OPEN LETTER TO DOUG FORD: COVID-19 AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

You are disappointing me.

You are disappointing a whole lot of other people in Ontario.  Not only disappointing, but you are also endangering even more people in Ontario through your actions or rather, lack of actions taken to protect people who are homeless, on OW, ODSP or very low income, from the virus.  In effect, this also hurts others who have to be outdoors.  This is exactly how community spread started, Mr. Ford, because many people have no choice but to be out in the community.

Your message to everybody is to stay home if they can.  Work from home, if they can.  Only go out for absolutely essential trips.  Registered.  Yet, you are talking out of both sides of your mouth, Premier Ford.

On one hand, the well heeled can go home, use their nicely decorated spare rooms to operate their computer and take phone calls redirected from their workplace and thus, protect themselves and in effect, others from this COVID-19 virus.  We see it on TV.  We talk about this online.  This is not real, Premier Ford.

None of these people obviously live with hoarders, where there is no room to spare.  Program funding to assist such persons was cut under your government.  Nobody can work or even live at home under these conditions.  None of the people you are addressing are holed up in a rooming house with addicts, crack dealers and vermin of all kinds.  Kind of difficult to get anything done at "home" in one of those places.  None of these people we are seeing live in homeless shelters.  Tell them to self-isolate all you want, but they don't have the space.

None of these people who you think can "work from home" live in over-crowded conditions either where they have to spend their meagre social assistance cheques to live with three or four other people in the same position, or who couch surf at the home of a friend.  It must be nice, Mr. Ford, to have a room of your own - to work from home.

People on OW and ODSP never received enough to live on.  Many of them are barely alive, suffering from all sorts of malnourishment and fatigue, despite just a few months ago, you contemplated getting more of them to go straight to work.  Straight to jobs that do not exist.  Especially now, that COVID-19 struck the community.  Many or most of these people are immune compromised, not only because of any disability but because they have not eaten well in years.  Food bank food does not enhance people's health.

The federal government has announced a number of measures to assist people who suddenly lost their jobs, are losing revenues from their businesses and so forth, as well as workers who lost a significant portion of their income.  These programs have been developed quickly and put into people's accounts; when gaps were found, the feds stepped in to try to remedy them quickly.  The feds did not disqualify anybody from benefiting from their programs if they relied on provincial programs, such as OW or ODSP.  They opened the door to federal and provincial cooperation; the province of BC responded by increasing their version of OW and ODSP by a few hundred dollars a month and by exempting federal support.  They are also assisting with rent payments, among other supports.

When it came down to you announcing how Ontario was going to respond to the challenges of COVID-19, you failed to take this opportunity to improve the lives of many people whose very lives have been made significantly more difficult under this pandemic.  Your only answer to these people is to stay at home and give hundreds of millions of dollars to charities that really don't do much to improve the lot of these people anyways.  You are telling people to stay home, while at the same time telling these same people, immune-compromised people, to go line up outside of food banks to get three days worth of six month old, mouldy food.  Would it not be better to put more money in the pockets of these people so they can buy their own groceries and get them delivered?  Was this not one of your election promises?

There are also a minority of people on OW or ODSP that may qualify for the federal supports.  This is less than 75,000 people.  To qualify for Canada Emergency Response Benefit (or CERB), all somebody needs to show is they earned at least $5,000 last year or within the prior 12 months and are currently out of work or not receiving self-employment income.  This is currently under review as some people had their hours severely cut, but they are not out of work entirely.

ODSP's response is to tell those that ask that this is EI and they will deduct this dollar for dollar from their ODSP supports.  This is very harmful, especially when a spouse or other family member is the one that has been working and supplementing the family income so they can both eat and live under a roof month after month, but now they are unemployed, they have to choose. Was it not you just a few months ago suggesting that people should try to work when they can?  So they did.  Now what?

Guess what?  These people are not going to stay home!  They are going to find work under the table and will take the virus with them, or take the virus from wherever they go and come home with it ... thus spoiling your campaign to 'flatten the curve'.  Why do you ask?  If you had to choose between the possibility of getting sick or having to live without food every month until the end of this pandemic, what will YOUR choice be?  I don't know about you, Premier Ford, but I have been told informally by people who:

1. are informally working with older people, driving them around to appointments or to get groceries and doing yard work for them (as a way to get money in their pockets to help feed themselves, albeit putting their elder clients at risk);
2. opening up informal home cleaning and renovations businesses, operating off their cell phone, to do small jobs for people (because they need food and other necessities because their income  went down and their housing costs are still the same); and 
3. getting into their old cars and driving for "Speedy", an illegal version of Uber type transportation services and not taking precautions with who they take and protecting themselves and others.

I know many of these people, Premier Ford.  Many were laid off from their usual jobs they had before the pandemic and now they are being told if they applied for CERB, they will lose their ODSP or have an overpayment that might take a year or two to pay off.

Talk to your public health folks, Premier Ford, and ask what the impact of having 10% of the social assistance caseload be forced to get out of their houses to work anyways, pandemic or no pandemic, because they CANNOT AFFORD TO STAY HOME.

Over 130 organizations quickly sent you a letter to tell you not to leave OW and ODSP recipients behind!  They told you to raise social assistance rates so they can purchase their own groceries and not have to rely on food banks.  They told you to allow the small minority of people on OW or ODSP (or their spouses) to get and keep their federal benefits, including EI and CERB, during this pandemic.  These benefits are no less important during this pandemic than other benefits you currently exempt as income from OW and ODSP such as legal settlements, pain and suffering, residential schools, mercury water fund, etc.

A very long list follows of all income exempted under ODSP's directive 5.1:

Income Exemptions

• Earnings exemptions (See Directive 5.3 Deductions From Employment and Training Income);
• Earnings of dependent children;
• Earnings or payments under a training program of recipients, spouses and dependent adults attending secondary school full-time(See Directive 5.3 Deductions From Employment and Training Income);
• Training allowance and cash reimbursements of child care and transportation for individuals who reside in a prescribed First Nation community and who are participating in an employment training opportunity for up to 12 months. (See Directive 5.3 Deductions From Employment and Training Income);
• Earnings of persons attending post-secondary school (See Directive 5.18 Exemption of Earnings of Post-Secondary Students);
• The portion of a payment from the sale of an asset, used to purchase a principal residence, an asset necessary for health and welfare, an exempt asset, or an asset that does not result in the recipient exceeding the prescribed asset limit;
• Interest earned on liquid assets up to the prescribed asset limits, e.g. $40,000 for a single recipient;
• An amount up to $10,000 in a 12 month period per member of the benefit unit, in the form of gifts or voluntary payments for any purpose from any source; (this includes monies from trusts, life insurance policies, honorariums and windfalls). Casual gifts of insignificant value, e.g. basic clothing, meals, occasional food purchases are also exempt.
  • Honorariums are generally payments made to individuals to recognize services provided, where payment is not required. For example, a person may volunteer or be asked to participate on a committee and may receive an honorarium. In these cases, honorariums are considered voluntary payments and may be included in the $10,000 exemption for voluntary payments.
  • Honorariums paid in a way that is similar to a salary, to fulfill an obligation to compensate the recipient for services provided, are treated as employment income, and not as voluntary payments under ODSP. In these cases, the usual earnings exemptions apply.
• Payments from any source in the form of gifts or voluntary payments used for disability-related items and services or for education and training incurred because of the disability of a member of the benefit unit.
• There is no limit on the value of these contributions, provided they will not be reimbursed from other sources. For this provision to apply it is not required that the intent of the voluntary payment is for the purchase of these types of items/expenses only that is used for these purposes.
• Gifts or voluntary payments that will be applied to the purchase of a principal residence, an exempt vehicle, or that will be applied to the first and last month’s rent necessary to secure accommodation. (See Directive 5.8 Gifts and Voluntary Payments for more detailed information regarding treatment of gifts.)
• RDSP related exemptions:
  • gifts or voluntary contributions made to RDSPs by family members and other third parties;
  • interest earned on and re-invested in an RDSP;
  • the federal Canada Disability Savings Grants and Canada Disability Savings Bonds; and
  • all withdrawals from an RDSP for any purpose.
• Refundable tax credits including the:
  • Canada Child Tax Benefit
  • Canada Child Benefit
  • Ontario Children’s Activity Tax Credit
  • Ontario Trillium Benefit Payment;
• Ontario Child Benefit (OCB) payments;
• Payments from the Ontario Child Care Supplement for Working Families (OCCSWF);
• Payments from the Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB);
• Payments from the Canada Pension Plan Orphan Benefit (also known as surviving child benefit;
• Payments from the Quebec Pension Plan Orphan Pension;
• Payments made under the Canada Pension Plan Disabled Contributors Child Benefit;
• Payments made under the Quebec Pension Plan Disabled Person’s Child Benefit;
• Payments from other jurisdictions that are equivalent to the CPP Orphan Benefit or QPP Orphan Pension or the CPP Disabled Contributors Child benefit or QPP Disabled Person’s Child Benefit.
• Child support (Effective January 1, 2017). Please see Directive 5.15 Spousal and Child Support for more detailed information;
• Payments received under subsection 147(14) of the Worker's Compensation Act, known as B165 payments;
• Payments received for property damage and temporary living expenses through the Ontario Disaster Relief Assistance Program (ODRAP) other than payments for loss of income;
• Payments (cash and in-kind) received by evacuees of the Kashechewan First Nation between October 2005 and September 2006, from a municipality or a Tribal Council made on behalf of the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Canada);
• Insurance payments made for temporary living expenses and to replace or repair lost/damaged exempt assets or assets within allowable asset limits but not payments for loss of income;
• Mortgage payments paid by disability insurance purchased by an applicant/recipient on a mortgage for his/her principal residence;
• A forgivable loan under the First Nation, Intuit, Métis Urban and Rural (FIMUR) Housing home Ownership Assistance Program.
• A forgivable loan or a grant under the Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program (RRAP) that provides assistance to on-reserve low-income homeowners to bring their homes up to safety and health standards, or improve energy efficiency.
• A forgivable loan or grant under Ontario Renovates that provides assistance to low-income homeowners to bring their homes up to safety and health standards, improve energy, efficiency and/or increase accessibility of the home through modifications and adaptations; and, create a new affordable rental unit within an existing single family home;
• Payments made under the Investment in affordable Housing (IAH) - operating components that exceed the maximum shelter allowance up to the actual shelter costs;
• Payments made under the Community Homelessness Prevention Initiative (CHPI) payments for:
  • rent deposits;
  • establishing a new principal residence;
  • maintaining the health and welfare of a member of the benefit unit in her or her current residence;
  • arrears relating to shelter costs; or other housing and homelessness-related services, items or costs approved by the Director of Ontario Works.
• Payments made under CHPI for personal needs made to domiciliary hostel residents up to the amount equivalent to the ODSP amount issued for personal needs to recipients residing in a long-term care home.
• Financial grants, items or services that are issued for energy-conservation in homes through Conservation and Demand Management Programs offered by local Electricity Distribution Companies;
• Financial grants, items or services that are issued for energy-conservation in homes through Demand Side Management programs offered by local Natural Gas Distributors;
• Benefits in the form of a cheque or voucher received through the Water Filter Fun. program;
• All direct financial assistance received from the Ministry of Tourism, Culture and Sport’s Quest for Gold - Ontario Athlete Assistance Program;
• Funds received from the Ministry of Advanced Education and Skills Development or Canada Student Financial Assistance for education costs such as books, tuition, instructional supplies, transportation costs, child care and compulsory fees;
• Funds received from the Ministry Advanced Education and Skills Development under the Second Career program for education costs.
• A bursary received by a full-time student enrolled in a secondary school under 8(1)18 of the Education Act;
• The Dr. Albert Rose Bursary to assist public housing tenants attending post-secondary school;
• Payments from an RESP, intended and used for education costs, received by a recipient or any other member of a benefit unit as well as gifts and voluntary payments into an RESP in addition to the $10,000 gift and voluntary payment exemption. See Directive 5.11 Post-Secondary Education;
• Proceeds from a court judgement or legal settlement or an award from a statutory tribunal (such as compensation resulting from being a victim of an automobile accident, sexual assault or violent crime) received as damages or compensation for pain and suffering, due to injury to or the death of a member of the benefit unit. See Directive 4.6 Compensation Awards;
• Compensation received as settlement for a claim of abuse sustained at an Indian Residential School, other than compensation for loss of income;
• Pre-judgement interest awarded as compensation for the delay in receiving damages for pain and suffering as a result of injury to or death of a member of the benefit unit, See Directive 4.6 Compensation Awards;
• Independent Living Allowance payments from the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board received annually by severely impaired workers;
• A full income exemption applies to the total amount of a compensation award for the following:
  • awards for pain and suffering as a result of an injury to or the death of a member of the benefit unit;
  • expenses actually or reasonably incurred or to be incurred as a result of injury to or death of a member of the benefit unit;
  • loss of care, guidance and companionship due to an injury to or the death of a family member under the Family Law Act;
  • non-economic loss under section 46 of the Workplace Safety and Insurance Act, 1997 or section 42 of the Workers’ Compensation Act.
• Interest earned on the capital of an inheritance retained in trust up to the allowable limit of $100,000.

In my view, federal benefits are being paid through CRA, not the EI Fund and are considered emergency in nature, much like many other legal settlements and other funds and class actions, etc.  The purpose of this federal benefit is to keep people indoors and not venturing out.  Denying people enough funds to support themselves while "sheltering in place" will only result in many people going out and risking it by working under the table.

I intend to spread this letter wide and far.  I intend to send this to public health officials, because they understand much more than you do that putting low income people into this position will help spread the virus and thus, defeat any attempts of your otherwise strong leadership in trying to flatten the curve.

I also intend to find out after this pandemic is over exactly who got sick and who died.  This might open yet another can of worms about whose lives are valued in Ontario, while others are not so valued.  There was even talk that if it became a choice as to who gets access to ventilators that poor folks and people with disabilities will be likely denied.

Just tell us what you mean, Premier Ford.  If you want us all to stay at home to help flatten the curve, then make sure all of "the people" can afford to do so.

ON THE MODERN POOR HOUSES AND POVERTY CHARITIES

                                           The Rise of Modern Poor Houses

With the recent trend in electing far right leaning governments, there is an increased reliance on governments to dump their duties on charities and the so-called 'voluntary sector'.  Social assistance rates are deliberately kept low, thereby assuming the 'thousand points of light' in our communities will somehow converge to save those that have fallen on hard times, or the poor will somehow turn to the their families.

This is a serious problem, as we presented here in a number of articles.  Others try to frame the issues as a split philosophy between social justice and charity.  However, to question the work of charity is almost considered anathema to 'fitting in with good society'.  The only group that deliberately went to critique the work of charity in the proper way was Put Food in the Budget, which operated for many years although its purpose had recently refocused with a change of leadership.  I assert that the download to the charities is a deliberate poor shaming, 'othering' process designed to further entrench the poor folks into their disadvantaged positions and keep them there.

Put Food in the Budget published two reports: 'Who Banks on Food Banks?" and 'Survey of Food Bank Users, Non-Users and Donors'.  Even the most liberal researchers cite that only one in five people in need of food banks actually go to them. This is not a moral judgment on who uses them, who chooses not to use them or even on those that run them.  However, serious questions need to be asked of this resource that was only supposed to be temporary when the first food bank opened up in Edmonton in 1981, but has since become a burgeoning industry of its own which in itself has produced well paid executive positions and a parallel food distribution system that creates unnecessary duplication of resources.

I know many executives of these organizations are paid six figures and in my view, if the organization can afford to pay these kinds of salaries, they don't need my money or yours.

These are some notable facts:

1.  Charities claim they are not political, but in fact they are very political.

Because charities are mindful of not speaking out or partaking in partisan politics, they are seen to be out of the political fray.  Sadly, they are indeed right in the middle of the political fray.  Donors to their organizations can reduce the taxes they pay, which always benefits those with higher incomes than those of more modest means.  By being so-called "neutral", these organizations are in fact denying that the source of their necessity is directly set in place by government policies.  Food banks were not always around.  In fact, they only emerged when governments began to retreat on their responsibilities to our population in order to serve their wealthy masters.  There are charts available that show the shift in taxation from the wealthier parts of the population to the middle and working classes and gradual erosion of our social safety net.  Recent governments have been slapped by bond rating agencies for not drawing in enough revenues and not for spending profligately.  When this happens, the government structurally restricts itself from being able to spend on a proper social safety net, such as health care, social assistance and education.

We will never hear these things from charities.  The most we hear from organizations like the Ontario Association of Food Banks is their annual "Hunger Count", which issues statistics of the people that use their food banks.  As disturbing as these statistics are, they do not even give a full picture, as many people will not use food charity for a variety of reasons.  They skip meals, limit portions, etc. instead.  These are the hidden malnourished.

2.  Charities claim to care about their users, but the majority do not move them to self-sufficiency and dignity

This is not to say that charities are treating their people badly, but their efforts to actually get people out of poverty is sadly deficient.  For me, if somebody is not given hope that they will soon get out of poverty and not have to return again to another charity, this is reason enough to fall into despair and discouragement.  Accepting charity is very demeaning.  Our government and policy makers know this, but they do not care.  They want to use shame and humiliation as a tool to force such persons into the lowest paying and deplorable jobs their corporate "friends" have on offer.  People with little choice between this type of humiliation and a very bad job are not likely to unionize and fight for their rights against their corporate employers.  Those that do end up receiving help cope with it in many different ways:  some volunteer at the charity as a way to "give back" (as they are so used to being referred to as non-contributing); others join aligned groups to bring self-help ideas such as community gardens and kitchens, and others just stay away.  

3.  Charities can discriminate and often do so to best utilize their resources

Food banks often find themselves short of resources and will tend to prefer families with children, for example. Others restrict the amount of food you can take from their centers and most are limited to about three days' supply for a household, while many food insecure families spend at least half the month without sufficient nourishment.  Some soup kitchens bar certain patrons because they are found to be "difficult to serve".  Some charities have also been known to discriminate against classes of people for religious reasons.  Others force their users to partake in prayers or religious services before getting any kind of help at all.

4.  Solutions offered by charities are inconsistent, replete with gaps and often lead to a revolving door of the same people to return for help again and again

Iain de Jong, author of Book on Ending Homelessness, recently came to the Niagara Region to talk to people who work in a number of agencies often providing band aid solutions and/others trying to provide more long term solutions.  He was right in stating that the current trend is to simply manage homelessness and not to get people into homes.  The fact is there are more than enough homes for people to live in at any given time.  It is again government policy that allows housing to be commoditized, denied or destroyed to the point where we now have "houses without people and people without houses".  There is no rational reason why anybody should be without a roof over their head these days in a wealthy nation like ours.    

The problem with many homelessness agencies is they want to fix the homeless persons first before offering them housing.  Poor folks are fed up with being "fixed" by well meaning middle class people who think they know what is best for poor folks.  For example, homeless people are somehow supposed to get their mental health stabilized, sober up and clean up their lifestyle before getting housing, which is almost impossible to do without a safe, secure place to call home.  More cynically, I believe this approach has been around for so long because it keep the homelessness industry alive and many of its well paid jobs in place.  There would be no need for homelessness workers if everybody had access to safe, affordable and accessible housing.

5.  Charities do not have the same privacy and access laws as do programs offered by or regulated by the government.

Some charities for the poor ask for more documentation from the applicant than one would be asked when entering Fort Knox.  There is no need to know too much about anybody, other than the fact they do not have the means to feed themselves.  In my view, the fact that the person is there is enough to prove they need help.  Most people who need and qualify for help from these same organizations will not go, so why would somebody go there who truly has enough to take care of themselves?  Occasionally, the media reports on the so-called 'millionaire panhandler' or the 'welfare queen', but these cases are very rare.  

However, what happens to all of this personal data collected on poor folks when they apply for charitable help?  Nobody really knows.  I assume it helps comprise the annual Hunger Count, as well as helps these organizations in their regular applications to the United Way and other funders to continue to pay their staff.  However, I've known of many cases where personal names, case information and other data has been divulged improperly by somebody in the organization.  While most of all of these organizations have a "policy" of confidentiality, this policy does not have the weight of the Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act and suing over a policy breach is usually out of reach for poor folks.

When some wealthy folks complained about the long form census asking them to respond to questions like how many bedrooms they had in their homes (and as a result Harper's government choosing to scrap it), one would wonder how these same wealthy people would respond to the kind of intrusive data collected by many of these charities. I suspect if they were asked such questions, they would strenuously object, but poor folks are given no choice.

If governments even want to send some of its programs to be managed by charities, advocates must be on the alert to ensure that such organizations ensure liability for privacy laws, as well as many other laws, as described below.

6.  If you get sick from food bank food or soup kitchen food or get stolen from at a shelter, the poor folks are told "beggars can't be choosers".

What are the quality controls of these services?  If you were wealthy and went to a sushi restaurant and they accidentally poisoned you, you would certainly have a right to make a legal claim against the establishment.  If you stay at a hotel and become infested by bedbugs, you can also make a legal claim.  If you meet with a financial advisor and they give you bad advice that sank your whole portfolio, you can make a claim against that advisor and their company as well.  However, everyday people get sick from food given to them at food banks or soup kitchens.  This is not deliberate on the part of the organization, but sometimes I do question some of the motives of individual donors, many of whom hate the poor and have openly expressed in social media that they were undeserving of any support. They have also joked around about donating tainted or seriously outdated foods to their local food drives.  Volunteers do not have the time required to screen every item that comes in for tampering, age, etc.

With our governments wanting to cut "red tape", it seems that some believe such organizations should not have the same kind of liability as the former examples and basically, the poor are told to suck it up.  Many people wonder why some people refuse to use homeless shelters.  Most shelters are filled with lice, bedbugs and often people are assaulted, robbed or harassed while there.  It is about time some creative legal folks attempt some type of class action against these types of organizations, especially where these problems appear to be coming from this kind of devaluation of the poor..

                    Ongoing and Ever-Present Dangers

The reason why poor folk get inferior treatment and are not treated with dignity is that they are not looked upon as having the worth as much as somebody else in society who "contributes".  This attitude is very entrenched and unfortunately, is deepening to a point where governments do not feel they have to give enough funds for jobless and disabled folks to have both a roof over their heads and food on the table.  This trend of resurgence to a form of eugenics is disgusting.  Those of less valued classes could be starved away, seemingly, while those of "greater stuff" can be encouraged to have more kids and build a great society.  The governments of right leaning parties are not ignorant of what they are doing and use the excuse of being "broke" to the skeptical (which also isn't true but the subject of other blogs), only to continue to push people to the edge ... lemmings as they all fall off by starvation, suicide and other more grim causes.

I once taught a class on bureaucracy and culture, while focusing on the period before and during the second world war.  I deliberately themed it around how the German government framed its policies, its direction and preferences.  In most healthy and open democracies, we hear about innovation, consultation, pilot projects, opportunities and so forth.  However, under right-leaning governments, we hear about efficiencies, streamlining, monitoring, etc. which never of course impact on the freedoms of the wealthy, but when implemented often further entrench poverty.  I am saying today's austerity governments know this and are deliberately making these policies with the intended result that we are seeing. If you notice more people who are openly homeless, aggressively panhandling or sleeping in public spaces in the warmer months, this is a symptom of this intent.  Other signs are closures of small businesses, boarded up windows, increases in petty crimes and the growth of super stores owned by conglomerates that can afford loss leaders.

In communication with many people, I am told this is "end times" by some (cockamamie), "there is no alternative" (bullshit, this is all policy choices not anything any government is forced to do), or 'people should not be reliant on the state' (if people only knew how much wealthy people benefit from the largess of the state ...).  We need to start having intelligent conversations about the value of all of our people in our communities.  We need to aid folks to become stronger and productive persons or simply living dignified lives in their own right in the community, as opposed to what we are doing today: writing off large swaths of the population to the benefit of the charities and their so called "benefactors" in our society.

As for the charities, they need to change their focus.  If they serve the poor, the elderly, the homeless or whatever, they can speak out now.  Canada Revenue Agency is no longer as much of a threat to your charitable status, so you can't use that as an excuse anymore.  In fact, under Stephen Harper's government who spoke so proudly about freedom of speech, it tried to shut down dozens of charities that lobbied on issues about poverty, the environment and other similar issues (while allowing right wing charities like the Fraser Institute and Canada Constitution Foundation which litigates in the courts to give away our health care system to private interests among other "causes" to continue).  Canada Without Poverty took that government to court and won.  Charities can no longer be audited and harassed solely on their so-called non-partisan political activities.

I once heard an expression about how we are praised when we give food to the poor, but we are called a communist when we start to ask why people are poor.  We need to ask this now and keep asking this until we get an answer and to reject any of the stock answers given above.  If any government sees a large part of its population objecting to how people who are living in poverty are treated, that is when they will be forced to change their ways.  We also have to think of creative legal actions, such as filing quasi criminal charges similar to those filed by folks living in places like Huronia, Southwest Region Centre for the Developmentally Handicapped, etc., the residential schools, etc.  These right wing proponents will try to sell us on choice theory, but the folks that were confined to these institutions had no more choice in being forced into them than the poor folks of today are being forced into their lives of grinding poverty.    

Your thoughts?

THE CONTINUING DARK AGE OF THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

These days, there is so much that is spoken about race, gender and creed in the news and how people in minority groups are under attack.  In my region of Niagara, there was recently a rally that included several hundred people at city hall to watch a number of people speak to devote their time and respect to the people of Charlottesville, Virginia, after an alleged white supremacist rally took place.  Groups of people started to protest when it was known that officials were going to remove statues and other symbols of Confederacy from the landscape, while carrying torches and Confederate flags ... In response, groups of people opposing racism, sexism and this type of violence counter-protested.  The protests became violent until such point, somebody drove his vehicle into the counter-protesting crowd and killed a young woman, while injuring many more. The year before, a lone gunman walked into a gay nightclub in Orlando, Florida and shot and killed forty-nine persons, injuring fifty-eight others. There was a similar honoring ceremony that followed here in Niagara, as members of the LGBTQ community gathered with their supporters to recognize this senseless crime for what it was. While it is interesting to be part of peaceful public gatherings like this (and how positive a society can be when it respects the rights of persons regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation), it still chills me to the bone that the rights of persons with disabilities still don't matter.  As a person with an invisible disability, I often feel overwhelmed by the public silence about this issue.

For example, while persons with disabilities are supposed to be protected before and under the law under our Charter of Rights and Freedoms, there are so many areas of living where they do not matter and where the law and our own government continue to abuse and diminish the quality of life most persons with disabilities can live.  For example, the employment rate of persons with disabilities is less than half of what it is for the general population, and even among those who are employed - persons with disabilities are over-represented among workers in low-wage, unstable and precarious jobs.  Further, persons with disabilities disproportionately make up the population of persons forced to live, or more accurately, barely exist on our society's loosely termed safety net.  Even the safety net in question with its rules and regulations arbitrarily create a different set of laws and further disadvantages for persons with disabilities.  In fact, these very programs and so-called supports that are supposed to protect persons with disabilities in fact actually cloak them with a cloud of stigma, forcing many into silence, thus preventing members of the public from realizing how we continue to hurt them and shut them outside of our society.  These issues are those that people without disabilities or disadvantages, in general, take for granted:  the right to earn an income, the right to personal privacy, the right to mobility and choice, and the right to engage in a partnership with a significant other (and build their lives together).

First, the right to earn an income is an issue.  People naively assume that people with disabilities are "taken care of", or have social benefits to support them and pay for a semi-reasonable lifestyle.  We might have heard about specific programs of the government geared to finding employment for persons with disabilities, or more rarely - entrepreneurship initiatives.  We assume that persons with disabilities can all partake in these programs and that they "work" to their benefit.  In return for a reasonable effort, persons in these programs "should" be able to achieve equality in the workforce.  Unfortunately, in a Statistics Canada survey, about 12% of those surveyed felt they had been denied a job because of their disability.  The reality is that discrimination in the workplace against persons with disabilities exists, although it is rarely as explicit as a complete refusal to hire.  One glaring example I personally have experienced is being shut out of most jobs due to not being able to drive, even if the job did not involve travel.  While this is technically only supposed to be required if the job included travel as a bona fide requirement (e.g. courier, delivery, bus driver), employers outside of major metropolitan areas well served by public transit almost always "require" this.  Other times, jobs are deliberately located outside the areas served by transit, or shift work is "required" whereby one would be scheduled even when transit isn't operating.  This is just one example of discrimination.  If you always drove, this issue is invisible to you.  This does not mean you might not have other barriers to employment due to disability, but this is a clear example of how ableism pervades society.  Assumptions in other areas, such as management positions (seen as too "stressful" for someone with mental illness), writing jobs being not for blind or visually impaired persons, customer service jobs being too difficult for those with cognitive or certain physical impairments, or seizures being a risk in most workplaces.  As a result of discrimination, lack of willingness to accommodate persons with disabilities and occasionally, the disability itself, many are forced to live in abject poverty through our so-called social safety net.

People with disabilities are no less eager to work than those without disabilities.  In fact, many who have been kept out of the workforce for the above reasons are often desperate to work, because today's social programs rarely provide enough for people to survive, let alone live with any dignity. For example, it is not uncommon for persons deemed to be severely disabled to try working, if only to escape the deep poverty they are forced in.  In fact, I recall one of my clients a few years back getting twenty-three jobs in less than a year, only to lose them due to his disability issues.  Failing to find work or stay working has left too many people with disabilities in abject poverty, poorly housed and living lives of low quality.  It is past the time where a guaranteed annual income for persons with disabilities is put into place that does not have the rules, complexities and abysmal rates that typical welfare programs have.  Those with disabilities that can and want to work that manage to find work are also under attack.  We hear about how our wealthy people complain about how paying more taxes will dampen their interest or "incentive" to invest, grow their companies or even start businesses in the first place.  However, our provincial government in an unpublished report on marginal effective tax rates on those working and receiving ODSP benefits, cites that for many of those that make more than a small amount of money are losing approximately 70 - 87% of every dollar earned, of course not counting the further impact of any outside income on one's subsidized housing or how one is expected to cover the expenses of actually having work.  If high taxes "hurt" wealthy billionaires, how does clawing back income from persons with disabilities at even a higher rate than that paid by these same whining billionaires make this an incentive for them?  I once quipped with a Cabinet Minister and their staff about taking this same proposal to the private clubs they often raise funds at to tell their wealthy donors that the province will not tax the first $200 each month they earn or receive from investments, but for every dollar above that the province will tax it back at fifty percent?  What do you think the chances of a government like that are for getting re-elected?  If this is good enough for persons with disabilities, it is good for the billionaires too!

Secondly, one of the cases I am working on involves privacy and persons receiving public disability support.  At one of my hearings, I asked the case worker involved if I have the right to know not only where she lives, but also the right to knock on her neighbours' doors to ask questions like: (a) who she lives with; (b) if she appears to be working; or (c) how she spends her money.  She was offended by the question, but she did not understand that she seems to take the liberty to do the same to those individuals on her caseload.  In fact, these intrusions and similar types of policing take up a large proportion of case worker time, taking time away from assisting people they serve in improving their own lives or accessing benefits and services to aid them in maximizing their potential.  These daily intrusions are exactly why people with disabilities are often afraid to take the steps they need to take to improve the quality of their lives.  In another case, I was told that my client who had received a substantial inheritance was required to have a trustee to manage her monies.  This policy in itself implies that the person has limited or no capacity to manage their own affairs or make their own decisions.  The Human Rights Tribunal might take a dim look at something like this, but then again, those making the rules count on people being too beaten down to fight these things. How would the caseworker like it if s/he were required to have a trustee manage his/her pay cheques?  This is no different.  If one makes (or enforces) the rules, then they must live by them as well.

Thirdly, most of you reading this have mobility and at least some choices.  People that do not drive and do not live in a metropolitan community where public transit is deemed a necessary part of its infrastructure, do not have that.  They have limited mobility and often, few choices.  Many of the progressive folks I meet talk about how they will never shop at Walmart or Loblaw's or some other major grocery chain, often times for good reasons.  However, these same people have the option of getting into their cars and voting with their wheels to go elsewhere, such as a farmer's market, an independent grocer or some other less 'oppressive' company.  Have you ever wondered why stores like Walmart and so forth tend to locate near poor neighbourhoods?  Low income persons with disabilities, or those that do not drive and therefore do not have the freedom of choosing where to go, cannot vote with their dollars like those that can drive and have the funds to pay a little more for locally grown produce, for example.  Until we have self-driving cars or start to value effective and reliable forms of public transportation as a matter of right for all citizens, this will be the case.

Even for those of us that can get to the larger discount chains, those of us with disabilities continue to remain invisible.  The place where I shop has a very large and spacious parking lot, along with close by parking for people attending the smaller stores in this "outdoor mall".  Those of us that do not drive do not routinely stop by the grocery store on the way home from work to grab a few groceries to cook up for dinner that night.  We have to make a day of it and get enough to last a couple of weeks or so. Because this is too much to carry on a bus, we need to transport by taxi.  Many times, we need to wait for a considerable period of time for a taxi, which means we need somewhere to sit down.  The store where I shop removed the benches in the front for no good reason.  I presume they think nobody needs them or uses them because EVERYBODY simply takes their groceries to their cars and drives away, so there is no need for this.  It doesn't matter anyways, as people with disabilities and their needs are invisible to these types of organizations.  It is not like I have much of an option to "drive" off to another store that might serve us better.

Finally, most of you who are reading this are living with a partner (other than those of you who are recently divorced or who are choosing single life for now).  Your partner could be your legal spouse, your common law partner, your same sex partner or partner of a second marriage, etc.  The face of Canada is changing with the popularity of marriage itself declining with the uptick in the number of common law partners, many of whom live together in the same manner as those in a long marriage.  About 27% of households are people living alone. For most of you with life partners, you likely did not have to think about the risk to your paltry entitlements or health benefits once you moved in with your partner.   In most cases, both partners contribute financially to the relationship, as well as in other areas and these arrangements are set by the people involved.  However, if you were disabled and forced to live on public disability benefits - you do not have the same rights.  ODSP Statistics are published monthly by family type: single, couples and lone support parents, versus all family types.  I calculated percentages at the back of a paper napkin to determine that the ODSP caseload consists of 78.6% of households where there is only one person, 12.7% of households where there is a couple (married, common law) and 8.7% of households that are led by a single parent.  Something is definitely wrong when only 27% of the general population lives alone, while 87.3% of households on the ODSP caseload are single or a single parent.  A closer look at the statistics show that the raw number of couples tend to vary dynamically each month, suggesting that partnerships in receipt of ODSP tend not to last long and can go through cycles where they are split up and again, together.

It is about time that the elephant in room is pointed out and eloquently deciphered.  The ODSP Action Coalition has published broadly that most recipients are afraid to get involved in relationships, fearing they would then become part of a "benefit unit" and whoever it is that gets together with them will have both their income and assets counted against them, thus putting them at risk of losing most or all of the benefits.  Ironically, because of more liberal attitudes to granting "equal rights" to same sex partners, even those engaging in non-conjugal roommate situations are hesitant to get involved as almost everybody who "lives with" another adult can risk being deemed a "spouse" by ODSP officials, and therefore, liable to be forced to almost solely support the person with the disability.  For those already involved in relationships, the albatross weighs heavily because if the relationship ends, the one receiving ODSP will be forced to seek support from the "ex-partner" (regardless of what the Family Law Act of Ontario requires). For those that remain together, the disabled partner loses most of their independence and this can't be healthy for anybody.  The one who tells it like it is writes a blog, but there are many others coming forward today.  In fact, there are legal professionals taking this up as a cause to change.  As Eric Letts states on his site in his video, this rule may in fact be in direct violation of human rights and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

When I have raised this issue in the past, I have received very questionable responses.  Remember: those who make the rules should be made to live by them.  We would see swift change in this if everybody in relationships were treated like this.  Not very long ago, women who were married were considered the property of their husbands.  They were not allowed to sue and be sued, not allowed their own income, not allowed to vote, not allowed to do anything apart from their husband.  People with disabilities are almost in this position today.  If it was unacceptable for women to not have their own identities, their own incomes, their own bank accounts, their own legal status, etc. (as it is stated clearly under the Family Law Act), why is it okay to treat persons with disabilities like this?  It states, as follows:

PART VI 
AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMON LAW

Unity of legal personality abolished

64 (1) For all purposes of the law of Ontario, a married person has a legal personality that is independent, separate and distinct from that of his or her spouse.  R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 64 (1).

Capacity of married person

(2) A married person has and shall be accorded legal capacity for all purposes and in all respects as if he or she were an unmarried person and, in particular, has the same right of action in tort against his or her spouse as if they were not married.  R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 64 (2).

Purpose of subss. (1, 2)

(3) The purpose of subsections (1) and (2) is to make the same law apply, and apply equally, to married men and married women and to remove any difference in it resulting from any common law rule or doctrine.  R.S.O. 1990, c. F.3, s. 64 (3).

ODSP unfortunately retains some of the unity of legal personality with respect to married couples where one or both are receiving benefits.  In a regular marriage, where one of the spouses can run up a credit card and max themselves far into debt, they can no longer bind the other spouse (unless the spouse is signed on or is a guarantor of sorts).  However, when ODSP has "overpayments", regardless of how they arose, both spouses are deemed by the Crown to be liable for it (e.g. if they split up, they will go after both spouses for the same overpayment).  This brings us back to the early days when women were not permitted to have their own credit lines.  Couples not involved with ODSP have a lot more freedom in determining their relationships.  If one of the spouses works and earns $100,000 a year, for example, and the other has chosen to stay home to raise the children, the working spouse is under no legal obligation to hand over fifty percent of their income to the stay-at-home spouse.  The working spouse can provide a bit of an "allowance" or pay for expenses, but there is no law that they ought to.  While ODSP couples are still together and not separating, the disabled spouse loses over fifty percent of their benefits and the more the other spouse makes, the less they get (and the higher the clawback or marginal effective tax rate).  This can be cut off at relatively low levels.  It is quite possible that a spouse might be only earning poverty level wages where the other might lose most of their income support.  This is what forces many of these relationships to end, or in worse cases, keeps the vulnerable person trapped in an abusive situation.  A couple of years ago, I fought a case that desperately needed to go further, although I did make movement on this issue ... exemplifies the very difficult bind this puts people into.  At one point, I had three different clients at the same time in a women's shelter because of an abusive relationship they were in (and they were on ODSP).  All three went right back to their alleged abusers because they did not have the financial resources to get out.

Attempts are being made to address this issue at the human rights level.  It is being chiseled away at the Social Benefits Tribunal and HRTO, but not chiseled down enough where both spouses are independent legal entities with rights and entitlements of their own.  In particular, this is repugnant because a person with a disability that cannot work or cannot financially contribute to a relationship is now forced to either live alone or risk losing everything, whereas a spouse in a relationship where both are merely unemployed, their situation is temporary and their legal status is intact once they both work again.  In effect, it is the disability that is the impugned variable that leads to the gross inequity of this situation, as this person is not going to suddenly get a job and start contributing.

These above facts are not well known by members of the public that are reading this and many assume that if this were changed and disabled persons were able to get benefits in their own right, that suddenly they would get married to millionaires, this is silly.  First, the types of people who are likely to become eligible for ODSP in the first place do not regularly attend the same places that the so-called millionaires attend.  I've never met too many people on ODSP who are regular members of the St. Catharines Golf & Country Club, or the St. Catharines Club.  Most of them have virtually exhausted all of their resources and have nothing left to spend on these pursuits.  Besides, people tend to get into relationships with people who are more like them than not like themselves.  Teachers, lawyers, doctors, nurses and so forth tend to marry people who are in similar occupations.  How many times have we noticed the so-called "power couples" on the front pages of newspapers or magazines or online?  They certainly do not have a lot of ODSP recipients in their wider circle of friends.  Even if there is the one off case where somebody earning good money does marry a recipient ... so what?  The time for slavery, peonage and people-as-chattels has ended for most people, except for people with disabilities.

I am seeking out people who have read this and are getting angry and/or motivated by this post to get in contact with me to start something.  A stone in the water starts a ripple; several stones can cause a wave ... and we need to turn this tide before too many more people get hurt.  Your thoughts?