by The Working Committee for Social Solidarity
Commentary by Laurell Ritchie
In the wake of a deep recession that began in 1981 with unemployment and inflation both hitting 12% in Canada, the ascendency of neo-liberal market policies, debates raging over free trade with the US, and the 1984 federal election of Brian Mulroney’s Conservatives, new collaborations took root among a wide range of organizations.
Those collaborations led to some common conclusions about the way forward, many of them reflected in “A Time to Stand Together. A Time for Social Solidarity”, a declaration released in 1987 by the joint Working Committee for Social Solidarity.
Subtitled A Declaration on Social and Economic Policy Directions for Canada by Members of Popular Sector Groups, it invited others to look deeper into the crisis and its causes and to consider alternative economic and social policies.
Marvyn Novick was one of the most influential members of the Working Committee and played a large role in the thinking and shaping of the declaration. At the time he was Dean of Community Services at what is now Toronto Metropolitan University.
Marvyn was a big picture thinker. He took a cross-sectoral approach. He understood the need for a coherent, multi-faceted policy agenda rooted in broad community solidarity. And he recognized the important role of universal programs and good public services in building the social cohesion and inclusion that sustained those communities. Most importantly, he took on the big lies about a low tax economy and government deficits.
It’s notable that the 2017 inaugural Marvyn Novick Memorial Lecture addressed the subject of “Basic Income or Decent Work?”. Marvyn was already engaging the Working Committee in this important debate back in the mid-1980s. His indelible handprint can be found in the declaration’s consensus statement on minimum income policies. Marvyn argued passionately for prioritizing full employment and jobs with good pay and benefits, as well as universal programs that ensured everyone’s good health and wellbeing. It was – and remains – a controversial position but Marvyn insisted we keep in mind the larger interplay between the labour market and income security programs. The declaration warns, that the minimum income programs being proposed at the time “would serve to free both government and businesses from their responsibilities to provide full-time jobs at livable wages”.
The declaration was specific about some of the damaging market policies that were gaining a foothold across the country and in some cases, dividing our own organizations. Among them: the obsession with government deficits, promotion of a ‘natural’ rate of unemployment, bilateral free trade with the US, privatization of public services, minimum income programs as a panacea, targeted versus universal social programs, austerity budgets, and more. The Working Committee advocated an alternative: first and foremost, a social movement that put solidarity at its core, and policies that promoted full employment, stronger labour standards, expanded social programs, fairer taxation, and a strong public sector.
The tensions within the Working Committee made the ongoing collaboration and eventual consensus all the more remarkable. Some very disparate groups were involved including the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops and the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, historically at odds with each other. But they found a discipline in focusing on the big picture and being mindful of the forces arrayed against their larger interests. It made for sober, serious consideration of the common ground between them and the necessity of genuine social solidarity.
Tony Clarke, a Committee member and staff to the Catholic Bishops’ Social Affairs Commission at the time, says “Popular sector groups, unions and others were being pulled in very different directions at the time. We wanted to create a common space where we could debate critical issues. Do we go the guaranteed income route or not? Do we fight the free trade agenda or settle for sector-by-sector exemptions?”
The declaration came about in a decade of great ferment. The same Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops had released Ethical Reflections on the Economic Crisis on New Year’s Day 1983, a public statement that shook up the country’s establishment. It shocked many on both the right and the left of the political spectrum with its scathing critique of the state of the economy in Canada and globally, and the roles of government and business. The bishops were condemned for meddling in the affairs of the state by then Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau and many others.
In December 1984, an ad hoc group of popular sector organizations met in Toronto to discuss and take action on the issue of free trade. This new Coalition Against Free Trade included over 30 groups as diverse as the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, the National Farmers Union, First Nations representatives, the Canadian Auto Workers and the Catholic Bishops Social Affairs Commission.
The Working Committee for Social Solidarity was seeded by such groups, all of which continued with their other work. Even as the 1987 Declaration was being released, some key committee members were unable to attend the launch as activists were meeting in Quebec to prepare for a renewed fight against Free Trade with the US.
Today, it’s helpful to recall how Marvyn insisted we focus on the big picture. Sometimes we bob and weave between social and economic controversies, alert only to the threats to our specific sector and immersed in details. But there may be a larger crisis unfolding that requires all hands on deck. The crisis will always take on a different character – today we know we need a new emphasis on environmental peril, precarious jobs, the role of artificial intelligence and social equity – but perhaps it’s A Time to Stand Together again. To pause, share our collective insights and consider a broader effort.
__________________________________________________________________
MINIMUM INCOME programs at less than the poverty level (as recently proposed by the Macdonald and Forget Commissions) would serve to further free both government and businesses from their responsibilities to provide full-time jobs at livable wages. Income support schemes enable employers to avoid paying a decent wage.
Under these conditions, minimum income programs would extend poverty rather than end it. Poverty will be eliminated through full employment at decent wages coupled with improved social insurance, the extension of universal services and adequate income support for those unable to participate in the work force.
– from “A Time to Stand Together. A Time for Social Solidarity.” (1987)
https://ccednet-rcdec.ca/sites/ccednet-rcdec.ca/files/social-solidarity-1987-en.pdf
_____________________________________________________________________
Laurell Ritchie is a retired Unifor (Canadian Auto Workers) national representative. At the time of the Working Committee on Social Solidarity she represented the Confederation of Canadian Unions and was active in the National Action Committee on the Status of Women. Laurell thanks fellow committee members Tony Clarke, Mike McBane and Marjorie Griffin Cohen for sharing their insights for this commentary.
