom have never been poor themselves, are asked what is needed, their first response is "affordable housing".  While I agree housing is an issue, it is a symptom not the cause of the sorry state of affairs we are in now.  Most people do not want to live with the rules, restrictions and traps offered by 'rent geared to income' housing, while others would like to hang onto the homes they have.  The notion of building more social housing as a salve for poverty's ills is very limited to those that want to and manage to get to the top of extensive wait lists, while others further down the list or those that do not wish to live in social housing are left out.  Those in RGI housing tend to remain in RGI housing, as establishing oneself or re-entering the labour force from social benefits is penalized.

An attack on poverty has to start with income; that is, income that does not squeeze incentive from those in receipt of it, or stigmatize those that need it or who apply for it.  Housing markets that cater to the general population can and will adjust their prices to match the "market" meaning that prices will eventually rise or fall with average income of those that demand the commodity. This relates to talks the mainstream media has about a "housing bubble", which is when the price of housing becomes too high for most people, the prices will naturally fall to a lower equilibrium.  Some economists fear this, as many people have taken advantage of low interest rates and have over-mortgaged themselves, where if the rates ever go up or they re-enter the market, they may find themselves locked out.  When prices go back to equilibrium it may not necessarily be a bad thing, especially as it will bring more renters into the ownership market, leaving more rental housing available to those that need them. The situation as it stands now is wage controls (esp. the "social wage") without price moderation, which is shutting out the poor not only from the economy, but from their communities as well.  Shelter portions of OW and ODSP were last deemed to be adequate at some point in the 1970's, but certainly are insufficient in today's market.  These things tend to segregate a large part of our community, which has been repeatedly found in any academic study I've read, to be polarizing and dysfunctional for the people involved (and with enough people in these situations, there can be a chronic recession - much like we feel today in Niagara region).

We have a federal election coming up.  While I cannot tell you who to vote for, but please do study your candidates' positions on all issues of importance to you and choose the candidate you believe will best get Niagara out of this recession.  Most important -- register to vote, and learn what you need in terms of ID, as some of this had changed.  For agencies and others who work with low income communities, please try to ensure that people that need some type of identification can obtain this identification before they will need it to go out to vote.  Promotion of citizenship at this very crucial time is vitally important if we are ever going to achieve stronger communities.

A CRITIC WITH REAL LIVED EXPERIENCE AND THIS ELECTION

Ontario's Premier Kathleen Wynne just produced a budget, tabled it in the legislature and then simply walked down the Hall to the office of Lieutenant Governor David Onley to issue the writs to dissolve the Legislature and hold a general election on June 12, 2014.

I am a cynic when it comes to politics because the kinds of people who get into these decision-making positions don't have a clue as to what their proposals would look like on the ground.  Many of them believe people in their communities are good-hearted and empathetic towards those who are less fortunate, but many people like me have met mostly the exceptions.  This is why I try to communicate with politicians to help them understand why many of their good intentions go wrong when they hit the ground.

This budget that was just handed down produces mixed results for people receiving social assistance and more corporate welfare to the tune of $2.5 billion dollars to favourite companies in the assumption that jobs will be created, although that assumption is being challenged. Corporate welfare just enriches the company's bottom line and certainly does not keep companies in Ontario, as we've seen with Caterpillar, John Deere, U.S. Steel, among many other companies that picked up stakes and left, while paying company executives rich bonuses with OUR money.  All the same while, successive governments have put more and more rules in place to keep people receiving social assistance benefits, or in the case of ODSP -- even being married to somebody on ODSP -- from ever escaping poverty.  These government see no problem with throwing millions of dollars at successful companies to ostensibly create jobs, yet they prohibit somebody trying to start a business while in receipt of ODSP (or being married to somebody on ODSP) from hiring people to help them grow the business ... To me, if a government cared about jobs, they would not care where they are coming from, but then again, they want those trying to start a business instead to be fodder for free or low cost labour for employers that do not seem to want to help their employees get a leg up either.  As a friend of mine once told me, "Somebody has to be poor".  But what if I don't want to be that person?  There is virtually no help for anybody that wants to get out of poverty, but plenty of "support:" to keep people in it.

Included in this budget are tax measures to help promote the donation of food to food banks, among other "incentives" to keep the poverty trap in place.  To me, government should look at itself and find ways to eliminate the need for food banks to begin with, and not just up the ante so that more year old, tainted, rotten and/or sodium enmeshed foodstuffs make it into the diets of already famished and compromised individuals. With all of these convoluted tax breaks, tax cuts to profitable corporations and continued efforts at corporate welfare, in my view, it would be more productive and CHEAPER just to give people the monies they need to go purchase food for themselves and their families the same way other people do, such as at the supermarket by having the means to do so.  However, it seems that our society is so enthralled to maintain the distance and "otherness" between themselves and the poor, that these band aid solutions continue to be the only ones offered, despite their lack of success in achieving any prosperity.

In particular, I am angry at the NDP Party.  I am not angry at the NDP Party for being the Opposition and for trying to do good while they continued to prop up the Liberal minority over the past few years, but I am angry as to why they decided to vote down the budget.  True, some of the reasons given are darn good reasons to vote against the Liberal Party that seems to want to continue with their austerity agenda on the backs of those that can least afford it, but the NDP (or at least this particular member) expressed anger and disappointment that the Lankin and Sheikh dog and pony show was not implemented, despite the fact the Liberals backed down on its more negative recommendations such as merging Ontario Works and ODSP, which would in essence put people with disabilities back on welfare.  I gave up on the Conservatives because they actually not only put a policy paper together to further degrade people on assistance, but actually put forth a private member's bill to merge the two programs.

The reasoning behind the merger, say its proponents is that they believe municipalities are better equipped to know the local labour market and make connections.  Are they really?  In Niagara, I was forced to attend a "participation agreement" meeting a few years ago with one of their workers and all they had on offer were low paying, insecure and no future jobs that required little or no skills.  I have no interest in working on a farm, working in retail, working in janitorial or other similar jobs where they come and they go and there are usually no benefits, or opportunities for advancement.  If I did not have high school or even did not complete all the university or college courses that I did, I might think differently, but this one size fits all approach is a non starter with me.  Maybe they might be willing to reimburse me for all my tuition, opportunity costs of going to further education and so forth, before trying to assume one can work in a job like that. Maybe politicians should work in these jobs, then perhaps, they might start to understand why this is also a non-starter for many of us. If I want a job through the municipality, they can get me on that pays a salary commensurate with the Sunshine List like the jobs I am trained for but cannot get because I do not drive. 

Further, the Conservatives have not given up on the idea of debit cards for people receiving any kind of social assistance, meaning they would only be able to purchase food on them, which means or implies that the "housing portion" would match the maximums that currently exist like $475 for a single person on ODSP to find housing in Ontario, when the average rent is over $800 a month.  Unless the Conservatives have plans to force every landlord in Ontario to charge only the social assistance maximums for rent, then this idea is a non starter.  Then their next challenge is to force all banks that carry mortgages of people on ODSP, as well as utility companies to keep their costs aligned with social assistance maximums.  Further, people should have the right to spend their money as they choose.  To deny them this right, does not teach them anything, other than the idea that they are less of a citizen than others.  I would not hesitate to challenge such a policy under human rights and the Charter if it is ever proposed.

There are no jobs in this economy.  This is a reality that every politician of every stripe seems to be in denial of.  Even when the "good jobs" open up, it is more about who you know than what you know that opens that door for you.  If you don't drive, especially because of a medical condition, almost all jobs where I live are not open.  Self-employment is open, but unfortunately those that are still caught up in the system are denied access to escape poverty in any way possible through self-employment.  Some politicians in my own region believe we don't need transit, for example, between cities, because in their minds, "everybody drives" and they themselves have three or four cars parked in their driveway.  I am now researching all the politicians in this area and will report on who they are to the best extent to what is available in the media, as well as what they can open up about.  I am not saying all politicians are mind numbing and stupid, but if one does wish to run for public office, they should know already how to put themselves into the shoes of the other and make the changes necessary, regardless of what so called "public opinion" looks like (as quite often, especially around social assistance and poverty issues, public opinion is poorly informed).

When I fought for public transit between cities in this region, I received a lot of hate letters from people, almost all of whom I assume drive and will probably drive themselves to their own grave site when they leave this world.  A few political types also chimed in about how "nobody" uses the buses and why don't people just move closer to their jobs?  Hello?  I am self-employed.  I work all over the region, so does that mean I should pick up stakes and move every week or so?  The chime of the ignorant is so common in this region that it makes me go back to the days when All in the Family and Good Times were popular and the popularization of the welfare myths and racial inferiority were acceptable.  This region epitomizes these myths and there is very little out there to challenge them.  I am often very depressed because I need to feel I belong somewhere, and in this region thus far, I have been in difficulty of finding anywhere to belong.

I am too well educated to belong in the so called low income population, who are unfortunately mythologized to be under-educated and lack skills.  I am not visibly impaired to belong comfortably to Niagara's disability population, which comprises mostly of those with physical handicaps.  I am not part of the middle class here in the region that apparently incessantly speak about their next vacation, their son or daughter's graduation and how they will be helping them pay for university or college, or how they intend to put a pool in the backyard of their house or have guests over the following weekend.  I don't feel I belong anywhere ... but is there a program or an agency or anybody in this region that can help people feel they belong or be put into a position where they feel they belong somewhere?  Of course not!  That is why I don't use agencies, because the agencies also do not seem to see beyond the mythologies we are all fed and many of those that work in them are people who have had scant direct and personal experience living in poverty, with a disability or any kind of long-term stigmatizing situation.  They never had to dig themselves up from the bottom.

Politicians do not come to my neighbourhood because only about 15% of eligible voters vote where I live. To me, if people choose not to vote, they DO become part of the problem.  As somebody who usually works the elections, I know by polling area who and how many vote, although we don't know who voted for whom.  Politicians know and receive socioeconomic data, employment data, educational data, age data and so forth, about every single polling district.  This data is comprised in part from the Census and Statistics Canada, as well as through surveys sponsored by the political parties themselves.  In the way, politicians are human and they will sell to those who will actually vote.  If it appears that those in the middle-class and higher are the ones that do most of the voting, then there is no reason whatsoever to cater to those living in poverty or the working class.  I do know that even theoretically if every low income person that is eligible to vote comes out to vote, there would be a major shift in our politicians' thinking, from all political parties ... not just the ones we think are most supportive.  After all, it was Mike Harris and the Conservatives that moved the equality of gays and lesbians most forward during the 1990's in all their legislative initiatives.  Why?  Because the gay/lesbian/bisexual/trans community votes ... in blocks.

At the same time, the poor vote in the fewest numbers.  To further their plight, the poor tend to eat their own. In a group, I can speak to several individuals who identify themselves as being poor.  A few of them will always have somebody, whether they be immigrants, whether they be sex trade workers, or refugees, who have it better than they all do, or they know a "friend of a friend of a friend" who somehow got onto ODSP without having any kind of disability whatsoever, while they themselves struggle on OW and have to fight to get on.  This kind of speech I call trash talk.  That trash talk has to stop.  If the poor community as a whole wants to see their needs met through the political system and their community, they have to stop the trash talk. Hudak attempted to separate unionized and non-unionized workers and public sector and private sector workers by trying to sell us a "right to work" bill that would effectively weaken unions.  Those not in unions supported the bill as they feel people in unions get "too much", while those in unions disliked the bill - and as a result, if this infighting would continue, any effectiveness of a pro-worker movement would be diminished. This is the same effect that occurs when poor people trash talk other poor people.

The third thing that poor people fail to do is organize.  There are too many poor people that are content to let the agencies speak for them.  I have nothing against the agencies, but the agencies do not speak directly for those living in poverty, although they often do have good ideas.  Much of their lobbying especially tough economic times, however, tends to be focused on keeping their agencies alive and funded, which may or may not be helpful for the people they work with.  That does not put another penny in the pocket of someone who is in deep poverty.  Especially anathemic to poor people's movement is the voice of the charitable sector, which hardly ever advocate to ask why people are poor, but to simply solicit more and more donations from the public.  The problem with this is that this detracts from the fight to improve the lot of people who are living in poverty.  Many members of the public stop caring about poverty issues given they have done "what they could" by donating to some food drive or the Salvation Army's Christmas drive.  

The work of these charities is done in good faith, of course ... but it does not lighten the load off the person living in poverty, as they still are not one single step closer to escaping the poverty dragon's jaw. The only solution is to get people to speak for themselves and to facilitate this work.  Agencies can lend people their boardrooms or their community meeting rooms to hold meetings to organize events.  Agencies can help these emerging associations apply for grant monies to pay for special events and leadership forums.  Agencies can become more inclusive, whereby they will examine their own practices and protocols so that barriers to governance and leadership within their own organizations are removed for those that want to join boards or become employed at the agency.  Agencies can also organize volunteers to assist their clients in getting out to vote by arranging for rides to the polls, or by providing them with information about each of the candidates that are running in their area.  If ID is an issue, identification workshops can be held to ensure that people have the proper ID to vote with.  I remember one time working for Elections Canada some of the barriers that owners of residential care homes threw at us to prevent their residents from voting, one of which boldly told us that none of their residents were mentally capable of voting.  I remember phoning the district returning officer who then spoke to the manager involved and they had to let us in to enumerate their residents, most of whom definitely did want to vote and were asking us how they can get to the polls.  Imagine if all poor and vulnerable people were able to get to the polls and vote.  To me, it would make a big difference in terms of political priorities, maybe not right away, but the shift will be felt for years to come.

Your thoughts?