IDENTIFYING, UNDERSTANDING AND MOVING BEYOND PRIVILEGE

Can you imagine a life where you work all the time, not necessarily in a job you hate, but perhaps one in which you are not seeing immediate reward?

At the same time, you watch others, including those to whom you are close to and perhaps love, have more in their lives than you can ever realistically achieve in your own?  It hurts and you try to achieve this standard, only to be disappointed and frustrated time and time again, because your efforts count for naught, when: (a) people don't hire you; (b) you are left out of hiring because of a so-called qualification you don't have because of a disability (e.g. driving, lifting, appearance such as a facial disability); or (c) do not have access to cash or credit to upgrade your situation.

There are some things that many in society has no clue about.  That is dealing with ableism and classism.  People of the middling or more often, upper classes of our society do not sense that escaping poverty is very difficult for those in it. Ironically, escaping poverty often requires money.  Money that one can choose to use it in a way to help them escape poverty, as opposed to just catching up on over-inflated bills, which are henceforth, over-inflated as a result of the cost of living in poverty.  We live in a caste system, just that we don't call it that.  However, many are legislated into poverty.

When the topic is discussed online, many people just say that people who grow old and live in poverty from low pension or even no pension, have not thought about "saving for a rainy day" or spent their funds unwisely somehow.  What if I were to propose that most of the time, those who did not save for the alleged "rainy day" likely had too many rainy days and not enough sunny ones to make up for them, or to accumulate enough funds for the next "rainy season"?  How about those that have too many rainy days have to borrow much more than others do, whilst ending up further in debt and having to repay a larger portion of their income on debt repayment than someone of better means?

Not everybody is able to acquire good paying jobs that provide enough income to do this.  If they are in a relationship, both members of the couple should be working in these well paid jobs in order to achieve this.  I hear from many people that think that one parent (usually the woman) should stay at home and look after the kids and the house, while the other works.  This usually ends up with the woman in poverty if that relationship ends.  Those jobs that allow a single earner to support a full family and then have enough left over are gone.  Families do better with both parents working. What if you have some work-limiting disabilities, perhaps because you have aged and developed some health conditions that limit the kind of jobs that you can have, while your partner does not work forcing you to pay for the entire freight?  This imposes poverty on the entire family.

As stated, single income earners can hardly support a whole household anymore, although governments as policy are forcing people with disabilities who cannot work to be fully dependent on their working partners, even if this working partner is hardly earning past minimum wage.  Put yourself in the shoes of this working partner.  You cannot drive because of a health condition, or perhaps you simply cannot afford to pay for a vehicle and its insurance.  Virtually every job that you are otherwise qualified for that pays a bit more than you are earning now states you must have a license and have daily access to your own vehicle.  Do you lie to get the job, and then get let go later on when they find out you do not drive, when even the one occasion you need to drive comes up and you suddenly come up short?  Or do you just move on?  

There was a time in the US south, and even parts of Canada, where publicly available services were segregated between blacks and whites.  I know many people in the non-driving category see these job ads similarly to those in the US south or those antiquated parts of Canada in the day as advertising for "whites only".  Yes, some people can probably eventually get their licenses, but think about how the province's graduated licensing system works.  It assumes you have parents or you live near them, and they are able and willing to support you learning to drive.  This is your young person who is 16 - 24 and eager to get behind the wheel of a car.  Older adults, particularly women, who did not have this same support as a young person, would often get support driving with a spouse who is fully licensed.  What if you are much older, do not have parents and/or a spouse that can do this?  

People on the middling and upper income range just think people can just go to a driving school and pay for this.  People who pass their G1 but not their G2 need to have a fully licensed driver in the front passenger seat of their car at all times when they are driving (for up to a year), even if they driven before and have taken a hiatus and are seeking to regain their license back after a few years.  While being super-focused on road safety which is a reasonable explanation for this rule, it effectively cuts out three types of people: low income, disabled and older people.  Low income and people with disabilities often have little to no money to pay a driving school for this support.  Many with disabilities are not allowed to drive. Older people often have additional barriers.

Research shows that people who drive and have their own personal transportation are able to do a few things to get and keep out of poverty: (a) get better paying jobs; (b) find additional side hustles to help them deal with inflationary price increases as most involve driving, delivery or ability to get to places to provide products or services related to the side hustle; and (c) are less isolated and able to find friends and potential life partners that they can hook up with to combine incomes and raise household income.

In the above scenario, people who are fully licensed and have their own vehicles do not understand how not having a license or their own vehicle contributes to a life in poverty, potentially draining the individual of hundreds of thousands of dollars, if not more over the course of their lifetime.  If you live in a larger city with decent public transportation, this may not be as much of an issue, but many if not most people live in regions where a car is deemed almost a necessity.  I have met people that have very well paying jobs that do not even have a license or bother to drive at all, but virtually all of them live in large cities, like Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver.  Those unfortunate enough to live outside of these kinds of cities tend to take lower paid jobs and in a narrow range of cases, are able to work from home.

Working from home is often deemed to be a possibility if you are disabled or have too many family responsibilities.   The pandemic got people interested in this possibility but, in general, legitimate work from home jobs are usually held by people who used to work in an office in a higher paid position, or are specifically skilled in an area that not many people are, e.g. high tech, IT.  The chances of going online and looking for a work from home job that will pay well is still slim to none unless you fall into one of the above exceptions.  We hear about this in the media because these are jobs held by people in IT, programming, engineering, banking, finance and so forth, all of which pay people much higher than average.  As such, these people tend to live in larger homes that can also double as a workplace.

On the other hand, I heard of many lower income people attempting to take a work from home job, but more often than not, they were scams and they were poorly paid if paid at all.  Caste structure is alive and well in the work from home community too.  It is less visible and those who are succeeding in this area, unfortunately, do not see their privilege either.  This is not a legitimate avenue except for a small minority of those living in poverty as an option to escape from poverty.   

This is not to say that those that do not drive, those who are poor and those that have disabilities do not have any job opportunities, but when they do, their barriers are: (a) getting hired; (b) getting a livable wage; and (c) getting opportunities for advancement.  If you make it through the hiring barrier and get the job, it is unlikely the job is high paying or high skilled.  The much talked about labour shortages are not in the high paid sectors, but in the low wage service jobs, such as fast food, accommodations, call centers, farm labour, etc.  These jobs by their nature tend to pay low wages and have high turnover of staff, often because of the stressful nature of these jobs combined with poverty level incomes. People do not want to be trapped in poverty in these jobs. However, one can try to get additional education, but if one is poorly paid and has little to no savings, this is not likely to happen either.  Further indebtedness is not a great idea if you are already in the hole.

You know you have financial privilege when the roof over your head is secure and you have options for financing of repairs, renovations, or even accessing a car loan.  This does not mean you are rich.  This does not mean that today's galloping inflation is not hitting you hard on the head and in your pocketbook.  This is "broke" but not poverty. Canadians on average are getting further and further indebted as a whole and in particular, those having to renew variable mortgages are getting hit the worst.  However, there is such a thing as a debt wall (for lower income Canadians), whereby you cannot access further credit and the repayment of credit cards, loans, etc. is taking up a larger and larger chunk of your income to the point you cannot pay your bills at all.  This happens more often with a single earner, than with a family with at least two people working.  Bankruptcy which happens will only further restrict one's job options.

It affects the latter type of person in many ways.  There is the usual Kubler-Ross stages of grieving, whilst also knowing they would not be able to even afford the lower income lifestyle they have.  Most people in this category are essentially in the lower caste and do not have the opportunities to just get a higher paying job, move to a location where there are more jobs or to cut back even a penny further.  If they are on any kind of assistance, OW or ODSP, for example, they are almost enshrined into this caste whereby even if they manage to start earning a little bit more, they will experience major clawbacks from the income they do receive. There is no such thing as a two income household on ODSP, even if only one of the spouses is disabled.  This program is designed to keep the family in poverty and prevented from "saving for a rainy day", as any funds that do come into the household are already spoken for before they even come into the door.

Doing ordinary things, let alone doing a job, is also a hardship for low income and even disabled.  Buying groceries, shopping around for a specific item, visiting family, or attending community or social events are all part of a major planning process: (a) do I have the money; (b) how am I going to get there; (c) when will I have the time to actually get there (as transporting for poor people is both more expensive and takes longer than for those that drive); and (d) how will I get back (for events that happen in the evening, one usually has to Uber or taxi back because the buses stop running or you are likely to miss a bus that might continue to run but only hourly).  In many cases, the person concerned just does not go anywhere at all, which contributes to their further isolation and in turn, poverty.

Family and friends are only available to help some people and even then, some of the time.  Put the shoe on the other foot and imagine a brother, a sister, a mother, father or just a friend or neighbour you know that doesn't drive, but still needs to get around.  You work full time and have other activities you engage in, so you know that you cannot realistically take them around, or even cover the cost of their bus or taxi fare.  In these circumstances, our communities need to do better.  They need to stop assuming that there are always family members and friends waiting in the wings to provide financial support to, drive people around as well as assist people in getting out of poverty.  

Even in the most ineffectual sectors that are set up today to help the very poor and low income, such as food banks, soup kitchens and homeless shelters, which do nothing to get anybody out of poverty or even give them hope that they can escape it, these organizations themselves are now asking for help.  They are helping more people and getting less and less donors, because those that used to donate are not able to do so anymore.  They are looking to the government to take its duties back in providing a secure social safety net for those that keep falling through the one we have now.  As a society, we need to stop "othering" the low-income, the disabled and the older population.  Because all of us will eventually get there, we need to force the state to re-examine its existing policies to stop legislating a significant portion of the public into poverty and to respect the human rights of everybody.

Your thoughts?

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?

DO THEY KNOW IT'S CHRISTMAS TIME AT ALL?

Back in the eighties, a group called Band Aid got together and created a series of songs for which the proceeds of attendance and recordings went to charity in the developing world.  Back then, it was a very powerful song.  Whenever I think of it, I remember helping to organize a conference for my profession one year and hearing this song play as a backdrop in the hotel lobby, as we met with their conference convener who showed us rooms and various meal plans for our people.  I remember hearing there won't be snow in Africa this Christmastime, the greatest gift they'll get this year is life, oh Where nothing ever grows, no rain nor rivers flow ... Do they know it's Christmastime at all?  This song always got me thinking about how our cultural dominance tends to define things like Christmas, whereby not everybody in the world celebrates this holiday.

The other song that reminds me of the deepest memories I've had of this time of year's the Little Drummer Boy, although for believers that see this song as a moral tale of a young boy attending the birth of Baby Jesus who played his drum for him and how at the end Jesus smiled at him.  This song even to me as an Agnostic does have meaning.  It is non-judgmental.  It is gratitude.  This is so unlike the crass commercialism of Christmas.  If I am to celebrate Christmas at all, I will vigorously celebrate Boxing Day instead and hit the malls on that day and get the bargains of the year.  A similar song set it out in detail, as performed by Steve Earle.  As a young person, I would love to listen to these songs as I yearned for the first snowfall of the year.  We would make paper snowflakes and spray on  "snow" on our windows, as the music played for the season.

As I got older though, my impression of the holidays became cynical, so ridden with cynicism mixed with yearning and emptiness of today, how Christmas used to be the season of promises and joy, but today, reality is filled to the brim with global warming, war and rumours of wars ... as more people gather at the corners of our downtown streets protesting what they see as the vile reality of abortion.  As the streets gather up with gold and glitter, music playing as we walk and wander around ... passing the market square where movies were once held for Halloween, now for Christmas (A Charlie Brown Christmas).  This year, it is happening around me without my participation and indulgence, while realizing I still need to give to my closest friends and colleagues something as they celebrate, even if I no longer partake in it.  

I think the problem I really have with the holidays is the prosperity that it gives to poverty industry, whereas food banks and related charities run full tilt at soliciting donations, creating commercials to portray people in poverty and only proposing such be settled by people donating more to these particular charities, many of which are run by highly paid staff.  Of course, the holidays mean much more to these folks, who go home to very traditional, family-oriented Christmas and accolades at the time of the season for beating last year's fundraising efforts.  In the meanwhile, the people their "charity" helps sit in their broken down rooming houses, often alone with nowhere to go on Christmas Day.  Maybe these organizations will sponsor a meal, a get together for those alone on that day, but regardless of the blessing shed by so many, these people will live the balance of the next year in shame, degradation and fear, brought about by governments run by the same types of people, who pat one another on the back for their good work.  At the same time, a choir plays in my mind, "I don't believe in painted roses, or bleeding hearts as the bullets rape the night of the merciful ..."

People who believe in human rights and understand the struggle of many people, not only in our own country, but around the world, can understand that our own traditions and ideals actually mean so little on the face of everything else.  The artists and critics among us are those that raise the world in its awareness in all of its vastness, cultural relevance and the knowledge that we all have but one thing in common.  At one time the sun will set in all of our eyes, as we together run through the river of life, to the deep sea.  The ocean awaits all of us, once the river stops its flow and the ocean is integral to our learning of what our lives all entail.  Life is what happens between the bookends of birth and death, while we all create our own imaginings of what is valued and in our society, who is valued more than other people.  At this time of the year, it is not the poor and unfortunate who are valued, but those that raise the funds and hold themselves on the big pedestal of society, as if to say, "Hey world, look what we are doing?"

Doing good is quiet and relentless.  Doing good is outside of the work of charity, especially if we are to honour our impoverished folks,and give them something that will last them throughout the year, their dignity.  Conservatives tell us 'the poor will always be with us'.  However, do we have to accept that premise on its face?  Dignity is much more than giving people a hand out once a year, inviting them to a 'charity' dinner and being featured in some damned commercial about "the poor", which is some amorphous, misunderstood group of people that hopelessly and persistently remain "with us".  This gives us the impression that we can only act individually and that policy doesn't mean a damned thing.  To me, policy involves choices:  a choice to do or not to do, a choice of a range of economic interventions or lack thereof, and priorities.  Sadly, the priorities of both senior levels of government are to filter more tax dollars to the wealthiest people in the country in some dim glimmer of hope that they will turn this economy around.  Why would these people care any more about the economy than the rest of us, when the decisions weighting on the same are not held by them, nor are they held accountable for what they do with their advantage?

Saddened as many are this year by the imposition of this provincial government, once again taking from the vulnerable to satisfy the cravings of the rich, Christmas means even less.  For those of you who will be alone that day, my heart lies within you and my soul bears your name.

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?

THE RISE OF THE ANOMIE GENERATION

I walked the full walk for the Coldest Night of the Year 2017 for Start Me Up Niagara.  Start Me Up Niagara's business is booming, but for the wrong reasons.  Sadness and hurt is ubiquitous with personal pain taking priority over social peace.  The organization tries to put into place hands on solutions that produce long term change for people, instead of just feeding an empty belly for a night, or for a few days.  They pursue the concept that all people have value, not just those that are reaping most of society's rewards.

This winter has been rough for me with the death of my mother last fall, only to be followed by the knowledge and helplessness of my father dying before me.  To me, it is though society has been taking a turn in a different direction and we all feel like helpless pawns trying to fight against the forces that try to keep us all down.  Members of my profession are susceptible to mental health issues because people do not approach us when their lives are doing well, when optimism speaks the day. We spend our time receiving, analyzing, outputting and speaking out, filing complaints, approaching people who are less than happy to see us, only to be misunderstood by those for whom we speak at times, as well as our colleagues.

Niagara Region is not a nice place to live and do the type of work that I do, without expecting to have some of it rub on you.  It is part of the compassion of my advocacy and my practice.  I actually give a damn about the people that come in to see us.  I've often considered the work of Maslow's Hierarchy of Needs ... my people are at all sorts of levels of that ladder, although nobody I know has truly reached the top of personal fulfillment.  At this time of the year, it is so hard to keep going  ... people around me are talking about the spring as though the spring can only bring blessings and freedom from this chronic darkness.  I spoke to the cab driver that took me here who told me as he let me off to keep your stick on the ice.  His eyes seemed to know how I was feeling, though I mentioned none of it ... he did mentioned so many people are hurting and cranky today.

This world is not the world that folks like my mother and father built.  My mother and father lived in a different world, in a different time ... perhaps, when we didn't know so much about the dangers of smoking and other things like that.  Growing up, I always noted people being mostly of an 'average' type, although I tended to thrive among the intellectuals.  We intellectuals would discuss anything, ranging from the eventual usefulness of learning the Pythagorean Theorem, to remembering the name of every bone and muscle in the human body and the periodic table.  At the same time, I watched the world evolve into something that I no longer understand or want more of.  My grandfather who I adored throughout his long life is probably rolling in his grave if he knew what the world has consisted of today.  He always taught me to remain strong, think for myself and keep fighting for justice.

In my working world, it is all computers, cloud technology, server technology and legal rigidity.  It is a controlled environment in some way, where we can give others the gift of a certain amount of peace and control in their lives.  Experiencing things, hearing things, doing things and then writing up memos about all of that becomes the life of law.  I continue to want and need the people around me that I have, as when I am not at work there is less of that, but more raw human emotions and amorphous anger directed at no particular direction.  I walk out of my office tonight.  One fellow is yelling and screaming obscenities down King Street, kicking over every garbage can or other chattel that moves.  Another fellow mumbled words only he knew what they meant, while giving us all the starry eye and that scary grin.  In the housing of the bank machines, people lie down and make themselves at home there.  They tell me they won't go to a shelter.

The world my mother and father were part of was one where everybody worked for a decent wage or produced decent wages for others, while looking forward to a decent retirement where the thought of mere survival and struggle was distant.  During my mother and father's time, people cared for one another, for their neighbours and did not mind having a government that also gave a damn.   My mother would tell me of how she grew up in a time that even rock and roll music was so new, so different and unabashedly rebellious.  Nevertheless, she felt the growth of illicit drug use led to where we are today, but then again, she faced her own comeuppance.  She married the man she thought would take care of her and us for the rest of her life, but that did not turn out right.  My father picked up and left my mother for what he saw were greener pastures, though that did not prove rewarding for him in the long run either.  At one time, there were consequences for one's actions ... or at least some expectation that one would apologize or at least forgive.

The fact that my mother passed away and my father is on his way to his own fate reminds me of the era that both of them lived through and hoped for our next generation passing on as well, and moving to a new ambiguous future where public anger results in the rise of people like Donald Trump and favouring policies like Brexit ... looking for solutions in politicians that create both impossible expectations and unanticipated grief for way too many ... the people want this, so why not they justify their stake into the very heart of society.  Society becomes an unnecessary force, as worship of the individual takes over, the thought that one strong man can make it right, is as scary as it sounds ...  I try to explain to people the elements of contagion theory and a voice of authority quietly condoning violence and hatred of the latest scapegoat group, or even joking about it to a large crowd of angry supporters ... is something that is as dangerous today, as it has always been.  Sometimes our first instincts, our first spark of anger and our desires arising from them are not necessarily the panacea we should be seeking.

In today's unabated community of 'alternative facts' and so-called fake news, society is approaching its pinnacle in its anomie.  The progressive forces of society not only have to fight the tendency of celebrity worship sharing the same old neoliberal concepts to run a government, whilst ignoring the very real consequences of a society going under, but to help people away from harming their own interests.  I tell people close to me what it was like for me to work in the mental health system when our province was headed by Mike Harris, who as his first move when elected slashed welfare rates, fired numerous civil servants and started the downward curve in health care coverage.  This is when I realized that the old era had ended and a new, scary reality was taking shape.  I do truly believe we never truly recovered from that period.  In my darkest moments, I still remember those who have died or have lost everything they owned or even their families or loved ones through Mike the Knife's slash and burn policies.

Those who worked alongside me back then are either dead or still wear their scars.  Occasionally, I meet one of them who appear very surprised to see me owning a legal office and partaking in rights-based litigation these days.   At the same time, I try to provide support and avenues for others to practice and to partake in profit sharing with me.  I also provide ongoing support and mentoring to others in the profession, many of whom just had too much.  Many stopped believing in what they do or what they are worth.  It's about the world and what it has been coming to.  It's about society telling people they are on their own, regardless.  I don't want to see the world turn out like that.  I want to stand up and make a difference where I can.  It is just sometimes so hard to see where I am going with this.  Some tell me it is about the ripple in the water the stone I make creates, as it broadens it scope to cover more ground.  Being a survivor is not all about glory and celebrity; it is grit and hard work, and many times hard feelings.

Click the links throughout this post and you will hear songs/videos replaying elements of the world I am referring herein.  Would be interested in your thoughts.

THE CULTURE OF DESPERATION, ISOLATION AND GEOGRAPHIC IMPOVERISHMENT

It was a few weeks ago that I noted that the Piano Man was back.  He was perched up in his usual bus bench in front of the Farmer's Market playing an endless array of demo strings on his organ.  One was particularly memorable, Beethoven's Ninth Symphony.  This was played out loud and clear at two o'clock in the morning to an empty audience on a clear, but cool night in April.  I was struggling to continue to overcome my stint in the hospital, which whacked me more emotionally than physically, although I am still medicated.  I spoke to the Piano Man once.  He told me lived close by, so each time he was able to bring his equipment by pulling it in his cart.  The last time was when my husband and I were waiting the last bus home, he came to tell us about a hundred "refugees" from Fort McMurray had arrived at Niagara.  I thought to myself, "Those people must be really desperate to come to Niagara, of all places, with no jobs, no money, no future".  Then, it was realized they had come back to their families they had left behind when they first left to Fort McMurray.

The Piano Man was around last year too, when my husband and I would go to the bars, have a few drinks, cheer on the Blue Jays and come back to rest up and then go home.  I haven't been out anywhere in a long time because simply I can't afford it.  Too many people around me in this region are experiencing the Cloud, you know that big hanging gray thing that doesn't leave your stream of consciousness as you attempt to go about your business.  There's a whole section of King Street, especially towards Ontario Street where businesses have literally closed down.  Even Jumpin' Jaxx, one of my favourite after-bar eats when we all used to hang out at Open Mike nights at the Strega Cafe. We'd sit outside on clear nights and chat politics, philosophy, hopes and dreams, none of which ever became true for any of us.  I meet the same people we used to do this with ... many are gone already to Toronto or other better climes, but the ones here are left aimless, with a Cloud over their head, even those who had cheerfully graduated from Brock, even those from Brock's Badgers and others who once held down the fort in this Town.

My illness has left me for broke.  All the bills still come in, even if I am not able to bring in any money.  This is something that two income families do not have to worry about or people who have high paying jobs with the kind of benefits that would carry you over for a short or long-term illness. I've longed for the days when I was able to secure good high-paid employment with these kinds of benefits, but this is not possible in Niagara.  Niagara Region has a culture of gigs, low paying part-time jobs and if you are lucky, you can win a lottery or inherit some money and buy some property by the lake.  It is not that there is nobody that is doing well in Niagara.  I know a few of them, but unfortunately, there are not enough of them to invest in the entire infrastructure we once had and has now collapsed.  There are large companies that feed off the poor, such as payday loan companies, household rental agencies, temp employment agencies, pawn shops and similar enterprises that have scarred our once pristine real estate.

As my husband and I left to catch a cab earlier in the week, a man was shouting to himself as he awkwardly walked down the street.  His eyes, glittering from the dose of whatever hit he took, gazed at me then quickly turned away.  These are part of the downtown landscape these days.  All the days when I used to enjoy time together with my husband and even on my own, are gone.  I leave my decrepit home to go to my office, where the stress and threat level always seems so magnified, that nothing I do relieves this anxiety.  It's not my inability to do my work that is an issue -- it is the kind of problems that walk through my door that create the anger, the sense of hopelessness that I have in this region.  We do many kinds of disability claims, which we are largely successful in but they can be a high climb.  People I deal with often have mental disorders and their visions and anger and lost dreams are part of what they bring through my door.  I compartmentalize.  However, regardless of well I do that, I still remember when private practice was fun.  Those were the days people had more agreements, more hopes, more dreams and we were consulted to assist them with business plans, board training, workshops, etc., which I enjoyed delivering as much as those receiving them enjoyed attending.  I looked forward to this and did not have to think, just put one foot in front of the other and soon, this one will be dealt with and done.  These times were memorable.

Unfortunately, there is not much of that going on anymore.  Many small businesses have disappeared or gone bankrupt.  Even a few of my colleagues had left their practices in less than glowing terms.  There is a high rate of pain and depression among those in my profession.  Around Ontario, I am aware of some who've had to go to rehab, others who have attempted suicide, others who have quit their practices and others who have had health crises, a heart attack, a stroke or something like I just had. To the contrary, leaning on one's fellow colleagues is not always a great thing, especially when we all are feeling the same way, but many will not admit it.  We have to put a look of strength on our faces, while we work to save the folks who come to us who are literally worse off.  Working in the Niagara Region in any small business can be a challenge for anyone.  People have a much lower average and median income than most other parts of Ontario,  At least half of those that have jobs are working precariously.  Most new jobs in the region are low-paying, low skilled positions.  Too many people are resigned to be happy just to get a call centre job, an occupation with high turnover, high stress and in many ways, hard on the family.    

I know when they come through my door - the names of the culprits tend to be repeated, as we prepare to go through our third, fourth, fifth or sixth round with the same parties.  I try not to be too insular at this, as even these parties are hurting in their own way and as Jesus lie dying on His cross, he prayed to His Father, "Forgive them, Father, for they do not know" or words to this effect.  It seems when the Cloud falls over us and we become ensnared in her difficult web, we become outwardly more nasty to one another and unable to come to a consensus.  At the worst of this, I see more hate crimes committed against people, our most vulnerable.  These are the folks that are so distressed that they believe that somehow very vulnerable people are getting something that they aren't and therefore, they must churn their aggression on them.  I've witnessed people kicking a homeless man right on my street, as well as a group of teenagers pushing an older woman off her wheelchair and told her tauntingly that she can walk.  While I do report all of these incidents, I never see how they are dealt with, and it appears that nobody is surprised when I tell them what I saw.

I walk down the streets of downtown.  I notice many businesses closing down, only a few new ones opening up.  The tenure of the new ones always seems uncertain as sometimes it seems a business has a remnant of permanency, but appears to lose it once the economy even slips yet another impossible notch.  When one is at the bottom, one cannot believe how much further we can go.  The fact is Niagara has become more and more bimodal in terms of success patterns.  I've met someone I knew in the 1990's who was always investing money in properties, in businesses and various activities.  The last time I seen him he was receiving ODSP, after a series of heart attacks.  One may say, he should have purchased disability insurance.  The point is he did, and yes - he did collect for a bit - until they decided he was on it for too long and he got kicked off, like most claimants eventually are. ODSP is becoming more and more the point of ONLY resort and not last resort.

There are others who I will refer to as the Temporarily Better Off (TBO).  These are folks that appear to have jobs that last more than a couple of years, pay people enough to eat and have a roof over their head in the same month and might even pay well enough for the person to own and operate a car.  However, more and more studies are pointing to the fact that a majority of these people when asked, believe they are one paycheque, one spouse or one illness away from abject poverty.   One of my female acquaintances who was forced onto CPP after long term disability basically dropped her after she had to sue and settle with them, still does not recognize that she is one spouse away from desperate poverty herself.  Her spouse is a nice man, very ambitious and successful enough to claim and actually keep middle class status ... but like anybody else, all it takes is an illness, an accident or some other issue to lay him out and then he can no longer support the family.  One's own empire of assets gets torn down instantly when you ask for help.  You have to live on your savings, your retirement savings, sell your second property, etc. until you are down to next to nothing, before you can get help.  I don't know what that accomplishes other than keeping people in need of financial support, making it very difficult for them to climb back up, but somehow the TBOs of our society think this is okay.  ODSP keeps stats on how people exit the system.  Less than one tenth of one percent leave the system through employment or self-employment. Most leave through reaching the age of sixty five or through premature death.  Some get married and leave the system as well, but that number is very low as well.

I hear the folks at ODSP wondering why more and more people are getting on this system.  How can we stem the flow, they ask.  Well, if people can just stop getting sick, stop getting into accidents, stop divorcing their spouses, etc., we'd all be happy.  However, misery tends to compound misery and over the past several years, I've watched so many couples separate and/or divorce.  To think this does not affect the upcoming generation is a complete understatement!  Niagara Region has become a bastion of depression, apathy, division, scapegoating and poverty.  One fellow I spoke to said he read a study that said that there are 100 unemployed workers seeking jobs for every single vacancy.  That's not very good and certainly not a unifying factor ... for those that get these jobs, there are always people who think they got these jobs for reasons of nepotism, being a minority, etc.  I have met men in the region that feel that they have no protection under the Human Rights Code or Charter, when in fact this isn't true.  The majority of folks I've represented before the HRTO were white males and we have met with successful settlements and a few times, successful hearings.

The provincial government wants to pick a region to test the guaranteed annual income.  I say, don't pick a region - just implement the damned thing.  However, if any region needs to be picked, pick Niagara Region, as to me, this area seems to be the one that is so badly covered by that gray cloud and is followed by lingering misery and longing for days gone by.  The people here need a boost to their morale, their sense of hope and to aid them in becoming the creative, capable people they were meant to be, and maybe then my practice will grow back into more of what it used to be ... to help people build things, as opposed to constantly fighting for the declining set of crumbs our social safety net offers, or to assist in conflicts with others that led to each one's demise.  Maybe then, the Piano Man will continue to play, but aside from himself, he will have others with him playing guitar, drums and violin, and get invited to play in bars, clubs and other places.  He will no longer be alone playing musical demos at three o'clock in the morning.

Your thoughts?

FIGHT BACK AGAINST THE GREAT RECESSION IN NIAGARA

Have you read the news lately?

The Bank of Canada, The RBC and TD Canada Trust have arrived at a consensus that Canada is now in a recession. or at least heading for one.  Bank of Canada is considering slashing its bank rate again, following many prior reductions in order to spur more investment.  Polls are suggesting that most Canadians believe we never left the Great Recession.  That Poll, conducted by Pollara states that more than fifty percent of Canadians in mid-2014 believed the economy was shrinking.  However, our Finance Minister Joe Oliver refuses to believe we are in a recession, as his government is slated to go to the polls this fall.  This is despite both private and public sector economists warning that we are either already in a recession, or we are facing one very soon.

One would think that our lower dollar would help resurrect our ailing manufacturing sector, which prior to the 1990's was the main private sector producer of middle-class jobs.  But it seems my spider sense, and those of many others, sees this is not happening.  As extraction, refining and transportation in the oil and gas sector is facing major competition in the South, Alberta is for the first time in many years sliding into a recession as well.  This is being felt by Canadian people across the country, both in their perception of their own economic opportunities, as well as economic growth in general.  For the first time, in May 2015, Albertans went to the polls and elected their first NDP government, after years of iron-clad conservative rule.  This party has also been leading in the polls federally as well.   More than fifty percent of Canadians view the NDP as the best effective change from the current government.  Mulcair's party continues to enjoy a steady lead over the other two main parties.

Recessions affect all of us.  Traditionally, our governments have been cost conscious and tight fisted when it came to spending on programs to relieve the impacts of a recession.  While many on the right would argue that governments cannot spend their way out of a recession,but conversely making cuts and tightening up program spending on vulnerable communities does not 'cure' a recession either.   Over the past few years, more and more commentators and even wealthy business people have come forward to protest what we all knew already:  the rich are getting richer and the poor are getting poorer, and more and more people are saying this is not a good thing.  Nick Hanauer, a billionaire investor stated in his TED Talk video that when communities don't have consumers to spend their money, business at all levels suffers.  Tax cuts for the rich and cuts to social programs supporting the lower income has not ever led to more and better jobs.  In fact, the less money the public has to spend at small businesses in their communities, the less likely these business will hire additional staff.

This issue has been brought to the fore by the Occupy movement that claimed the 1% is taking from the further impoverished 99%.  Hugh Segal, former Conservative Senator, has been raising the spectre once again of a guaranteed annual income for all Canadians.  This would mean creating an income floor that nobody falls below to ensure that nobody lives in poverty and can meet their basic needs.  He critiques the current welfare measures applied today, which do more to discourage work and crush incentive than they lift anybody out of poverty, while citing an unconditional guaranteed annual income for all Canadians will increase local spending, as well as eliminate disincentives for Canadians to accept paid work.  While discussions about a guaranteed annual income (GAI) still need to be focused, issues around amounts required per person, per family or household, as well as what - if any - clawbacks would exist - as the recipients of the GAI begin to increase their paid work - need to be finalized to ensure we are not replacing one bad welfare system with another one.

At the same time, last Sunday a referendum was held in Greece, in which 61% of those who voted elected to say NO to further austerity measured imposed on them by the European Union, European Central Bank and the IMF, from which bridge funding has been provided over the past five years and has not yet been renewed.  Greeks have lived the effects of austerity, enduring deep cuts in pensions, public sector wages and program spending, leaving many people without enough funds to pay for their basic needs.  There have been public suicides, business closures and large public protests, which led to Greece electing a far left government that agreed with its people: austerity has to end.  Greece is in a difficult spot, not necessarily a result of profligacy, but a result of many factors (e.g. poor enforcement of tax collections, insufficient value added tax or VAT, previous attempts at cuts, as well as pressures resulting from having an economy and currency controlled by others -- countries with more stabilized funding and a significant resource base).  More austerity is not going to cure Greece, nor is kicking them out of the "euro: either.  These next few weeks are going to prove interesting as Greece's new government attempts to work with its European partners and creditors to get a plan to get itself out of this mess.

In Canada, our right wing has constantly pushed for further austerity measures on its people; in particular, people who are most vulnerable.  I don't understand how cutting the amounts people get in unemployment insurance, disability and welfare allowances is going to create jobs, or get these people into stable, middle class positions/  I have witnesses the effects of this philosophy over the past ten to fifteen years and have only seen a downward drift in wages, in business confidence and a noticeable spike in social problems (e.g. family breakdown, mental illness, hate crimes, etc.)/  People talk about not having enough to eat and to pay for their housing in the same month, so how would it be possible for them to spend any money at their local restaurant, movie house or bowling alley?  The downward trend is being accompanied by the disappearance of manufacturing jobs and transition to other types of less labour intensive industries, such as the knowledge sector, personal services and to some extent, financial services.  Many jobs are also being automated, leaving many more people out of work now or in the future ...  . a future vision of self-driving cars, cell phone apps, e-mail and video communications, and so forth, eliminate many jobs as we speak.  A recent article in The Atlantic entitled "A World Without Work" hypothesizes further social breakdown and economic crashes if our policy makers are not cognizant about leading interventions to make this transition smoother for all concerned and again, raises the spectre of a GAI.

As the owner of a small legal practice in Niagara, I know that if I were to remain successful and grow my business, as in hiring new people, I need more clients.  That means, I need more people who have discretionary funds to pay my office to assist them in various legal matters.  If government austerity policies continue to shrink the pocketbooks of the middle class, who remain our biggest customer, my business would not be able to function, nor would any other business - apart from discount grocery stores, second hand clothing shops and low cost rentals.  As more people fall into this decline, the demand for these basics will only go up, while supply is limited.  Many anti-poverty spokespersons, most of whom have never been poor themselves, are asked what is needed, their first response is "affordable housing".  While I agree housing is an issue, it is a symptom not the cause of the sorry state of affairs we are in now.  Most people do not want to live with the rules, restrictions and traps offered by 'rent geared to income' housing, while others would like to hang onto the homes they have.  The notion of building more social housing as a salve for poverty's ills is very limited to those that want to and manage to get to the top of extensive wait lists, while others further down the list or those that do not wish to live in social housing are left out.  Those in RGI housing tend to remain in RGI housing, as establishing oneself or re-entering the labour force from social benefits is penalized.

An attack on poverty has to start with income; that is, income that does not squeeze incentive from those in receipt of it, or stigmatize those that need it or who apply for it.  Housing markets that cater to the general population can and will adjust their prices to match the "market" meaning that prices will eventually rise or fall with average income of those that demand the commodity. This relates to talks the mainstream media has about a "housing bubble", which is when the price of housing becomes too high for most people, the prices will naturally fall to a lower equilibrium.  Some economists fear this, as many people have taken advantage of low interest rates and have over-mortgaged themselves, where if the rates ever go up or they re-enter the market, they may find themselves locked out.  When prices go back to equilibrium it may not necessarily be a bad thing, especially as it will bring more renters into the ownership market, leaving more rental housing available to those that need them. The situation as it stands now is wage controls (esp. the "social wage") without price moderation, which is shutting out the poor not only from the economy, but from their communities as well.  Shelter portions of OW and ODSP were last deemed to be adequate at some point in the 1970's, but certainly are insufficient in today's market.  These things tend to segregate a large part of our community, which has been repeatedly found in any academic study I've read, to be polarizing and dysfunctional for the people involved (and with enough people in these situations, there can be a chronic recession - much like we feel today in Niagara region).

We have a federal election coming up.  While I cannot tell you who to vote for, but please do study your candidates' positions on all issues of importance to you and choose the candidate you believe will best get Niagara out of this recession.  Most important -- register to vote, and learn what you need in terms of ID, as some of this had changed.  For agencies and others who work with low income communities, please try to ensure that people that need some type of identification can obtain this identification before they will need it to go out to vote.  Promotion of citizenship at this very crucial time is vitally important if we are ever going to achieve stronger communities.