Politics and challenges in Ontario's socio-economic landscape: What does able-bodied really mean?

By Sara Cumming, Executive Director, Home Suite Hope

As the Executive Director of Home Suite Hope (HSH) and a Sociology professor at Sheridan College, I've engaged with various political parties over the past few months. These discussions have highlighted the profound challenges within Canada's current socio-economic landscape, particularly affecting sectors like education and non-profit organizations. Navigating these turbulent times is not for the faint-hearted.

Home Suite Hope Executive Director Sara Cumming

Teaching has always been a passion of mine, especially witnessing students challenge preconceived notions and develop a deeper understanding of societal structures. However, my role at Home Suite Hope resonates deeply with my commitment to social justice, focusing on the systemic disadvantages faced by marginalized populations, especially women with intersecting identities.

My doctoral research, 'Lone Mother Exiting Social Assistance: Gender, Social Exclusion and Social Capital,' delved into the structural and social barriers single mothers encounter when transitioning off social assistance in Ontario. Through qualitative methods, including in-depth interviews and case studies, I explored how gendered expectations, systemic exclusion, and varying levels of social capital impact these women's efforts to achieve economic self-sufficiency.

A significant finding from my research is the multifaceted social exclusion single mothers face. Limited access to quality childcare, education, and stable employment opportunities are pervasive issues. Many participants reported stigmatization and bureaucratic hurdles within the welfare system, hindering their access to essential resources. Alarmingly, policies intended to support welfare recipients often perpetuate dependency rather than fostering long-term independence.

Social capital, defined as the networks of support and relationships individuals can leverage for economic advancement, emerged as a crucial factor. Single mothers with robust social networks, including supportive mentors or community resources, had a higher likelihood of successfully exiting social assistance. Conversely, those lacking such connections often remained trapped in cycles of poverty and instability. This underscores the need for interventions that build social capital, such as mentorship programs, peer support networks, and accessible childcare services, to enhance outcomes for single mothers striving for economic independence.

Reflecting on Ontario's policy history, the 1995 'Common Sense Revolution' led by Mike Harris had profound implications. By openly criticizing the welfare state and implementing the 1998 Ontario Social Assistance Reform Act (ironically referred to as SARA), social assistance was restructured into two categories: Ontario Works (OW) for those deemed employable and the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) for individuals with disabilities. Recipients under OW were required to engage in job searches, training, basic education, skills upgrading, or unpaid community service in exchange for assistance. While these reforms aimed to reduce social assistance dependency, they inadvertently imposed severe hardships on single-mother-led families and individuals facing multiple employment barriers, such as trauma and mental health challenges.

In recent political dialogues, I've observed a resurgence of rhetoric reminiscent of the 1995 era. During a recent meeting, a provincial candidate remarked that "one of the biggest problems facing Ontario right now is the number of able-bodied individuals on welfare," which was met with robust applause. This perspective is deeply concerning. It's imperative to recognize that being "able-bodied" does not equate to being free of barriers.

Many mothers in our program rely on social assistance and are physically capable of work. However, they face significant obstacles, including lack of access to affordable childcare, transportation, and employment opportunities that offer sufficient wages to cover basic needs, health benefits, and the rising costs of living. Additionally, many have endured traumatic experiences such as domestic violence, human trafficking, or have children with complex needs. Labeling them as merely "able-bodied" overlooks these profound challenges.

It's understandable to feel frustration when individuals who could work choose to rely on social assistance, especially when many are working over 40 hours a week, feeling exhausted, and missing precious time with loved ones. However, it's crucial to acknowledge that those who "choose" this path often grapple with underlying issues that aren't immediately visible.

As of November 2024, Ontario Works supports approximately 394,000 beneficiaries. Single parents constitute 28% of these cases, with 90% being women. A single individual on Ontario Works receives a maximum of $733 per month, while a single parent with one child receives up to $1,142 monthly, inclusive of the Ontario Child Benefit. These amounts are intended to cover basic needs and shelter but fall short of meeting the actual cost of living, especially considering the escalating prices of housing, food, and transportation. It's important to note that these figures have remained stagnant for several years, with no adjustments for inflation, effectively reducing their real value over time. People who "choose" this life are "choosing" absolute and devastating poverty.

Ontario Works may prevent individuals from starvation on the street, but it doesn't provide enough to cover comprehensive needs such as housing, food, utilities, and transportation. While some view social assistance as a significant expense, it's far from the "free ride" for "able-bodied" individuals that it's often portrayed to be.

In conclusion, we must exercise caution with oversimplified narratives and scrutinize the potential repercussions of terms like "able-bodied" in political discourse. Such language can obscure the complex realities many individuals face, leading to policies that may exacerbate their struggles rather than alleviate them.