Social Policy in Ontario

Stream of election gimmicks and promises will violate our human rights obligations

Posted on November 29, 2024 in Governance Debates

Source: Maytree.com — Authors: Alexi White

Maytree.com – Publications
November 26, 2024.   Alexi White

First it was the Ford government’s $3 billion plan to send a $200 cheque to every Ontarian who files taxes. This is bad policy, but with seven in ten Ontarians indicating their support, it may be good politics ahead of a widely anticipated early election call.

Not to be outdone, the Ontario Liberals soon announced an even more regressive platform promise. They promise to forgo $2.8 billion in revenue every year to reduce the tax rate on income between $51,446 and $75,000. While the CBC and the Toronto Star both dutifully reported that the idea will save “the average family” up to $950 a year, the median tax filer in Ontario only reported about $42,000 in total before-tax income in 2022. The Liberal tax cut would go to families that are already better off.

Now the federal Liberals have joined in, promising a GST holiday that will give the greatest benefit to those who can afford to spend more, followed by a $250 payment to those who reported between $1 and $150,000 in employment income last year. This upper bound is so generous that only the top five per cent of tax filers will not receive a cheque, while millions of Canadians who face significant barriers to working will be ineligible.

All of these proposals rely on borrowing money so it can be sent to many people who don’t need it. And, to varying degrees, all these plans will deny help to some of the most marginalized among us, either because they don’t file taxes or because their working income is too low.

Meanwhile, homelessness, food insecurity, and poverty are on the rise, and this comes with both immediate and long-term costs. Governments would be wise to invest every extra dollar they have in proven solutions, such as a stronger income security system and non-market housing sector.

But along with all these flaws, there is another foundational issue that has received less attention: these proposals violate Canada’s human rights obligations.

In 1976, the governments of Canada, Ontario, and all other provinces came together and signed on to the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, a foundational piece of international law that is also binding on provinces, cities, and any other sub-national government in Canada.

Among the economic, social, and cultural rights enshrined in the Covenant are rights to an adequate standard of living, including the right to housing, the right to food, and the right to social security. Over the years, we have reaffirmed our commitment to these rights again and again as Canada, with the support of the provinces, signed further human rights treaties such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child in 1991 and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities in 2010.

Signing these treaties comes with legal obligations, and these are described in Article 2 of the Covenant. Essentially, all levels of government are required to take steps toward the progressive realization of these rights by all appropriate means, “to the maximum of its available resources.”

That last bit about maximum available resources is key. Not only are our governments obligated to steer our society toward the fulfillment of everyone’s human rights, but there is a sort of minimum speed limit that applies to this journey.

Of course, determining what constitutes Ontario’s maximum available resources is complicated, and there is no widely accepted standard. Attempts to assess compliance with this requirement often look to general indicators of a government’s capacity, such as per capita GDP. The UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights has considered many factors, such as goals and targets to which a government has committed, expert recommendations, and comparisons to peer jurisdictions.

But the Ford and Trudeau governments’ craven decision to cut cheques sidesteps all the above complexities. In this case, our governments are freely admitting that they have access to billions of dollars and nothing better to do with them. The Ontario Liberals seem to agree that this money is easily found, with the Toronto Star reporting that the Liberal tax cut would be paid for by ending Ford’s “shady backroom deals.”

The implication is that neither the federal nor provincial government can possibly be devoting the maximum available resources to the progressive realization of economic, social, and cultural rights. Their plans violate Article 2 of the Covenant, and thus our obligations under international law. The Ontario Liberals, if elected, seem to be promising the same.

The UN will not come to Canada and enforce the Covenant; it’s up to each government in Canada to live up to its obligations and up to us to hold them accountable. They could start by ditching the gimmicky cheques and the tax cuts for the well-off and instead centre the needs of those experiencing the greatest denial of their human rights.

Stream of election gimmicks and promises will violate our human rights obligations

Tags: budget, disabilities, poverty, rights

This entry was posted on Friday, November 29th, 2024 at 10:26 am and is filed under Governance Debates. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.