Category: Blog

There is a particular policy story in Ontario that almost no one tells. Not because it is complicated. Not because the numbers are unclear.But because it happened slowly, silently, and to a group with almost no political voice. It is the story of 60–64 year-old single women on social assistance—once recognized as a special class, now effectively erased. The original design: Acknowledging structural vulnerability In 1983, under Premier Bill Davis, Ontario created a special pathway for older, non-disabled single women. They were allowed access to what was then a GAINS-related benefit structure—later folded into disability supports—despite not meeting strict disability criteria. This was not generosity. It was recognition. These were women often with fragmented work histories; frequently out of the labour force due to caregiving with limited pension accumulation and…

On July 22, 1995, The Honourable Ernie Eves announced that Ontario Works benefit rates would be cut by 21.6% as of October 1, 1995. Almost immediately, there was a huge fanfare and a massive blowback from the whole of the antipoverty community. The government defended their cuts by introducing ideas for recipients to buy food more cheaply by purchasing dented cans of  tuna at lower prices. They published a welfare diet that purported to show how a single person could survive for a month on less than $100 of a maximum monthly allowance of $520. They suspended assistance to people who quit or were fired from their jobs. They introduced a lifetime ban on receiving assistance for those convicted of welfare fraud. They introduced workfare. The fireworks were both bright…

Re-centering income adequacy without dividing the field Over the past two decades in Canada, the centre of gravity in poverty reduction has shifted. What was once anchored in income adequacy, social insurance, and benefit design has increasingly organized itself around three dominant domains: food security, housing, and financial empowerment — including campaigns for automatic tax filing. Income adequacy advocacy has faded and largely pixelated into these domains leaving a root cause - income adequacy - as a largely silent relic. People give to food banks, shelters and financial literacy concerns, and assume government is doing the same not realizing that incomes of the poor are in serial decline. The public no longer hears about it and assumes things are ok. That’s not the whole story but ‘advocacy pixelation’ is playing…

Each year, two remarkably revealing documents appear in Canada’s policy landscape: Maytree’s Social Assistance Summaries and Welfare in Canada.   At first glance these publications looks deceptively simple. They set out the basic welfare rates across provinces and territories and describe how much income someone receives under different household scenarios—single adults, couples, families with children, and people with disabilities. The summaries compare and contrast caseloads across Canada. The numbers are plain. The formats are accessible. The conclusions are uncomfortable. And almost inevitably, these documents attracts criticism re comparability of programs. Each province, after all, has different housing markets, different benefit structures, different supplements, and different policy histories. Comparing rates across jurisdictions, the argument goes, risks oversimplifying a complex landscape. That observation is true and it reminds us that since 1996…

In the first essay of this series, The Architecture of Advantage, I argued that Canada’s generational wealth patterns are often misunderstood. The public conversation focuses on cohorts — Boomers versus Millennials — when the real issue is policy architecture. The second essay, The Failure to Tax, examined a crucial part of that architecture: the long-standing decision not to tax certain forms of wealth, particularly housing gains and inheritances. But there is another layer that deserves attention. Over the past half century, Canada gradually allowed something unusual to happen. Housing quietly became the country’s largest retirement savings program. Not by legislation. Not by a design memo. But through the cumulative interaction of tax policy, credit expansion, and housing markets. The shift In the decades after the Second World War, retirement security…

“If we had placed very modest levies on inheritances, financial transactions, incremental capital gains, and profits in owner occupied dwellings, there would be lower deficits, a smaller debt burden, affordable homes, less frothy markets and therefore lower intergenerational inequality.The delicious irony is that the same families who opposed fair taxation in the past are composed of the same people who must now bankroll their sons and daughters to purchase the same homes and lifestyles that they fought to make unaffordable in the first instance.” Open Policy blog post, 2020 In the first essay in this series, The Architecture of Advantage, I argued that Canada’s generational wealth patterns are often misunderstood. The debate is usually framed as a cultural conflict — Boomers versus Millennials, older homeowners versus younger renters. But that…

Toronto has developed a unique civic strength: it excels at conducting repeated consultations on strategies and visions. This process has delivered tangible results in areas such as the Eglinton Crosstown and improved snow removal. However,  Toronto’s track record on long-term social strategies and structural reform remains uncertain. We provide six examples below where processes replaced outcomes. But before we enumerate them, it is important to acknowledge the accomplishments and milestones that the City has achieved.  Toronto's accomplishments This year’s Toronto City Budget makes targeted investments in the services that matter most to communities across our city. It includes over $30 million in new and enhanced funding for key programs. There are also important increases to the Rent Bank to help prevent evictions and strengthened support for RentSafeTO to improve housing conditions. Student…

Every Saturday, readers of The Globe and Mail are invited into a curious genre of Canadian journalism: the Financial Facelift. The formula is reassuringly familiar. A couple—usually in their late 50s or early 60s—appears with an impressive financial résumé. They have a paid-off house, substantial retirement savings, perhaps a cottage, and children who are either launched or nearly so. Their mortgage is gone, their careers have peaked, and their financial anxieties revolve around questions like whether to convert an RRSP early or delay withdrawals to preserve Old Age Security. Enter the expert panel or expert planner. Within a few paragraphs, the couple’s financial future is gently massaged into shape. The planners recommend some tax-efficient withdrawals, perhaps a bit of income smoothing, and the careful timing of CPP and OAS. Travel…

From workhouses to welfare rules to the silent architecture of separation  “You’ve ruined the community,” Ford reportedly told the facility’s staff. “You can’t destroy a community like this. People have worked 30 years for their home…My heart goes out to kids with autism. But no one told me they’d be leaving the house. If it comes down to it, I’ll buy the house myself and resell it.” “It’s turned into a nightmare for this community,” Ford said. “It’s been turned upside down.” - Doug Ford 2014 The backlash was immediate. But the impulse was ancient. Help them — somewhere else. Margaret Hillyard Little documented the overt version in No Car, No Radio, No Liquor Permit. Welfare recipients were inspected. Radios restricted. Cars forbidden. Relief came with humiliation. Assistance came with…

Turn on daytime television in Canada and a familiar vignette appears. A person pauses during an ordinary activity—watering plants, sitting at the kitchen table, watching grandchildren play. They decide to make a responsible phone call. On the other end is a calm, reassuring voice. Almost anyone can qualify, the caller is told. No medical exam. Just a few lifestyle questions. The caller smiles. Relief spreads across their face. Soon the conversation turns to the possible payout—up to $250,000, perhaps more, available quickly if death is unexpected. The caller imagines what the money might do: cover funeral costs, help the family, pay for retirement planning, clear debts, leave something behind. Then comes the price: As little as a few dollars a month. The caller’s surprise is almost theatrical. That’s ‘less than…