How about a little ethics with our politics?

Many governments have an ethics commissioner. Generally, this person’s job is to ensure that public officials avoid conflicts of interest (that they don’t use their position for personal or financial gain).

What an ethics commissioner does not do is give an ethical evaluation of the impacts of budgets, policies, and government choices. That’s up to the public. It’s up to us. But to do so, we need to pay attention to what governments are doing. We need to ask: What patterns and priorities are emerging in their policy choices?

Consider how some of the lowest-income people in Ontario are being impacted by government policies:

• First, at a time when many companies aren’t hiring due to trade disruptions, and costs are soaring, Ontario Works’ basic rate (social assistance) is stuck at $733 monthly. That amount hasn’t changed since 2018. In those intervening years, inflation has eroded the purchasing power of $733 by more than 20 %. What does one have to do to survive on so little money? And how could one possibly get job-ready when one is just trying to survive?

• Second, in June, provincial funding for Ontario’s last eight publicly funded supervised consumption sites will end. Will these closures lead to more overdose deaths and increased health-care costs?

• Third, given the provincial government’s closure of these supervised consumption sites, and the earlier push to get people out of encampments, one would imagine that the government would be “all in” when it comes to supporting programs such as London’s House of Hope.  

London, Ontario’s House of Hope set to close after province denies funding.

House of Hope has 48 units and has been supporting people with physical and mental health issues, including addiction. In less than three years of operation it has proven to be effective in providing the wrap-around services that help people stay off the street. It has also reduced pressure on shelters, hospitals, and emergency services. And yet, so far, House of Hope has been unsuccessful in securing $1.37 million in ongoing provincial funding. Without this funding, House of Hope will be forced to close when its funding runs out in November. And how many similar stories are occurring in communities across Ontario? In your community?

The political conversation has been predictable. The city council blames the province for cutting funding. The provincial government lists all the money it spends on such services province-wide, and insists the city needs to better allocate its money. Who does one believe? And is there any point to the “blaming game” other than skirting responsibility?

Might the people of Ontario make a difference by taking an ethical stance?  

It’s just not right for people who live on the lowest incomes to continually be the target of insufficient funding and loss of services, be it OW, safe consumption sites, or wrap-around services. When we have programs that work, we need to fund them.

-Sister Sue Wilson, CSJ | Executive Director, Office for Systemic Justice

Image: Lady Justice statue, Philippe Oursel@ourselp/Unsplash

A Call to Protect Refugee Health Coverage in Canada

The Sisters of St. Joseph are concerned about how proposed changes to the federal health care program for newly arrived refugees will have negative impacts on refugees, refugee claimants, and health care systems across Canada.

Our Office for Systemic Justice has sent the following letter to the federal Minister of Health and the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship Canada/IRCC to raise these concerns.

Read the letter here.

Protecting the Wellbeing of Water: A Letter to Premier Ford

Ontario's water sources are under stress from climate change, land development, and population growth. That's why water permits (an important tool in assessing, monitoring and managing water sources) are important. They can help Ontario to pursue economic development within a wider vision that protects the wellbeing of water.

We invite you to read the attached letter from our Federation Office for Systemic Justice to Premier Ford expressing concerns about water and reminding the government that “it is more important than ever to have ongoing and careful assessments of the frequency and quantity of water-taking permits [which] requires strong structures for tracking, evaluating, and managing cumulative withdrawals across water sources…”.

Read the letter here.

-Sister Sue Wilson, csj

Image: David Becker @beckerworks/Unsplash

World Day for Social Justice

On this World Day of Social Justice, I've decided to highlight a troubling practice at the heart of capitalism, that is, the practice of socializing losses and privatizing gains. While it is certainly not the only inequitable pattern in capitalism, this flow of money from the government (public) to private corporations and wealthy citizens underlies many social injustices. For instance, it undermines the government's capacity to create strong social protections such as robust systems for health care, pharma care, dental care, education, child care, senior care, and work inspections.  

Here's the thing. Privatizing profits and socializing losses means that a company's profit earnings can go to shareholders while passing part (or all) of the losses to society (to taxpayers).  It's a practice that often occurs through government interventions such as bailouts, subsidies or cost-sharing arrangements for infrastructure projects where the public takes on the risks of any losses. Some examples include subsidies to the oil sector, the government paying for environmental clean-ups, and financial supports to banks during the 2008-2009 Financial Crisis.

Let's take a quick look at the Financial Crisis. Although Canadian banks remained relatively stable, the federal government still provided billions of dollars in support by purchasing mortgage assets from banks. This action seemed to be based on the assumption that allowing banks to collapse would cause widespread economic downturns and have much worse impacts on the working population than the rescues. However, the fact that banks continued to pay dividends to shareholders and award executive bonuses during this time, seems to suggest that this was about more than simply lessening any impact on the working population.

Maybe it's time we all do a little more thinking about how our economy works. Then we might be motivated to act for change.

-Sister Sue Wilson, CSJ

Image: Greg Rosenke @greg_rosenke/Unsplash

Our Office for Systemic Justice: A Letter to Premier Doug Ford

Our Office for Systemic Justice cites ethical concerns with legislation aimed at dismantling encampments.

December 9, 2024

Dear Premier Ford,

Recently, you proposed legislation to grant municipalities and police expanded powers to dismantle homeless encampments.  You also indicated your willingness to use the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms if courts block the implementation of the legislation. You indicated your intention to give municipalities "the tools they need" to restore public order and safety, including measures to enhance penalties for trespassing, explicitly ban open drug use in public spaces, and enhance enforcement capabilities.

While no one thinks that encampments are an adequate solution, there are significant ethical concerns with this proposed legislation and, more widely, with this approach to homelessness: 

• Despite your government's promise of new funding to increase shelter beds for people being removed from dismantled encampments, it is clear that crowded shelters are part of the problem, not a long-term solution. Many people prefer living on the street, or in parks, because they find shelters unsafe, stressful, and lacking in privacy. In addition, overnight shelters leave people with nowhere to go during the day. Furthermore, many studies have demonstrated that funding overnight shelters is more expensive than funding deeply affordable and supportive housing options.

• The notwithstanding clause should not be evoked to limit the rights and freedoms of people in vulnerable situations, particularly when there are more effective options for addressing the issues. The answers to homelessness are clear (see recommendations below). All that is lacking is the political will to invest in effective solutions. This is, at heart, an ethical issue for our society.

 Recommendations:

• An adequate response to homelessness requires the government to address the roots causes of homelessness. This means recognizing safe, adequate, and deeply affordable housing as a human right, and funding it as such. It also means providing supportive housing for people who require it.
  

• We know that providing housing is cheaper than providing emergency shelters, but the problem is the steep upfront capital costs for housing. This means that the effective solutions we all seek require significant and sustained investments from all levels of government. It also requires tackling other systemic issues such as punitively low social assistance rates, an inadequate minimum wage, and insufficient mental health and addiction resources. 

We urge you to be attentive to the Homeless Hub's Report on Encampments, which outlines a human rights approach. See Overview of Encampments Across Canada: A Right to Housing Approach.  The report identifies key principles which would urge your government to recognize the residents of homeless encampments as rights holders, and to engage them in meaningful ways to explore alternatives to evictions. These rights-based principles also require governments to design and invest in long-term solutions, as suggested in the recommendations above. 

Sincerely,

Sue Wilson, CSJ | Executive Director, Office for Systemic Justice

Federation of Sisters of St. Joseph of Canada

c.c. Minister Paul Calandra

Image of Homeless Jesus sculpture by Ashwini Chaudhary(Monty)