Maytree Conversations

For the last 20 years, the Caledon Institute of Social Policy has played an essential role as an independent and critical voice, providing rich, evidence-based research and analysis to inform public opinion and policy. Its recent 20th anniversary celebration presented a look back, with a look forward, at Canadian public policy.

Caledon’s three principle policy consultants – Ken Battle, Michael Mendelson, and Sherri Torjman – presented a look back, with a look forward, at Canadian public policy. Speakers also included Caledon’s founder Alan Broadbent and Environics President Michael Adams. A wrap-up address by Caledon Board member Tom Barber ended the day.

Videos of these powerful presentations are now available below.

Alan Broadbent: Welcome and Introduction

Ken Battle: Architecture of Federal Income Security in Canada, with a commentary by Ken Jackson

Sherri Torjman: Social Policy Challenges for Canada, with a commentary by André Picard

Michael Mendelson: Is Canada (Still) a Fiscal Union? With a commentary by Richard Simeon

Michael Adams: Datacide: Policy in the Dark

Tom Barber: Wrap-Up

Related:

• Transcript of introductory remarks by Alan Broadbent, Chairman of Caledon
• The next 20 years of policy in Canada – 20th anniversary presentations by Ken Battle, Sherri Torjman and Michael Mendelson
• Five Good Ideas about Policy with Sherri Torjman
• Caledon rescues data

For the last 20 years, the Caledon Institute of Social Policy has played an essential role as an independent and critical voice, providing rich, evidence-based research and analysis to inform public opinion and policy. Its recent 20th anniversary celebration presented a look back, with a look forward, at Canadian public policy. What follows is an excerpt of the introductory remarks by Alan Broadbent, Chairman of Caledon and its co-founder along with Ken Battle, Caledon’s President.

It was more than twenty years ago that Ken and I began to discuss setting up what became The Caledon Institute of Social Policy. I had been following Ken’s work at the National Council of Welfare, because the private foundation my wife Judy and I had established 30 years ago, The Maytree Foundation, was interested in poverty issues.

Ken and I had our first Caledon related meeting in the late spring of 1991, at a point where we were both thinking about transition. After a significant period of time at the Council, where he had created a powerful voice, Ken was looking for ways to broaden and deepen the work he was doing.

At Maytree, we had been funding efforts to ameliorate the symptoms of poverty in Canada, but were feeling we should be doing more to deal with the causes of poverty, which led us to an interest in the most powerful instrument available, public policy. I began to look around at who was doing the best analysis and commentary on social policy, and realized that it was the work Ken had been producing at the Council.

At that initial discussion, and in the ones in the following weeks and months, we found that we had a remarkable degree of agreement on what Caledon should look like, and what it should do. And, over the 20 ensuing years, they have pretty much remained intact.

First, and most importantly, Caledon would do high quality work, starting with data and working toward conclusions. This sounds like an obvious approach for an organization doing public policy analysis and commentary, but it is remarkable how many of them mitigate their aspirations to quality by beginning with conclusions and finding data to back them up. Ken’s dedication has been to study data, discern patterns, and create knowledge.

That dedication to letting the data speak has underpinned Caledon’s non-partisan, non-aligned approach. Caledon has both critics and friends across the spectrum, and its work does not fit neatly into a traditional left-right analysis. Much of the work has been myth-breaking, challenging preconceptions of people from various perspectives. Some, such as the exposure of “bracket-creep” in the tax system has been popular among those who have been less enthralled with the design of the Child Tax Benefit, for example. Caledon has been an advisor to governments of different stripes across Canada, and remains prepared to be helpful to anyone with a sincere interest in what is actually happening in social policy, and in developing better policy.

Another early agreement was that Caledon would be solution oriented. Much of social policy writing and commentary in Canada is part of what I call a culture of complaint, bent on describing problems and assigning blame. Some of it offers solutions, but not of a very practical nature. Our early ambition was to offer policy alternatives. It would be necessary in analyzing a problem to describe issues and problems, but we did not want to stop there, and Caledon never has. Whether it was with the broad brush of policy advice to the next Prime Minister during an election campaign, or the finely crafted recommendations on a National Child Tax Benefit, Caledon has worked at offering practical solutions. One observer has noted that what separates Caledon from many other policy organizations is that its work is “policy ready.”

Caledon has had a broad concept of social policy. It is not simply something the federal government does, but is generated by governments, civil society organizations, corporations, and citizens. Caledon has also had a role in shaping the vocabulary of social policy. Ken’s infusion of the word “stealth” is the most obvious, but a review of Caledon’s work with an ear to current discourse will show the strong Caledon influence on the way people talk about social policy.

Another design element of Caledon was a desire to influence the public agenda. Ken had no desire to sequester himself from the issues of the day, but at the same time did not have a desire to get lost in the din of public discourse. Caledon has chosen its issues carefully. It has chosen those issues where it has or can develop expertise, can produce high quality work, can discern policy alternatives, and can be heard.

And finally, we both agreed that Caledon should be lean, nimble, and independent. That independence extends to maintaining an honourable distance from its primary funder, Maytree. And we remain lean in our governance structure, with a three person board I chair including initially Tom Barber and Paul Gallagher, and Colin Robertson who has replaced Paul in recent years.

As I look back on these twenty years, I find it remarkable at how durable and successful our design has been. Caledon has produced a remarkably high level of quality in its work, and it has produced an astounding amount of work. People who receive Caledon publications often believe that there must be more than a dozen researchers at work. They are astonished to discover how lean and virtual Caledon has remained.

Caledon is, first, Ken Battle, one of Canada’s signal intellectual treasures. Perhaps the smartest thing he has done is to attract Sherri Torjman, who has been principally responsible for broadening both the research program and the community reach of Caledon. Sherri has done groundbreaking work on a range of issues, including disability policy, aging and care giving, and community capacity building.

Caledon was strengthened immensely when Michael Mendelson became Senior Scholar. Michael is a rare individual who has been both a top public servant in the governments of Manitoba and Ontario and a leading economist and social policy thinker.

The other talented members of the Caledon staff are Anne Makhoul, who creates Caledon’s community stories, the short papers written with and on behalf of communities to help them share their trials and triumphs, which reach a broad audience across the country and internationally.

And Melanie Burston is the able administrator who keeps track of the finances and keeps Caledon running productively.

I would like at this point to pay tribute to some people who have made contributions to our work, and who have unfortunately died over the last two decades.

Stan McRoberts was an economist and senior finance official in the federal government, one of Ken’s first government colleagues, and a friend of Ken and me. It was Stan who recommended that I talk to Ken about Maytree’s interest in policy, and who played an early role in Caledon’s development. Stan remained a great supporter of our work over the years.

Katharine Pearson was Program Manager at the J.W. McConnell Family Foundation who initially contacted Caledon to carry out a study on respite for caregivers. That request marked the beginning of Caledon’s policy work on caregiving.

Caledon also had a long-standing relationship with Katharine (and McConnell president Tim Brodhead) around a pan-Canadian initiative called Vibrant Communities, created and led by Paul Born of the Tamarack Institute. Vibrant Communities was a ten-year project in which 14 Canadian cities joined in a learning partnership to find local solutions to reduce poverty. Katherine was central to Vibrant Communities, and remained a close colleague and supporter of Caledon.

David Woodsworth was a Professor at McGill University and Director of its School of Social Work from 1966-1976. He followed Caledon’s work closely and would always send comments on Caledon papers, sometimes with a critique as to what more was needed and always with policy proposals of his own. He never failed to pass along words of support about keeping up the good work and fighting the good fight on behalf of Canadians living in poverty.

Tom Kent was one of the chief architects of postwar Canadian social policy. He played a key role in shaping the policies 50 years ago as Policy Secretary to the Prime Minister and a Deputy Minister, and was equally active in the implementation of those policies, including medicare and the immigration “points system,” by the Pearson government.

Tom was that rarest of breed these days, a polymath, meaning a person of great learning in several fields. He was a codebreaker, journalist, editorialist, policy advisor to politicians, senior public servant, teacher and expert in a wide range of areas of public policy. He was, in the end, a true public intellectual, and always courteous and generous with his advice and his work.

Today’s event will cast a large net of ideas and proposals for the reform of Canadian social policy. However, it cannot possibly reflect all of Caledon’s work over the last 20 years.

Inevitably there had to be omission. These include:

• our pioneering work on community-based poverty reduction and poverty strategies in New Brunswick, Ontario, Nunavut and Alberta;
• the community stories series;
• Aboriginal labour markets and education;
• community economic development;
• early childhood development and child care;
• customized training; and
• recreation.

We also undertake work on key socioeconomic and program data, including our provincial/territorial monthly policy monitor and our ongoing rescue of the National Council of Welfare’s welfare incomes and poverty profile series.

A look at Caledon’s website will show just how far we have travelled in our search for policy ideas. A good place to start is our commentary on the federal Budget each year.

Related:

• The next 20 years of policy in Canada – 20th anniversary presentations by Ken Battle, Sherri Torjman and Michael Mendelson
• Five Good Ideas about Policy with Sherri Torjman
• Caledon rescues data

For the last 20 years, the Caledon Institute of Social Policy has played an essential role as an independent and critical voice, providing rich, evidence-based research and analysis to inform public opinion and policy. At its recent 20th anniversary celebration, Caledon’s three principle policy consultants – Ken Battle, Michael Mendelson, and Sherri Torjman – presented a look back, with a look forward, at Canadian public policy.

Here are their presentations:

Architecture of Federal Income Security in Canada
By Ken Battle

A brand new study from the Centre for the Study of Living Standards, The Impact of Redistribution on Income Inequality in Canada and the Provinces, 1981-2010 (PDF), written by our colleague Andrew Sharpe and his associate Evan Capeluck, has arrived just in time for Caledon’s 20th anniversary event. It adds valuable evidence on the redistributive role of the Canadian state – which is the topic of my talk today.

Contrary to what many people believe, government – by means of income taxes and transfers – significantly reduces market income inequality. At last count, 2010, taxes and transfers reduced market inequality by close to one quarter (by 23.7 percent), mostly (70.7 percent) as a result of income security programs, with 29.3 percent due to income taxes. Looking over the long term, from 1981 to 2010, government has made a significant difference, offsetting rising market income inequality by 44 percent.

But Canada could do a lot better.

Read Ken’s complete remarks (PDF).

Disability and the Aging Society: Social Policy Challenges for Canada
By Sherri Torjman

Over the past two decades, Caledon has focused on several aspects of disability including poverty, disability supports and participation in society. Our work will continue to address those issues. We have broadened our scope in recent years to include some distinct, but related, issues around an aging population.

I will discuss disability and the aging society separately. While these areas are linked, they are clearly distinct. The disability community has always warned against confounding disability issues with seniors’ concerns. But there are a few crossover points, especially with respect to community supports.

Read Sherri’s complete remarks (PDF).

Is Canada (still) a fiscal union?
By Michael Mendelson

If the economic commentators are to be believed there is at least one lesson from the never-ending Euro crisis: monetary union without fiscal union is unsustainable. Canada is a monetary union, but are we still a practicing fiscal union? Or has our fiscal union become so weakened that we are now more like the Euro-zone: ten more or less sovereign provinces tied together in a monetary union without effective programs to compensate adequately for fiscal imbalance between the provinces?

Canada is among the most decentralized federations in the developed world. Unlike most federations, our provinces are sovereign in their own areas of jurisdiction, meaning that the federal government cannot override provincial laws. Perhaps more importantly, the provinces also have sovereign taxing power and the ability to tap all significant tax sources. The original Constitution, the British North America Act, intended to give the federal government fiscal supremacy by according it the sole right to levy indirect taxes – mainly customs duties, which at the time were the overwhelming source of government revenue. But things did not turn  out as planned. Custom duties have become trivial in the modern world. In contrast, provinces have sole access to most revenue derived from selling the rights to exploit natural resources. Natural resources have turned into such a significant source of revenue that provinces in aggregate likely now have greater fiscal capacity than the federal government. But provincial resource revenue is extremely unevenly distributed. This uneven distribution of a major source of revenue compounds already unequal economic levels among the provinces, making it doubly difficult for the federal government to address fiscal imbalances – even if it had the will to do so.

Read Michael’s complete remarks (PDF).

Related:

• Caledon Institute
• Five Good Ideas about Policy with Sherri Torjman
• Caledon rescues data

Much of the discussion around the recent and proposed changes Employment Insurance (EI) has centred on the effects it will have on seasonal workers in the Atlantic provinces. However, the Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation argues that the changes will most impact on young, urban and immigrant workers and businesses in Ontario and the western provinces.

Policy brief explains changes and analyzes their impact

The Mowat Centre recently released a policy brief that outlines the changes and analyzes their projected impact.

Read and download the report: What the New EI Rules Mean.

The brief follows a panel discussion in June featuring Arthur Sweetman (McMaster University), Catherine Swift (Canadian Federation of Independent Business), and Armine Yalnizyan (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives) that was moderated by the Mowat Centre’s Matthew Mendelsohn.

Read our notes on the panel discussion.

Summary

Mowat concludes that the package of reforms does little to address the structural problems of the EI system. Further, while popular discussion has focused on the potential impact on seasonal workers, Atlantic and rural Canada, Mowat argues that the changes are likely to have a disproportionately negative effect on young, urban and immigrant workers, and businesses in Ontario and the Western provinces.

The brief explains each change and its potential impact – including “suitable employment” and experience ratings, “reasonable” job search, job alerts for EI recipients, and new links between EI and the Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) program.

Further, it argues that much will depend on how the new rules will be administered and enforced.

Impact on immigrants and links to temporary foreign workers

Mowat argues that the changes are likely to have a disproportionately negative impact on young, urban, and immigrant workers.

The change-by-change analysis does not specifically outline the impact on immigrant workers. However, perhaps we can assume that recent immigrants are likely to be 1) claimants in urban areas, and 2) first-time claimants, who will be treated as “occasional claimants” under the new rules.

On the other hand, the reforms make explicit links between Temporary Foreign Workers (TFWs), EI claimants and employers. This seems to be simply an information link – employers who want to hire a TFW will be provided with information about EI claimants in their region. The government has not indicated that it will introduce incentives for employers to hire EI claimants or disincentives to discourage them from hiring TFWs.

And even if employers were incented to hire locally, Mowat argues that while moving EI claimants into jobs currently held by TFWs could have some impact in Ontario and Alberta, this would have very little impact in the Atlantic regions.

(In other news, the federal government has just expanded a pilot program for TFWs in some skilled trades in Alberta.)

Need for data to assess the impact of changes

Notably, Mowat points to recent changes that weaken the way we collect and share the data that informs public policy. The elimination of the long-form census and the Survey of Income and Labour Dynamics in particular mean that it will be difficult to asses the impact of these EI reforms.

Related links:

• EI Reform – Aiming East, But Affecting Ontario (Arthur Sweetman, on Mowat Centre)
• Employment Insurance & Income Support research section on Mowat Centre site
• Making It Work: The Final Recommendations of the Mowat Centre EI Task Force

On June 20, the Mowat Centre for Policy Innovation hosted a panel discussion on recent and proposed changes to the Employment Insurance (EI) program. Panelists Arthur Sweetman (McMaster University), Catherine Swift (Canadian Federation of Independent Business), and Armine Yalnizyan (Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives) discussed the next steps for EI reform. The panel discussion was moderated by the Mowat Centre’s Matthew Mendelsohn.

Watch video of the panel discussion on CPAC.

The Mowat Centre recently released a policy brief that outlines the changes and analyzes their projected impact. Read our notes on the brief.

Summary of the panel

As with proposed immigration changes, not much detail is yet available on how changes will be implemented and enforced. The panelists generally agreed that the changes will make the system more complicated. In addition, most public attention thus far has been paid to seasonal workers, but the impacts will be much wider than that.

Important changes proposed in C-38

• New regulations will more explicitly define “suitable employment.”
• Creates/distinguishes three types of claimants: a) Long-tenured worker; b) Occasional claimant; c) Frequent claimant.
• More explicit information link to the Temporary Foreign Worker (TFW) program – this link will provide employers seeking TFWs with information about the presence of EI recipients in their region.
• Changes to how benefits are calculated, mostly through the elimination of the “Best 14” pilot project (under this pilot EI weekly benefit rates were calculated using the highest or best 14 weeks of insurable earnings).
• New rules regarding working while on EI: 50% claw-back on all earnings.
• More frequent job alerts to claimants.
• Change to appeals process – new tribunal will deal with the EI, Canada Pension Plan (CPP), and Old Age Security (OAS) programs.

The popular discussion of these changes has been framed in three main ways:

• Impact on Atlantic and rural Canada – Mendelsohn thinks this is overstated. According to Mowat, the changes will, in fact, have a large impact on claimants in Ontario and the GTA.
• Changes are designed to address labour shortages – Yalnizyan argued that currently we have a job shortage, not a labour shortage.
• Downward pressure on wages generally, and especially for low-skill work.

Core arguments from the panelists

• Mendelsohn and Sweetman argued that these changes will have a big impact on the GTA and on Ontario.
• Yalnizyan argued that these changes give the message that the problem is rooted in the unemployed person, who needs to “try harder.” She also argued that these changes are wrong-headed given the impending global recession.
• Swift argued that we should pay more attention to the premium/employer side, as all of the changes are aimed at the claimant, not the employer.

Additional insights from the panelists

Arthur Sweetman

• Search and suitable work changes:
  • Most affected individuals: Frequent claimants in low unemployment regions (e.g. Alberta)
  • Least affected individuals: Frequent claimants in high unemployment regions (e.g. NL)
  • Changes will have the most aggregate impact on “in between” areas (e.g. Ontario)
• The “long-tenured” group is defined too broadly; changes will be not be fair for this group.
• More generous provisions for working while on EI could lead to EI becoming more like an income maintenance program.
• Appeal and dispute resolution process will probably work better for claimants with high literacy skills.
• Current system serves full-time seasonal workers, but doesn’t serve other groups well.
• Special benefits (such as maternity leave and compassionate care) should not be part of EI, should be funded in another way, such as through GST.

Armine Yalnizyan

• Another global recession is approaching – it is unwise to decrease population’s purchasing power at this time.
• Right now, we have a job shortage, not a labour shortage.
• Four out of five jobs created during this recovery are temporary – this is affecting young workers most.
• Only 40.5% of workers are covered by EI (compared to 84% in 1989).
• These changes will embolden bully employers.

Catherine Swift

• Complexity of these new rules will be a problem – argues for simplicity of rules and consistency of application.
• We should decrease EI premiums in tough times.

Related links:

• EI Reform – Aiming East, But Affecting Ontario (Arthur Sweetman, on Mowat Centre)
• Employment Insurance & Income Support research section on Mowat Centre site
• Making It Work: The Final Recommendations of the Mowat Centre EI Task Force

Recommendations affecting all Ontarians have been put forward in the “Drummond Report,” officially called Public Services for Ontarians: A Path to Sustainability and Excellence.

The report makes recommendations in a vast number of areas of provincial, and intergovernmental jurisdiction, including immigration, nonprofits, education, justice, employment and training, health, infrastructure, environment and much more. Many of the recommendations intersect with Maytree’s work. Over the coming weeks, we’ll be breaking down the report in these specific areas, linking you to our and our network’s work.

Background

Given the extent and depth of the document’s recommendations and the very wide mandate “to think long and hard about how government can work better for the benefit of everyone in the province,” understanding the Commission’s mandate and scope is essential.

The Commission had a five-part mandate:

1. Advise on how to balance the budget earlier than the 2017–18 fiscal year.
2. Once the budget is balanced, ensure a sustainable fiscal environment.
3. Ensure that the government is getting value for money in all its activities.
4. Do not recommend privatization of health care or education.
5. Do not recommend tax increases.

While the commission had no formal or comprehensive consultations, the opening letter from Don Drummond recommends the Ontario government seek further input from Ontarians: “Although we have not made a formal recommendation on this point, I urge you to consider holding broader consultations on the economic and fiscal challenges facing this province. Ontarians have not yet grasped the extent to which the slow decline of this province’s manufacturing base has undermined both its historic economic advantage relative to the rest of Canada and the provincial government’s long-term ability to finance the public services they treasure. You should go beyond a legislative body to review our report and consult as well with the wider public through town hall gatherings and meetings of stakeholders. An informed public is essential to the success of the reforms.”

This seems an important step in any future process.

Some initial feedback about the overall tone and substance of the report:

• The Drummond report (Deloitte Canada)
• Drummond Report Sets Stage for Ontarios Future Competitiveness (Ontario Chamber of Commerce)
• The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives has been providing extensive analysis on their Behind the numbers site. An important post to read on their site comes from Jim Stanford – Ten Points on Recession, Deficits, and Austerity in Ontario.
• Out of Step With Ontario – A First Look at the Report of the Drummond Commission (OPSEU)
• Provincial News: Responses to the Drummond Report

Media coverage

As is to be expected, there is a growing list of media stories. Expect the stories to get more and more specific as groups, politicians and journalists analyze and dissect specific sections of the report.

Some specific coverage of interest:

• Video: The Agenda with Steve Paikin: Don Drummond: The Report (The Agenda)
• Selling the Drummond Report (TVO The Agenda)
• Reaction to Report (CBC Metro Morning)
• Aggressive Action (CBC Metro Morning)
• Too Optimistic? (CBC Metro Morning)

Where the report intersects with our work

We’ll spend some time in the coming weeks delving more deeply into the sections of the report that intersect most directly with Maytree’s work. For now, we’ve compiled (and will continue to compile) reactions to specific sections of the report from other groups.

Each initial link below takes you to the relevant section of the commission’s report. We’ve added current analysis from various groups within each section.

Chapter 10: Immigration

Most of the commission’s recommendations in immigration are consistent with Maytree’s position and previous reports and opinions. Some starting points for you to read:

• Maytree Policy Insights – From Insecurity to Prosperity: Practical Ideas for a Stronger Canada
• Maytree Publications
• The Drummond Commission recommendations on immigration (and the missed opportunities to address immigrant children/families) (immigrantchildren.ca)

Chapter 5: Health

• Misdiagnosis: Drummonds Health Care Prescription Misses Equity (Wellesley Institute)
• Austerity is bad for your health (Sheila Block, Wellesley Institute)
• Statement from Ontario’s Doctors to the Drummond Report (Ontario Medical Association)
• Ontario’s Hospitals Welcome Drummond Report (Ontario Hospital Association)
• Ontario’s Naturopathic Doctors Respond to Drummond Report (Ontario Association of Naturopathic Doctors)
• ONA releases research paper with fiscal solutions (Ontario Nurses’ Association)
• Drummond Report to Province: cut costs, improve healthcare (CARP)
• Summary & Short Analysis of the Drummond Report (Ontario Health Coalition)
• Ontario Healthcare: News and Commentary by Doug Allan (Ontario Council of Hospital Unions)

Chapter 6: Elementary and Secondary Education

• Cdn EdWire Drummond Report Dominates Canada’s Education Discourse (Max Cooke, Canadian Education Association)
• Government’s Commitment to Students, Education More Relevant than Economist’s Recommendations (ETFO)
• Drummond recommends steep cuts in education (People for Education)
• OCUFA analysis of the Drummond Report: all cuts, no substance (Ontario Confederation of University Faculty Associations)
• Efficiency and evidence-based practice in early childhood education and care: CRRU’s analysis of the ECEC recommendations in the Drummond report (Childcare Resource and Research Unit)

Chapter 8: Social Programs

• Press Release: The Ontario Nonprofit Network Responds to Drummond Report -Third Sector Important Solution to Public Service Delivery Reforms (Ontario Nonprofit Network)
• Social Impact Bonds May Be Coming to Ontario: Celebration and Cautions (Sara Lyons, Socialfinance.ca)
• What Might Don Drummond’s Report Mean for the Arts? (Orchestras Canada)

Chapter 20: Intergovernmental Relations

• Drummond Recommendations (Association of Municipalities of Ontario)

Apparently, Canadians really are nice.

A recent Environics poll reveals that Canadians think citizenship is more than paying taxes or obeying the law. Unprompted, more than half of the 2,000 people surveyed think that someone is a good citizen when they are active in their community, volunteer, help others, and accept those who are different.

In other words, Canadians think it is a fundamental responsibility to be kind and help one another. Media coverage of the survey in the CBC (who were partners in the initiative along with the Institute for Canadian Citizenship, Maytree and RBC) focused on this, as well as the fact that the vast majority of Canadians – a whopping 89% – think that those born outside the country are just as likely to be good citizens as those born here. The survey paints a picture of a country that is both open and welcoming to the world: 71% of Canadians support dual citizenship and 64% think that having Canadians living abroad is an asset to our country.

When I think that I couldn’t possibly be more proud to be Canadian, my country again delights me! Not only do we as Canadians care about one another, we are not threatened by the diversity of those who join us every year.

What’s more, contrary to what you might think when you hear some of our politicians and the odd immigration critic, the vast majority of Canadians think the rules around citizenship are just about right. There does not appear to be widespread support for more restrictions and conditions on citizenship acquisition.

These kinds of surveys are important because they help bring the views of Canadians into the public policy dialogue. Too often, on some of our country’s most important issues, only the loudest angriest person is given a voice. Our politicians are increasingly showing disdain for basic democratic principles, attempting to bypass our public systems, arguing (without supporting research) that only they understand the experience of the everyday Canadian. And to criticize them is to be out-touch or elite. To hear them describe our citizens, Canadians are self-interested, afraid and consumerist. This research reveals something very different.

Bringing the voices of Canadians to the debate can only enhance and make our policies more humane and effective.

>> Read Canadians on Citizenship (summary report).

The Mowat Centre’s Matthew Mendelsohn sketches out why Canadian electoral boundaries deviate so widely from the principle of representation by population and proposes a model for re-drawing electoral boundaries in the future that balances the interests of all provinces.

The Mowat Note “Voter Equality and Other Canadian Values: Finding the Right Balance”, written by Matthew Mendelsohn and Sujit Choudhry, identifies the constitutional, legislative and policy reasons why Canada so dramatically deviates from the principle of voter equality. It then explains if and how each of these factors can or should be addressed at present. It concludes with a proposed framework for a compromise piece of legislation that would deal with many, but not all, of the issues that produce such a skewed electoral map.

Related links:

• Maytree Policy Insights – Democracy and Participation
• Maytree Policy in Focus, Issue 1: Listening to the voices of newcomers will create stronger cities (PDF)
• Michael Pal and Sujit Choudhry. “Is Every Ballot Equal? Visible-Minority Vote Dilution in Canada” (2007) IRPP Choices. Vol. 13, no. 1. (PDF)

(Our apologies for the slight out of audio sync that occurs for a short time in the middle of the video.)

This online discussion featured Alan Broadbent, Chair, Maytree, who described the power of public policy to transform society, and explored why some ideas resonate with decision-makers. Sherri Torjman, Vice-President, Caledon Institute of Social Policy, highlighted and described a few key recommendations from the policy document.

The publication, Charting Prosperity: Practical Ideas for a Stronger Canada, presents policy proposals intended to contribute to Canada’s prosperity while protecting the country’s most vulnerable. It presents more than 50 ideas, covering five thematic areas:

1. income support and social security;
2. democracy and participation;
3. inclusion and protection;
4. immigrant and refugee selection; and
5. diversity and integration.

Find out more and download Charting Prosperity: Practical Ideas for a Stronger Canada.

Presentation overview

Alan Broadbent

Alan spent some time reflecting on the importance of a policy lens in all the work that Maytree does.

The best way to overcome big issues and problems is to change the way society thinks and acts. It is by tapping into the power of our collective will, and attendant large public budgets, that we can take the great strides forward. The greatest advances in the wellbeing of populations have always come from public measures.

So Maytree has focused on public policy as the biggest lever available to us in building stronger and more equitable societies. It is our view that without a public policy lens on our work, we are just engaging in a plethora of pilot projects which miss that chance to be transformative for more than a relative handful of people. And while I would never scoff at helping a handful of people, it seems more responsible to our public obligations to seek the leverage that could scale up and multiply the positive impact of our work. In our view, that comes from affecting the way we act together.

We at Maytree have clearly embraced this principle, and have put a policy lens on all of our work. Our publication, Charting Prosperity: Practical Ideas for a Stronger Canada, is a view through that lens onto our work at Maytree and in various organizations we support.

Persuasive Policy

Our support of policy work is broad and deep. And it is driven by our clear sense of what makes effective policy, which we think of the three I’s of effective policy:

• Ideas
• Instruments
• Investments

Every policy must be driven by a good idea which holds real promise of positive change, change that will improve the lives of people and communities. Those good ideas must be embedded in instruments that will work, that can be implemented successfully, and that won’t encounter insurmountable political barriers. The instruments must be something that governments, or businesses, can say “yes” to. And there must be investment to make it happen, either investment by governments for public policy, by business for changes to corporate employment or social engagement policy, or by institutions.

Ideas, Instruments, and Investments must all be in place, and trying to achieve change without all three being present is terribly difficult.

Paying attention to policy is paying attention to the biggest lever for change you will have. Get good at it.

Sherri Torjman

Caledon’s policy recommendations fall into three main categories, which can be useful for anyone working on policy:

Incremental - change to an existing measure, such as:

• increased benefits in both absolute and/or relative terms (i.e., amount and relative to cost of living)
• extension of benefits (i.e., duration)
• expanded eligibility

Example: incremental reform: improve the Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB)

Structural – more complex

• introduction of a new program or benefit to an existing system
• significant redesign of an existing measure
• extension of an existing measure to a new population

Example: structural reform: make refundable the caregiver tax credit and the infirm dependant tax credit

Architectural - working at the system level

• reconfiguration of several related programs or benefits, could include shift in jurisdictions of responsibility
• introduction of new measures
• associated incremental and structural reforms of existing measures

Example: architectural reform: implement a Basic Income Plan for Canadians with severe disabilities

There are good policy precedents from around the world that can help us to make the case for some of the work we’re doing here.

Q&A

Alan and Sherri took questions for the final 30 minutes of the webinar.

How does Maytree choose projects? What makes a program interesting or important to support?

It has to be in Maytree’s general mandate of anti-poverty work, has to be innovative, and has high likelihood of impact/solution to the presenting problem. It’s important that any proposals or ideas that are brought to Maytree must include ideas about instruments that would be effective, costs of these solutions and who would bear these costs.

We use an analytical framework to assess any proposal (similar to the previously mentioned three I’s of effective policy) – ideas, plan and people. The idea has to be a good idea, with competitive advantage, that has a good chance to be an effective solution to a set of problems. There has to be a good and credible plan in place of how you’re going to get traction around that idea. We have to have faith that the people involved can actually achieve this.

Maytree is most interested in solutions. We have to go beyond a “culture of complaint”, and working with others to innovate solutions and bring forward ways to solve problems.

If there was one idea that could be implemented now from Policy Insights that would have the most impact, which would you choose?

Alan – Extending the municipal vote to permanent residents is an idea whose time has come. You shouldn’t have taxation without representation. People paying taxes in a jurisdiction should be able to cast a vote for the leaders who are going to be spending that money. Find out more (PDF).

Sherri – Increases to Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB). People experience the difficulties of trying to make ends meet with rapidly rising costs. There is a general sympathy to advance this policy proposal.  At the same time, having other jurisdictions on board with provincial poverty reduction strategies gives WITB some momentum. They are looking to changes at the federal level in order to effect their own proposed reforms  and would view  favourably that sort of change. Find out more (PDF).

Can you comment on handling issues where one jurisdiction believes it is another’s issue (i.e., provincial, federal responsibilities) and vice versa to lead to inaction?

Alan – It is a huge issue in Canada. Very often when governments want to avoid doing something, it’s a good stalling technique. Regarding the opportunistic nature of policy windows opening and closing, it’s very difficult to predict when you’ll get both political and public service alignment. When you involved other jurisdictions, the complexity increases yet again.

Sherri – This happens very often in social policy. There is a great advantage, in this case, to embarking on architectural reform, where you really are talking about federal and provincial/territorial governments coming together to resolve a common issue. If it’s possible to get your concern raised at one of the many federal-provincial/territorial  tables on the particular issue, that can be very helpful  to ensure joint action.

There is a growing gap between the haves and have-nots, which requires a shift at the values level in the economy (e.g., the presumption that maximizing growth is a first principle). What do you suggest for addressing a values-based, structural problem?

Sherri – Before you propose specific reforms, you need to  talk about values. Caledon has  put forward documents that speak to the issue of values, such as “Reclaiming our Humanity.” Values form the foundation and basis for a caring society.

Social and economic well-being are intrinsically linked. We’re seeing more and more research coming out in mainstream research, from groups like the OECD.  We need to  build on these arguments to continue to make clear links between economic and social well-being.
The growing importance of measures like the well-being and happiness indices helps build the values case. . Some of this work is being done by top economists and is gaining traction.

The recent book The Spirit Level documents the outcomes and high costs of inequality. We can work this evidence into the values-based narrative to help show the serious personal and societal problems associated with widening inequality.

Alan – It’s important to have a narrative on values and for groups to be clear, in public, about what their values are. Frank Sharry talks about the importance of volume and velocity in communications (http://maytree.com/blog/?p=1698). If we don’t do that, someone else will do that for us. In policy terms, it’s not enough to do this. However, it’s important to recognize that decision-makers we’re seeking to influence are not going to spend a lot of time with value statements/narratives. They want to be brought something they can say yes to, not just problems. While we must make the values argument, we must also come up with the short and pointed policy proposal that can be implemented and will work.

How will the new makeup of Parliament affect which policy ideas will gain traction? Is this an opportunity?

Alan – It’s unpredictable. The best we can do is to be ready with our policy work, be persistent, to be ready to take advantage of policy windows when they open.

Sherri – There may be some opportunities we can see in the current context. Proposals that involve many players, including the private and voluntary sector, ideas around social innovation and social finance appear to be of interest to the current federal government. It’s also important to look at government not only with the policy measures that they can create and put forward, but also the kinds of enabling environments that they can help create for voluntary and private sector groups to do their work well..

There is also significant work to be done to help governments understand how they can enable  us to do our work  – e.g., removing restrictions to charities and educing administrative barriers.  .

What advice would you give to nonprofits that are just getting started in policy?

Alan – It’s critical to (and Caledon does this very well) start with data and a strong analysis that is based in data, not start with a bunch of opinions. The reason for that is that when you get near the end of the road of the policy process, when a government is seriously looking at implementing your policy recommendations, if it turns out that you were wrong about the data they will not only not implement, but won’t listen to you again.

Sherri – We have found it helpful  to supplement the data with stories, by talking with  people and finding out what’s going on in their lives.  We then try  to move those private troubles into private issues. Part of our role is to understand the situation of someone living  a certain problem and translate that into policy terms – moving the practical into the policy.

A combined approach with data and qualitative information, such as focus groups and  meetings, can help to make policy recommendations that will actually have an impact on peoples’ daily lives.

What is an adequate minimum wage in Canada?

Restoring Minimum Wages in Canada is a new report from The Caledon Institute of Social Policy.

At its core, the report’s author, Ken Battle, argues that the provincial and territorial governments should work through a transparent, collaborative process with key actors that include business, labour, experts and social groups. They should define what constitutes an adequate minimum wage (e.g., equal to the poverty line, or a percentage of average earnings) and how to protect its value over time through some form of indexation (e.g., to the cost of living, or to the change in average earnings).

As can be expected, the report is heavy on numbers and trends. But Ken goes beyond the statistics to point out the important nuances that should lead any policy action on minimum wages.

Let us break the report down a bit.

The report looks at minimum wages across Canada between 1965 and 2010. Figure 1 shows the national average during that time period.

Between 2003 and 2010, the national average minimum wage increased by 18.6 percent in real terms, from $7.85 to $9.31. However, in 2010 it was still 90 cents below the mid-1970s high of $10.21 in 1976.

That’s not good.

Figure 2 shows the trend in the national average minimum wage expressed as a percentage of average earnings. The overall pattern is similar to the value of the minimum wage over time.

Ken Battle suggests that “Setting and sustaining minimum wages, then, is no easy task. Ideally, the provincial and territorial governments should – in conjunction with key actors including business, labour, experts and social groups – work together to define what constitutes an adequate minimum wage and how to protect its value over time through some form of indexation, as is done for most social programs. In reality, though, most governments likely will continue to pursue the politics of adhocery when it comes to the contentious matter of establishing minimum wage rates.”

The good?

Minimum wages have risen in recent years in every jurisdiction except British Columbia. But BC just announced an end to its freeze on the province’s minimum wage, starting with an increase on May 1, 2011.

However, and this is a key observation, Ken suggests that “The recent increase in minimum wages in all jurisdictions (except British Columbia) is due in part to the creation of poverty reduction strategies. Starting in Quebec and then Newfoundland and Labrador, poverty reduction strategies – comprehensive and far-reaching plans to reduce, prevent and eliminate poverty – have been launched by all provinces and territories except Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia.”

These strategies have focused attention on the importance of minimum wages and have been an important factor in rising minimum wage rates throughout Canada. That being said, the author acknowledges that the “minimum wage is only one tool among many required to build an effective poverty reduction strategy, but is crucial to the task.”

How does Canada compare?

United States

Five Canadian jurisdictions had lower minimum wages than the US federal rate in 2010. The other eight Canadian jurisdictions had higher minimum wages than the US federal rate. Canada’s highest minimum wage in 2010 – Ontario – ranked third highest in Canada and the US.

OECD countries

Canada ranks mid-pack internationally in terms of minimum wage rates but poorly when comparing minimum wages with average wages.

In a comparison with the UK model (which the author acknowledges is not an apples-to-apples comparison), Ken urges Canada’s federal, provincial and territorial governments “to undertake the research, deliberation and consultation required to define, achieve and sustain an adequate minimum wage. And, to borrow a term from the UK, Canada’s minimum wage boards should expand their purview from minimum wages to low wages generally, to get a better grasp of the size, characteristics and dynamics of this country’s working poor.”

Should the minimum wage be indexed to inflation?

An important design feature of income security programs such as old age pensions, the
Canada and Quebec Pension Plans, Employment Insurance and child benefits is provision to protect benefits from increases in the cost of living, typically by automatically adjusting them annually to the increase in the Consumer Price Index. Failure to fully index programs results in eroding their value over time in a manner that is not transparent to the public (who typically do not have an accurate sense of the difference between current and constant dollars).

Unfortunately, most governments’ prefer adhocery in setting their minimum wage rates. “Governments like the flexibility that comes with adhocery: Depending on their political and economic priorities, they can reduce their minimum wage by freezing the rate; de facto index the rate by adjusting it to inflation or wages; or increase the rate by raising it by more than inflation or wages. Jurisdictions in Canada have among them employed all three of these methods over the years.”

As it turns out, an unindexed national average minimum wage turned out to be higher over the long term (1965 to 2010) than it would have been under either indexation method (indexed to the cost of living or indexed to the change in average earnings). So, an adhoc approach to setting the minimum wage seems to be working, right?

Not so fast, says Ken.

“There is a missing part to this puzzle. No method of indexation will produce a satisfactory outcome if the minimum wage rate itself is inadequate. Minimum wage rates in 1965 were not adequate, as evidenced by their rapid growth from 1965 to 1975; just indexing the 1965 early rates to the cost of living could not have produced an adequate minimum wage over the years.”

The author wonders: “What would the two indexation methods produce if we started with a higher minimum wage? We repeated the analysis using a different time frame – starting at 1976 or 1977, depending on the jurisdiction, which was the highest minimum wage in the early period.”

The result: “Overall, then, indexing – whether to the cost of living or the change in average earnings – works if there is an adequate minimum wage to begin with. So that raises the question of what constitutes an adequate minimum wage – an issue that has received surprisingly little public debate or analysis.”

Ken outlines two different approaches:

1. set the minimum wage rate so that it equals (or exceeds) the poverty line.
2. target each jurisdiction’s minimum wage to a certain proportion (e.g., half) of average earnings Both of these have indexing built in the first to inflation, the second to the change in average earnings)

But, as the report states, there’s that “adhocery” issue: “While there has been growth in indexation in recent years, the majority of jurisdictions in the US and Canada still do not index their minimum wages: Of the 50 US jurisdictions with minimum wages, 40 do not index their rates. Of the 13 Canadian jurisdictions, only two index or plan to index their minimum wage rates.”

So, what now?

Minimum wages are once again on the rise in all provinces and territories.

But Ken warns, “history shows that what goes up can later go down when it comes to minimum wage rates.”

In an earlier report, Caledon  recommended that the provincial, territorial and federal governments establish a task force (ensuring extensive public input) to examine the functions and adequacy of minimum wages [Battle and Torjman 2002].  Its new report urges governments to expand their work beyond minimum wages to include low incomes generally.”To undertake this work, we urge jurisdictions to develop minimum wage boards along the lines of the UK’s Low Pay Commission, and create a provincial/territorial/federal task force on low incomes to share their knowledge and experience.”

Further reading:

• Battle, Ken. [2011] Restoring Minimum Wages in Canada. Ottawa: Caledon Institute of Social Policy, April.
• Battle, Ken.  [2003] Minimum Wages in Canada: A Statistical Portrait With Policy Implications. Ottawa: Caledon Institute of Social Policy, January.
• Battle, Ken and Sherri Torjman. (2002). Social Policy That Works: An Agenda. (PDF) Ottawa: Caledon Institute of Social Policy, September.