DEAR PREMIER FORD ... ONTARIO CANNOT AFFORD YOU!

On the weekend of February 21 - 22, 2020, you stood cocooned with your supporters in the Scotiabank Convention Centre for a "policy convention" inviting your supporters and other select individuals.  Media were specifically disallowed from the convention, nor were any observers from other political parties, as is the norm in actual democratic countries.  You spoke from your throne like you still speak for "the people".  Again, I ask you, "What people?"

In the meantime, thousands and thousands of "the people" gathered en masse outside in the cold February winter to give you a message that your policies are not working for the people of Ontario.  Education workers walked out en masse.  Health care workers are getting laid off en masse, right after you promised us you would stop 'hallway medicine".  Many small business owners were also in that crowd, as they are bright enough to know that when our government attacks people at the bottom, their businesses will soon pay for it.  I noticed in the past several months several business closures in my region, particularly those sensitive to local economic fluctuations.  Ontario "open for business", my ass!

When all people can get are low-wage, part-time jobs, they are not going to be spending their money at local restaurants, clothing shops, gaming shops, the pool hall, the dry-cleaner, the bookstores or the pub.  They will certainly be getting less haircuts, manicures and probably will be re-using some of their old accessories.  Many of these people are also paying 35, 45, 60, 70 percent or more of their monthly income on housing alone.  These people cannot "go shopping", Mr. Ford as they have no money to shop with!  Did you know that we have a housing crisis, Mr. Ford?  I presume not because you are well housed and pampered, probably assuming everybody else in Ontario is living the same charmed life that you do.  Every summer, your family has put on Fordfest and invited all your well-to-do supporters to gather for free beer and burgers at your mother's backyard, while using security to keep out "the people" that do not benefit from your policies.

Somebody ordered security to chase the media out of your policy convention that cold February day.  Why was this done, Mr. Ford?  What were you afraid of?  Do the people of Ontario not have a right to know what cuts you are planning next for them?  I don't know why you don't resign, Mr. Ford, because so far your government has been one unmitigated disaster after another.  Hallway medicine is up, mental health supports have been cut with longer wait lists, housing lists are longer and rents are way up, where even middle class families cannot afford decent housing.  When it touches the middle class, can you at least act then, Mr. Ford?  Or do we have to wait until it hits you, your family and your wealthy friends first, before any of us other minions get relief?

Even your attempt at making one dollar beer failed, as well as your attempt at changing the colour and makeup of Ontario's license plates.  Sometimes, Mr. Ford, it is better just to leave enough alone.  We don't need partisan coloured plates anyways.  Or was this all one big distraction from what you are really planning to do to Ontarians?  What further cuts do you have in mind?  What other services normally delivered by public services will now be handed over for profit to your friends, donors and lobbyists?  It is so easy to get your friends to do things, so when your own policies fall flat, you can always point to the private company you gave the work to and blame them, right?  It is so easy to cut, cut and then cut some more, but not so easy to actually lead a diverse democracy such as the one we have here in Ontario.

How about your major pilot project your government is testing in three parts of Ontario to help get unemployed and social assistance recipients into jobs?  Your Minister complained that what was being done now is not working.  Well, let me suggest that this pilot project is nothing new and will not work either.  It has been tried before many times and failed every time - yes, every time!  One wonders what your party's connections are with the successful applicants who were picked to run these programs.  What were your promises to these companies, Mr. Ford? Your government claims less than 1% of people leave the social assistance rolls for a job?  Perhaps, you should be looking at some of those 800 rules that your government has chosen to keep and add to as the source of the problem, as opposed to the work of employment services agencies.  

These rules discourage people from working too much.  Perhaps, you should try these same 800 rules on your corporate friends first to see if they find it to be an "incentive".  Call it a pilot project, Mr. Ford.  See which billionaire squawks first about not being able to invest when anything they receive is clawed back after the first $200 they get every month.  Is your goal only to get people off assistance and into low-paid, precarious work?  That is NOT going to keep them off the rolls ... they will be right back on assistance within a month.  Count on it!  This is what happened in Australia.

"Pay for success" has been tried here even in Ontario under ODSP employment supports and has been discontinued because it was not working: not working for the recipient, not working for the provider, not working for ODSP.  Why is that?  Did you bother to ask?  It is because the only incentive that providers have so they can keep their lights on is to push people into the first available jobs out there, whether that job is only for a day, a week, a month, part-time or full-time or contract or temporary?  This certainly will not result in matching the needs of employers for qualified workers with the needs of job seekers with qualifications.

Should the system change?  Of course, it should!  But it should be changed to the better, so that people are not just continuing to scramble to survive, as opposed to bettering themselves.  You tossed THAT pilot project aside, which was working for nominal period it was allowed to run for.  People involved with the basic income were attending school, getting better jobs, starting businesses, etc.  Is this not what you want people to do?  However, that all stopped with the cessation of that pilot project and people were thrown back to the 800 rules.  Your proposal is only going to push more people into the scramble for survival, for which many unfortunately will fail (e.g. die).  Further, in order for a system like you are proposing to work, there has to be an abundance of well-paid jobs for every level of ability and qualification.  People will get off and stay off assistance if they got one of those jobs, but even you (and all of your Ministers that have worked on this file) cannot even tell us where these jobs are going to come from!  Further, many people are on ODSP because they cannot work.  Most of the others have significant limits on what they can do.   

Are employers going to magically overnight develop an enlightened attitude and want to hire persons with a range of disabilities, accommodate them and pay them well?  If that is the case, then I want you to give ME and anybody else who wants one a job that pays at least $80,000 a year and does not discriminate against us.  You may say you can't do that, so how do you expect your friends with literally no ties to the selected communities and an interest only in profit (through the private pilots) to do the same?  My experience is that employers will not hire anybody they have to accommodate in any way.  Are you going to ask people already on ODSP to participate in this circus, which I can tell you right now will give you the same results (with less than 1% leaving the rolls).  Remember what they say about the definition of insanity.  You can try the same concept over and over again and expect different results.  How much money do you expect to waste on this project before your government would have to call it quits, like you did with the license plates, the education cuts, etc.?

I can already tell you people in my part of Ontario are not getting any more money in their pockets than they had before you got elected, yet they are spending more and more out of their pockets on everything, ranging from government services, to health care (due to cuts) and auto insurance (another behemoth you promised to reduce, but is actually going up 10%).  I know I can't afford you.  Neither can the man I spoke to on the bus on the way home tonight.  This man is a trained auto mechanic, but he can't find a job anywhere.  After being forced to live on Ontario Works for many years with many spells of homelessness in between, he was finally put onto ODSP, where he is just a tad better off, but not by much.  Most of my friends can't afford you either.  I have a friend who just got her PHd and she is not working either.

I am asking you to wake up to the reality of the province you want to lead.  That means talking to "the people", not just those who are bamboozled by your bullshit.  Talk to people who are experts in policy, program design, economics, health care and other things, as well as people with lived experience being kicked around and attacked by governments over the generations.  If you want to find out what you need to do to help people get off social assistance, talk to somebody on social assistance.  If you want to find out what is wrong with health care, talk to people who use the health care system on a regular basis.  If you want to find out what children with autism need, talk to their families, as well as adults living on the spectrum.  When consultation and inclusion is lost on our government, our very essence of democracy is thrown out the window.

** For my readers, please copy this and send to as many of your friends, media sources, social media sites, MPPs and others, over the next few weeks of budget talk and follow-up **

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?

OPEN LETTER TO DOUG FORD - "FOR THE PEOPLE", BUT WHICH PEOPLE?

Another provincial election has come and gone.

The PCs led by a moderate candidate, Patrick Brown, imploded one day in January of this year, allegedly by anonymous accusers of the #MeToo movement.  The suddenness, the abrupt change and sudden shift in direction in that party looked bad and gave me what information I needed about you and any of your competitors.  It was almost created by prophecy to put you in the Premier's chair.  Because of that turmoil and the sudden decision to move your party to the far right has turned me off from possibly being a supporter.  I am of the radical middle, not to the left or to the right (and have supported all of the major political parties at different elections).  I was hopeful for the People's Guarantee, a modest platform, with ongoing efforts to continue to build and grow the province, improve health care and address climate change, would have gained traction.

You say "the people" voted for change.  You say "the people" were tired of Kathleen Wynne, even though I can't think of anything policy-wise that Kathleen Wynne did that deserved such hatred and animosity from some of "the people" in Ontario.  Nor can I think of one good reason to change the direction of the province to what you were campaigning on, which was essentially nothing.  Under pressure to present a costed plan, you and a few pals spent the night photo shopping prior election announcements and attached some price tags to them.  This was in spite of the fact if you fulfilled every part of your platform as written, the province was going to be in a much deeper hole than it would be under any of the other party's governance.

You promised that everybody would have more money in their pockets under your governance.  Sadly, I think you are only thinking of SOME of the people, not all of us.  A forum at Ryerson University was held on disability issues prior to the election and your deputy premier Christine Elliott stated that she was empathetic that more money should be put into ODSP, but said that the province is not in good financial shape, so it was a priority of your party to put the province back into healthy balance.  Let me say one thing ... the province will NEVER be in good enough shape for your government to allow people with disabilities to have more money in THEIR pockets and live decent lives, whether they work or not.  If the province was in such bad shape, why is your government still moving ahead on significant tax cuts that for the most part benefit only the well-off, most of whom will not spend a single penny in their communities?  

My daughter just graduated from high school and is now moving on to post-secondary education in the arts.  She is a very different person than the people you speak for and represent.  My son is going for post-graduate studies and will be thereafter practicing in the medical field.  He is also a very different person.  He is smart, well-educated and works hard. He cares about our health care.  My son wrote a paper on how much the cuts that your predecessor Mike Harris costed the province. Yes, these cuts COST the province and as a result, plunged us into a major deficit.  Mike Harris was going around at the time promising the same kind of "trickle down" economics you are, but all I witnessed were more people dying, children being removed from more homes, more people getting charged for minor crimes and ending up jail, more people on the street after losing their homes ... That costs the province something.  It costs to keep people in jails.  It costs to keep people in homeless shelters.  It costs to force people to scrounge throughout the day, sometimes committing minor annoying acts that were back then criminalized, so more people can be punished for being poor.  Our courts, police forces, judiciary and legal aid costs the province money.  These people did not see any of the money that supposedly "trickled down" from the province's wealthy.

I worked in the mental health system back then.  I was watching people die, many times at their own hands, and other times, as a result of health issues.  I once read a report that stated that homeless people live to an average age of 47.  Is this the kind of province you want to lead?  Your single-minded pursuit to get people receiving "social assistance" back to work is a familiar refrain as well.  I remember the workfare program implemented by your predecessor, and how it had to shut down because there were not enough "jobs" to place workfare clients in.  Do you think things have changed since then?  Do you think businesses will suddenly open their doors and hire people from the OW rolls and help people get off ODSP?  If this were the case, businesses would have started that already! We are just wondering how your government intends to force employers to hire people with disabilities, pay them decent wages and accommodate their needs so they can perform effectively.  Many people with disabilities are well educated, well qualified for the jobs that are out there, but most of them are unemployed or not in the labour force. Perhaps, you can pass one of your laws that you can ram through the legislature that employers must hire anybody with a disability or who could prove they are on social assistance.  Or are you just going to put the whole burden on the person as usual, many of whom experience ongoing discrimination?  The longer they are out of the workforce due to discrimination, the less likely they will ever return to the labour force.  In the meantime, how will they get by when the amount one receives on "social assistance" barely covers their rent, let alone any costs associated with conducting an effective job search?

Your Minister of Community & Social Services, the Hon. Lisa MacLeod, has announced today that Ontario is officially moving backwards on social policy.  She has decided that your new government is scrapping everything that could possibly represent positive change and will help enhance health and improve people's outcomes.  That, instead of putting more money in these people's pockets. Basic income studies will now be scrapped, so that the social assistance system can move back to the dark ages of policing and criminalization of people living in poverty, who are only doing what everybody else does to survive. You ran your campaign on not being a "politician", which is fine.  But this also alerts me that your government needs help from lots of people who have actually studied policy, know what works and what doesn't work, and can certainly advise you not to repeat the barbaric acts that the Mike Harris' government did to "the people" that you claim to serve.  

My memory is long and I remember people dying in the mid to late 1990's and early 2000's ... many times, several in a month.  I also recall people coming into my office desperate because they were about to pushed out of their homes.  Only a couple days later, I would hear from somebody else that they had committed suicide, or I would read their obituary in the local paper the following week.  I also remember a close friend of mine that died of AIDS because at the time, Mr. Harris thought a lot like you, not liking the idea of harm reduction programs in the community, such as supervised drug injection sites.  My friend could have been saved, at least long enough to benefit from the then new anti-retroviral medication regimes that were becoming popular in those days.  But he was denied help because he was an IV drug user and by not helping them, it was going to get them to quit on their own.  News flash, Mr. Ford!  At the time my friend was alive, he was an avid user of one of the many UNSUPERVISED sites where some people gathered to use highly addictive drugs, like heroine.  Today, the number of these unsupervised sites are greater and more out of control than they once were.  If it is not important enough to save the lives of our most vulnerable people in the community that resort to this addiction, then one should wonder whose lives you DO prioritize.

Again, back to the Harris days.  Mr. Harris was just like you.  He got elected in early June 1995, just like you did, and like you, he acted really fast!  He couldn't wait to get those tax cuts out to his (and your) friends, while cutting supports to half a million people on social assistance, as well as in other areas, such as health care.  I remember that summer of discontent.  Mr. Harris decided to turn the Family Benefits Program (the predecessor to the ODSP program) and then taken anybody who was on that program because they were "permanently unemployable" and move them to Ontario Works, moving only those with severe disabilities to the new program "that takes people with disabilities off of welfare where they do not belong and into a program that will meet their needs".  Most people on Family Benefits at the time were "permanently unemployable", usually due to mental health, chronic pain, or cognitive disorders.  They were not going to benefit from Ontario Works.

Remember back then, I was working in the mental health system.  My agency did counseling, crisis care and referrals, as well as individual advocacy for clients who needed supports in such things as filling out forms, getting into residential programs, etc. I would also have outreach people who would travel to the difficult areas of my community to assist people in accessing services, as well as linking them to the needle exchange, which just started after my friend died.  Unfortunately, I noted an uptick in crisis calls shortly after Mr. Harris took office.  One day, a few months after the FBA program was turned upside down, a young woman in her late twenties came to my office to access counselling for family suicide.  Her mother who I will call Amy (to keep it confidential) took her own life.  It soon became clear to me that she was also seeking support to make change for people like her mother.  It turned out that Amy was in receipt of Family Benefits as somebody who was "permanently unemployable" due to various mental health and physical maladies.  She accepted a part-time job at what was then minimum wage at $6.85 an hour for approximately eight to ten hours a week.  She reported her job and her income to her FBA worker.  Shortly thereafter, she was one of thousands across Ontario who tried the same thing who received a letter from their caseworker advising them that they were cut off FBA because they were no longer "permanently unemployable".  Before long, Amy went home and emptied a number of pill bottles into her system.  She died later that night.

I immediately became familiar with the workings of things like the Coroner's Act, an application for mandamus, among other things I was taught at university before I actually decided what I wanted to be when I grew up.  I handled the media well.  Amy was on the front page.  I made sure my local PC members of provincial parliament knew what happened.  I continued to push her case.  At that time, the provincial government was busy with Dudley George, and later with Kimberley Rogers, and Walkerton ... all symptoms of a problem that populist politicians fail to consider when they are interacting with people's lives.  I almost added a new case to keep Mr. Harris and his government busy, but they were wise enough to finally start opening the doors instead to create THAT program "to move people with disabilities out of welfare where they do not belong".  It was called the Ontario Disability Support Program.  I remember sitting around a table at Wellesley along with a number of other advocates to talk about the major components of this program.  

In the new program, people were allowed to work and keep some of their earnings, access employment supports to help pay for things the worker (or self-employed) person needed to enter or re-enter the workforce, as well as a number of benefits, such as drug coverage, hearing aids, eyeglasses, dental and extended support for approved devices under the Assistive Devices Program.  It was by no means perfect, but it was a start.  Unfortunately, despite Mr. Harris' good intentions to take people with disabilities "off welfare", this did not truly happen.  People receiving ODSP were still subject to most of the same rules that people on Ontario Works had to follow, such as depleting themselves of most of their assets, stripping their retirement savings, losing income support if they even live with somebody else for a few weeks.  This was not okay, but as soon as the new Ontario Disability Support Program Act and the Ontario Works Act (arising from the oddly named 'Social Assistance Reform Act', or Bill 42 at the time).  Over time, court challenges were done to force the government to change other things, such as a lifetime ban from receiving any further assistance if they were ever convicted of "welfare fraud".  There is a lot that I can say about that, but that would be for a different post for a different day, as all "welfare fraud" was is, outside the obvious tiny fraction of those that would collect under different names, etc., were those poor folks who just did what other people would do to secure opportunities or enjoy improved quality of life (e.g. accept short term jobs "under the table", moving in with a partner to improve their quality of housing).  But, next time!

Over the years, the Liberals eventually took over.  Once Dalton McGuinty took power, they did their own form of austerity measures on the poor, such as stripping the then in place, special diet allowance, restricting medical transportation monies, and eventually scrapping the community start-up benefit and home repair program.  These were not good steps, as they were poorly thought out and later handed down to the municipalities, which either provide supports in these areas, or they don't and among those that do provide, the degree and type of supports available varied depending on where you lived in Ontario,  I learned this when I began to notice a significant number of people on ODSP who had no teeth.  Others were trapped in inadequate housing because they could not afford to move.  I am also aware of homeowners who were unable to complete simple repairs, which later resulted in substantial deterioration of their homes and living conditions.  In fact, a few of these situations turned into 'no occupancy orders' resulting in the homeowner moving to a shelter.  Again, good money thrown after bad.  

Eventually, while Mr. Harris was still in power (and prior to his successor Ernie Eves taking the reigns), I moved back into law.  This came from the sheer powerlessness I felt when I was forced to see what really was going on in people's lives.  Even if people accessed mental health programs, they would still return to inadequate housing and be forced into a severely inadequate diet.  I have met people who were diagnosed with health conditions that would normally appear in people who live in what we call "developing countries".  I also noticed a significant number of people on Ontario Works were really getting sick due to inadequate supports, to the point where they eventually became eligible for ODSP.  I met one chap who was living on ODSP, but barely making rent so he needed to work ... and he tried.  He secured about twenty-three jobs one year, only to be fired two or three days after he started.  Others want to work, but couldn't seem to get hired.  I participated in numerous employment consultations, as well as self-employment consultations, with the Ministry staff, as well as with other ministries under the Liberals.  They were really trying to do some good, but the reality persisted that is going to persist with your government, Mr. Ford.  There are no jobs.  

I became a legal advocate.  I work for anybody that needs legal services that fall within the range of my areas of experience and knowledge.  I started with a small office at home, to a small office in a commercial building, to an office as a sole practitioner with others working for me, to what I am doing now, as a professional corporation.  Although I love the law and what I do, I still struggle, as I have to always be "on", which is not what I envisioned when I went to school for so many years. It is the folks I work with or for, as I always seem to enjoy being with others and working with others towards common goals.  I've also assisted in the advocacy that the former Liberal government engaged with that resulted in policy that was finally moving in the right direction.  An Income Security Working Group was formed which included top policy analysts, economists, labour representatives, legal professionals, mental health and community agency representatives, as well as people who were poor who were articulate and knowledgeable about what would work for people in their own communities. They produced a report called the Income Security: A Roadmap for Change.  A basic income study started in four communities in Ontario to study the lives of 4,000 people to see how it would affect them if they received more money, less conditions and were not forced to work (as many as seventy percent of those in the basic income pilot were working anyways).

Between the 2017 and the 2018 budgets, a number of very progressive reforms were proposed and put into place for ODSP and OW recipients.  The minimum wage was hiked to $14/hour and slated to increase to $15/hour.  There would be an end to asset stripping of people on ODSP.  Common law relationships were going to be permitted for up to the three years without it affecting one's income.  Exempted earnings was increased.  One would not have to spend down their RRSPs or TFSAs they may be saving for their retirements. There were many more changes that would make the lives of people on ODSP much easier, even though the amounts were still highly inadequate.  I was advised that people with disabilities on ODSP would eventually be moved to an assured income, which would be like the basic income, with more money and less conditions and continued support for those that wish to and can work.  People in receipt of the assured income would not get cut off if they married somebody who also had an income.  They would be permitted to earn so much a year and their earnings would be annualized and averaged to determine their monthly income.  There was finally hope in this community.  I noted many of the people who participated in the basic income study start small businesses, take short vacations (with family money), work part time and/or get involved more in the community.  Even as the overall changes were put into place, people had hope.  There were less crisis visits and more visits where I can truly provide wholesome assistance to people to build a small business, take courses, etc.

However, today the lights went out and really fast!  I had three contacts today from people I know in the community who were feeling suicidal and many others, anxious.  Two people I know who are involved in the basic income pilot in Hamilton will now have to give up their housing they have been able to grow and become more productive in and move back to inadequate, shabby housing in poor repair.  Another was looking forward to "keeping more money in her pocket" when the exempted earnings were scheduled to increase to $400 a month instead of $200.  She told me she was simply going to work less hours now, as most of her money is clawed back or gone to work related expenses that are not paid for by the program.  Another who was able to invest some monies in health and wellness programs from a recent inheritance is now worried she will be cut off ODSP because her funds will be now "over the limit".  Another that started to put money into a TFSA will now have to withdraw it and spend it down and be guaranteed an old age in poverty.  My network is a microcosm of people who are now responding to the lights being turned out.  The "promise" to reform 'social assistance' over the next hundred days is only bringing anxiety.  Nobody thinks the new reforms under your government will be beneficial.  In fact, many of us in the legal profession remember what happened to thousands of people in Ontario for several weeks when Mike Harris' government turned FBA upside down to cut off those who were deemed "permanently unemployable".  I know the name of the person I helped and I know there are many more Amys out there that can only be hurt if something to this level is attempted again.

If the province's books are in bad shape, you do not hand out tax cuts either.  If there is belt tightening to be had, those in the best position to handle it should be impacted and that is those with the most money, not those with the least.  The people I know do not get any help from tax breaks.  In fact, people who work and are trying to get off social assistance are the highest "taxed" group of people in this province and I fail to see where in any of your policies you intend to do something about that. Your promise to lower gas prices is fraught with assumptions, given that I know your government really can do nothing about the price that companies charge for gas, nor can your government dictate to the breweries what to charge for their beer. The same applies to hydro. With the partial privatization of Hydro One, it is no small wonder that with the cuts in conservation programs that would otherwise benefit low income homeowners and tenants, I can only foresee the cost of gas and hydro going up for members of this group, while those with the funds to get high efficiency appliances will save money.  Again, where do these policies put more money in the pockets of the poor?  As stated before, you stated you are not a politician, and given that - you need people who know about policy, who know their community and so forth, to help set policy so it helps, not hurts.

As a business owner, I know what cuts to the poor do to local businesses.  Small businesses rely on the income people in the community have in their pockets.  If minimum wages are stalled, basic income is trashed, social assistance is raised at a rate less than inflation and programs that were once available to low and middle income people are no longer available, these people will not be going to small businesses anymore because they will not have discretionary income.  These people do not benefit from your tax cuts.  They need more income, not tax cuts (when many don't pay much provincial income tax anyways).  When people stop shopping, businesses lay off and close their doors.  I am sure you do not want to preside over a province that is pushed into a recession.

I am offering you an invitation to come down to visit my community, with me as your tour guide.  I will take you to different parts of my community where you will meet different people.  This will give you a chance to meet "the people" that you claim to represent face to face so that you can learn how most Ontarians are being forced to live and not just the well heeled that can attend your rallies.

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.

OPEN LETTER TO THE ONTARIO PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP ...

The provincial election has come and gone.

The provincial PC Party lost an election it could have won handily, especially if it proposed to push for good stable government and compassionate programs for those in need.  Ontario's population was ready to try something new, especially with the debacle of the gas plants, deleted emails, rising costs of public sector arbitrations, etc.  But instead of promising to go slow and steady, you started out by promising to create a million jobs by first cutting one hundred thousand public sector jobs.  That didn't go very well with people, as you know that would get the unions against you.

Further, as long as the PC Party of Ontario remains committed to implement many of the policies it has on its website, I will personally continue to engage in ABC (Anybody But Conservative) Campaigns every time there is an election until I see *true* changes in your direction where the results of your policies would not make a significant part of Ontario citizenry feel it doesn't belong and can no longer participate in the community and where people of low incomes would feel they are being punished for a crime they did not commit.  This election, many more low income people than before took part in the election.  We made sure they all had a way to get to the polls. Almost all of them voted for somebody other than the PC Party.  This does not mean I am happy with a Liberal majority either that resulted, but most of the people around me, including many people who would have otherwise considered voting PC did breathe a sigh of relief.

Part of our ABC Campaign was to reach out to various demographics to advise them what life would be like if your policies were put into place.  For social assistance and ODSP recipients, I advised them to envision a merged system where people with disabilities would be thought of and seen by the general public to be just as undeserving as those on Ontario Works.  I know your government would make no effort to ensure there was seen to be a difference between those in short-term and those in long-term need ... they will all be undeserving in your eyes, as your cohort Tory Coalition PM Cameron has done in the UK.  They must have made you proud, as they cut $29 billion from the budgets supporting the poor, disabled and elderly and killed off many of them in the process.  That would certainly be your pathway ... you would have everybody on ODSP tested just to see if they can even work a little bit and if so, you would cut their income down and force them to work a lot ... jobs or no jobs.  That's why people died in the UK.  I will not stand by and allow this to happen in Ontario.

The consequences of a merger of the two programs would also make people on ODSP get treated the same way as people do on Ontario Works, which is a bloody nightmare ... Throughout the election, I've received hundreds of emails and phone calls from people on ODSP, who were worried about being forced to get their income from the municipality, where they recall being on OW years ago and every three months, cut off or suspended ... often leaving them homeless because they had no money to pay the rent. Yes, this happens.  I've witnessed this when I watch proceedings at the Landlord and Tenant Board, almost every week there is somebody that had their SA cheque put on hold by the region and in turn, had no money to pay rent and their landlord is trying to evict them for non-payment. I help people get onto ODSP as part of my practice, and most of my appellants are forced to move three, four or even five times before they get to a hearing one year after applying. Why? The municipality has a tendency to put people's cheques on hold or suspension status for miniscule things ... if we allowed employers to put the paycheques of employees on hold because the employer may have questions about that person's performance, they could be facing the wrath of the Labour Board (as they should).  So why do low income people's rights get shoved aside for bureaucratic convenience?   Further they feared the debit card debacle.

Unless one is living in subsidized housing which is still a minority of recipients, their housing costs likely exceed if not run double at least to what they are allotted for "shelter" costs.  Your debit card plan wanted to force people to use the card only at stores to buy food, etc. and presumably if one is entitled to $479 a month for shelter, they would get this paid directly to one's landlord.  (If employers were to do this with employees -- pay the employee's rent directly to their landlords --- there would be hell to pay).  What if that person actually pays $700 or $800 for rent and has to pay utilities too?  This of course is being passed off as a bright idea as usual with no thought to it, unless your proposed government had plans in the works to force landlords only to charge the shelter allotment maximum for rents and not force tenants to pay for utilities. That is so outrageous because your government certainly does not want to interfere in the business of private businesses, including landlords (despite the fact you want to continue to place all kinds of extra layers of bureaucracy on social assistance and ODSP recipients that want to start or continue to run their own businesses ...).

It comes down to one thing.  You are ignoring the Human Rights Code and Charter of Rights with most of your propositions for low income, including disabled and elderly.  But then again, people of the 'Tea Party' ilk believe the Charter only applies to them and to corporate interests, not to people who can't afford to speak out for themselves.  I speak out because many people who cannot or are afraid to speak to me.  I will continue to do so, as long as I am on this planet.  The use of debit cards for the purpose you intended is a complete violation of any laws that I am aware of ... there is a presumption of incapacity of those in receipt of benefits, a presumption that people that receive the money will use it improperly ... and then when it comes to businesses and the trades, your party then protests against the nanny state, the College of Trades and other so-called "red tape" your party has deemed to be unnecessarily intrusive, but it is okay to intrude on the rights of those that cannot speak out, who are afraid to speak out ... Again, if it is a nanny state that is unacceptable to businesses, landlords, tradespeople, etc., then a nanny state is unacceptable to the poor - period, no ands, ifs or buts about it.  I hope you have this clear.

The cuts you proposed to slay the deficit in a shorter period of time ... you were not clear to us what you will cut or to whom.  I do sincerely believe any and all cuts will be against the vulnerable that cannot afford to withstand these cuts, and for those that can?  Na da.  Your wealthy benefactors cannot pay another penny of taxes?  Bullocks!  In case you haven't been reading my blogs until now, you know I don't care about the deficit and debt and so forth, as long as these measures are being used as an excuse to attack vulnerable populations.  If you want to pay off the debt, get your millionaire and billionaire friends together and get them to pay it off ... leave the rest of us alone!  Most of us cannot afford privatized health care.  Most of us cannot afford privatized education.  Most of us cannot afford hikes in tuition fees.  Most of us cannot afford to pay more and more in property taxes, which is the natural consequence of what would happen with your party's habitual concept of downloading everything from housing to social services.  This was done under Mike Harris to make your provincial books look better to the bond raters.

Do you really think people who are one or two paycheques away give a damn about what the bond raters think?  Do you think anybody who is homeless cares what the bond raters think?  Do you think anybody who has a family member, particularly a child, with a health condition that has a treatment that is not covered by health care in Ontario, cares what the bond raters think?  If you all care about what they think, then get those that can afford to pay the bill to pay it and stop giving away tax cuts in exchange for nothing but the finger for those of us not in your corporate old boys' club.  When I earned good money -- prior to losing my driver's license due to medical conditions -- I didn't care that I had to pay higher taxes than what I did when I earned less.  I had more cash flow ... and to me, cash flow is king.  I was able to put money down into my RRSP, but a serious trauma/illness happened when I lost my driver's license and therefore, all my post-secondary education, all my advanced skills, all my senior work experience didn't matter anymore ... Employers where I live will not even consider you if you do not drive, even if the job did not involve driving ... this is against the Human Rights Code, but then again, you never liked the Human Rights Code anyways.

In part of your election platform you promised more jobs for people with disabilities.  There was never any structure to this plan, just an empty promise.  In my case, are you going to bar all employers from discriminating against people that don't drive?  Are you going to force employers to hire people off the SA or ODSP rolls?  Somehow, I doubt it.  Like your predecessor Mike Harris, the empty contract of forcing one to look for and get a job somehow does not include any responsibility or obligation on the employers to hire anybody for such a job.  You want people to be responsible?  Then make both sides of the contract responsible!  Make it meaningful for employers that decide to trump the hiring of people with disabilities and on social services with able-bodied white males ... make it cost them money then.  But then again, you don't want to interfere with the rights of private businesses.  If so, then stop punishing those that cannot find an employer that is willing to hire them!  I personally searched for work for SIX YEARS after I lost my driver's license with not a single offer, when before I lost the license I was always working, always had a job ... that is why I am self-employed because nobody else will give me a job.  In other words, a job that will allow me to support my family, not be forced to choose between eating and paying for a roof over my head each month.  Before determining what people can live on, make sure you check out the market rents in each community, as well as the price of a healthy diet ...

You made an attack on public pensions.  I agree that taxpayers should not be contributing to high priced pensions.  However, there needs to be retirement reform in this province and preferably in Canada that would allow everybody to retire in dignity.  Because I was forced to spend down all my RRSPs so that my husband can qualify for ODSP during the time I was out of work and still looking, I will never be able to retire ... I can't afford to, nor do I have the means to rebuild my retirement account.  I intend to hold the Ontario government accountable for that one day.  Your party and likely the current party in government does not want to spend excessively on social programs to keep people alive, but unfortunately these kinds of policies which your government under Harris/Eves and the current one in power continues to endorse leads to continued reliance on public pensions when one retires, rather than allowing one to live more on their own funds and continuing to work as needed to supplement a decent retirement.  I simply do not want to compete with my cats for the cat food when I am of age to hang up my shingle.  I want to stay in my own home and be able to have the resources to purchase additional services or home renovations to allow me to continue to live in my own home ... because if I cannot, guess what that means?  More public money spent on nursing homes, etc.  I don't get any of your policies and how cuts would enrich or even give people in dire or straitened circumstances any kind of hope.

Before you try to believe I am a "left winger", I am not partisan at all.  I held a great deal of respect for many of your party's elders before your provincial party changed to accommodate the Tea Party down south.  I am fabulous at social media and I know tons and tons of people.  I know how to express things to get people to support or oppose something.  I am not crazy about unions, my position on them however is neutral.  If workers want a union, then they should have a right to have one.  If they don't, then they should not have one.  I've never been in unionized employment, basically because everytime I got out of school looking for a job, they always seemed to be more concerned about hiring those they laid off back when the economy bounced back and not really bring on new people.  That is the story of my life, so this doesn't give me a positive connection to unions, but I can't support a government that attacks them either ... If our workers wanted to have the same policies they have in Alabama, I am sure they would be happy to emigrate to the US and move to Alabama.  Just don't turn Ontario into another Alabama.

So, when your party goes back to the drawing board, it needs to do a few things to turn its fortunes in Ontario around:
1.  Respect the Human Rights Code and Charter of Rights and strengthen the protections people have    under these constitutional laws;

2.  Stop poor bashing.  Stop union bashing.  Stop immigration bashing.  Stop bashing any minority.

3.  Take the time to work with intelligent people to design effective policies and legislation that will work for them.  I adhere strongly to the principle "nothing about us, without us". I would be eager to work in your policy development process (paid of course) to ensure that policies are fair to those they affect, as well as supports the goals of self-sufficiency for those that can achieve it.

4.  Take the time to develop a democratic process within your party and to potential party participants, so that everybody can feel included in the development of policies and strategies.

5.  Retain the word "Progressive" in your party name and make it mean more than just a word.  Make your policies progressive and inclusive and ensure that there is no more fear created among people by proposing ill thought out and damaging proposals that impact on the most vulnerable among us.

6.  Develop a tax policy that is fair.  People who earn more should pay more.  There should also be an   inheritance tax for estates more than a particular value and monies earned primarily from investments should be taxed at a higher rate than monies earned primarily by salaried or waged income (or in the case of self-employed, income derived directly by goods and services).

I don't want an Ontario that will liken its goals to those of Alabama or in the poorer US states where having no health insurance means a certain demise.  I want an Ontario that has a strong system of medicare, a strong social safety net and a strong, robust economy where people can easily move from the lower strata to the higher strata of society, unlike today where most of us who are at the bottom today will likely stay there.  I want to see a government that emanates hope, inspiration, as well as compassion.  I want to live in a province that works on the world stage, is a strong promoter of local businesses and promoting opportunities for others that want to get into business.  I want to live in a province with strong post-secondary institutions that better prepare people for jobs or vocations that are marketable and needed.

To do that, that means people who are of the lowest income strata have to be able to participate in the economy, as consumers ... as well as be able to afford things to help them get ahead, such as good housing, good clothing, a healthy diet, transportation and a phone/internet.  I've seen so many people who have been destroyed by poverty.  They have lost all hope.  The more people we have like this in our community, the more it costs us as taxpayers to keep them alive.  If we can prevent people from getting to that state, that is how we will be saving the monies and finding the most efficiencies, as well as getting a greater return,

Contact me through this blog if you have any thoughts.

BEWARE THE MAN THAT WANTS TO SELL YOU A MILLION JOBS

Earlier this week, Hudak and his Ontario PC Party released its "million jobs" platform and details as to how they believe they are going to achieve this.  Any Ontario voter can go to their website and ask for them to send you emails on their election campaign and they will.  I did and I downloaded their campaign policy, which Hudak says focuses solely on job creation and the policy package around it.

The policy document is of course printed in bright blue colours and printed with full page colour images of Tim Hudak - the first one showing a serious pose and the ones toward the end of the document, where he is using construction sites and other businesses as a backdrop for his announcements, he is smiling.  Up close you can see his nice pearly whites, which would indicate he has neither missed many meals or neglected to receive top quality dental treatment that many Ontarians cannot afford.

He starts off by saying, "Where we are now ..."  It states To solve Ontario's problems, we must begin by analyzing the scale of Ontario's jobs and debt crisis.  Ontario didn't become a province known for high unemployment, reckless overspending and ballooning debt overnight, nor did it achieve that status by accident.  We can't explain it all away by talking about the recession - that ended five years ago - or the troubles of the world economy.

Ontario was put in this situation largely due to a series of deliberate decisions by the current government, decisions that have cost our economy and Ontario families dearly.  Here are some of the key figures ...

300,000 manufacturing jobs lost since 2003 (Only manufacturing?  There were hundreds of thousands of other jobs lost too as well)

150,000 people who left Ontario for Western Canadian provinces (yeah, that might be right, but I can't see that as indicative of anything, because people do move between provinces all the time)

7 - the number of years Ontario has had a jobless rate higher than the national economy (thanks to free trade, perhaps and globalization of our economy in general?)

800,000 - the number of men and women in Ontario today without a job

$46 billion - the total cost of Ontario's subsidies for wind and solar power that could have been spent to build all of the new subways and other public transit in Toronto and the GTA to break gridlock ... (What about transit in your own backyard, Mr. Hudak?  Not everybody in Niagara drives or could afford to ...)

$289 billion - the total amount of debt accumulated by the Government of Ontario, double the level when McGuinty-Wynne government was first elected (Let me ask you, Mr. Hudak, if you didn't have this great publicly funded job that you have right now, and were instead on Ontario Works, forced to fend for yourself at food banks and surf other people's couches, would you give a damn about the debt?  ... I thought so).

$1 billion - the amount of new debt the Ontario government adds every month (Ibid, above)

80 - The average travel time in minutes, to and from work, in the GTA - the longest commute in North America (wrong, ask people who are forced to use buses and have to transfer multiple time to get to places that a car might take thirty minutes to get to, aka in Niagara region).

0 - the number of Premiers excluding Dalton McGuinty and Kathleen Wynne, who were in power when Ontario collected equalization payments as a have-not province (Interesting analysis, particularly as we were not a have-not province under Bob Rae, and the Atlantic provinces under a series of Conservative Premiers, were have-not provinces over the years ... so, what's your point?)

So, Hudak's solutions?

Replace corporate welfare with lower taxes. Ontario's taxes are already among the lowest in the free world.  Yet this fact did not generate more jobs, just more money for corporations to hoard and store in overseas accounts.

Increase opportunities in skilled trades.  Hudak will wave a magic wand and suddenly, 200,000 new jobs in the skilled trades will appear as a result of dissolving the much hated College of Trades and to allow more apprentices to one journeyman.  I don't think so.  While I agree, the skilled trades needs to be promoted as an option for young people, it is not for everybody.  This man is a magician, if you believe he can pull 200,000 jobs out of a hat all of a sudden.  If this were true, then provinces that don't have the same ratios and do not curry to a College of Trades ought to be swimming in these jobs, right?  Not so.

Make energy affordable.  Hudak might have a point here.  High energy costs do drive some companies away, but I am not sure this is why we lost so many jobs ... I think lower wages in Mexico, southern US states and places like India and Malaysia are more the reason, if you ask me.  But, would Hudak do anything to lower our household energy bill?  Probably not.

Save small businesses time and money.  Hudak would do this by cutting what he refers to as "red tape" or regulations, etc.  Regulations like what?  Water treatment protocols?  Meat inspection?  Propane storage regulations?  Health and safety regulations?  Yes, small business can use a 'one door approach" to deal with systems, etc., but the interesting part is that Hudak also included as # 9 Eliminate hundreds of unnecessary rules that bog down the social assistance system so that it is easy to understand and focuses on helping people find work.  (More on that later, folks)

Compete for skilled immigrants.  This will be done by linking skilled immigrants that come to Ontario with jobs that cannot be filled by Canadians, suggesting that other provinces are doing great using federal levers in this strategy.  Another name for this is the Temporary Foreign Workers program.  Does this sound familiar?  Bring in new immigrants to work in hospitality, call centers, hospitals, clinics, offices, factories, etc. because "no local workers can be found".  Yeah, right.

Reduce the tax burden on Ontario families.  After the budget is balanced, families and individuals will get tax cuts.  Where have we heard that before?  Tax cuts mean there is less money for government to spend.  For every tax cut, Hudak should tell voters what health care service, what hospital, which schools, what social programs, etc. will be cut to make up for the revenues lost this way.  To me, these kinds of tax cuts don't mean overall savings for people, as they will find themselves having to pay for more and more out of pocket for things that used to be covered by general tax revenues.

Generate Dollars for the Public Good.  While the silence is deafening on Hudak's prior announcements about privatizing the LCBO, Hydro One, Ontario Power Generation, etc., there are still plans here to privatize others things like gambling operations, infrastructure (more 407s, anybody?), public transit, and some selective government services.  The problem with this is the bidders will be people in the private sector that have money to spend and the priority of the service will no longer be public service, but shareholder profits.  I am sure Hudak and Co. has a number of friends they want to reward with these opportunities.

Get GTA Traffic Moving Again.  Somehow, a Hudak government will take over all major highways, roads, public transit and railways in the GTA and connectivity to the "905" area (which we know will exclude Niagara) and have it run all under one umbrella without raising taxes.  Another miracle pulled out of a hat.  I wonder how these magical subways will be funded.

Create Jobs and Growth in Northern and Rural Ontario.  More regulation cutting, pro-rated funding for northern development projects, more gas tax to build more roads ... oh yes, we must not forget that everybody up north drives, even their pet gerbils.  Local control over more initiatives sounds great, but guess what local control means under Tory-talk?  Local costs, downloading ... you betcha.

Help People with Disabilities Succeed.  Another magician's act where attitudes of employers are suddenly going to become more enlightened and they will be hiring people with disabilities?  Yeah, right.  The current government passed the AODA and it has done squat about getting more people with disabilities into jobs.  Proposals such as post-secondary education to gain job related skills is great, but how is it going to be funded?  Will we be saddling people on public assistance with excess student debt?  The other suggestion is blandly saying we need to recognize the abilities in people with disabilities and not just the barriers ... like, where did we hear that before?

Re-Balance Labour Laws.  This is the same blather the federal government wants to pass about union finance transparency and giving members the right to opt out of causes not related to the collective bargaining, etc.  Well, does this apply to corporations as well?  Say, if I plan to go to eat at Swiss Chalet, would I as a consumer have the right to know if their head office contributes to political parties like Hudak's or others that I don't like?  Then, perhaps give me a choice as a consumer and boycott it?  I also think as a consumer, or even a potential employee, I would like to know how much their CEO earns, how much the regional directors earn, etc. so I can decide if the company is fair or unfair to front line staff.  What's good for the goose is good for the ganders.  While the term "right to work" has not been explicitly mentioned in here and Hudak (sort of) backed off on this after a near intra party mutiny over the term, I suspect this might come up again if they do make it to government.  We have not heard the last of it.

Give Our Colleges Bigger Roles.  Again, arguing the skills shortage that even Don Drummond disputes that exists ... with the theoretical nod to creating programs to give these skills to workers to fill unfilled jobs. In my learnings, colleges like anything else is a business.  They don't care if the students taking their programs end up in jobs in their field.  They just want to put more bums in seats.  This is one reason why we are seeing such a surplus in many professions, such as legal, social services, personal support workers, etc.  The colleges seem to just keep pumping them out, not caring whether their students that seem to accumulate huge amounts of debt actually get a job after.  That's not their problem.

Strengthening the Link Between Universities and Jobs.  Ibid, same as above.  We keeping pumping more teachers out of teachers colleges that the majority of those graduating will never get to teach or step foot in a classroom.  Shocking, eh?

Expand Free Trade.  This is trade between the provinces, something that should have been done ages ago.

Now it gets into the controversial stuff ... "A Government We Can Afford"  My question is:  A Government WHO can afford, or a Government that WHO wants to pay for ... This is not taking into account the theory of public service administration, but government as business, which has never worked. This section is all about the theory that there is a ton of gravy in government and lots that can be cut without affecting services. Where did we hear that before?  That's right!  Mike Harris promised a 30% tax cuts to everybody and deep cuts to government which won't affect services.  We all know how well that worked.  Think Walkerton. Dudley George. Kimberly Rogers.  Creeping privatization of health care.  Labour unrest.  Nope, it did not affect services whatsoever, even though people in the field can all reminisce about the increased rate of suicides, property crimes, homelessness and so forth.

Some of the plans show promise in my view, such as increased competition between providers of service, reducing huge pension outlays, increasing efficiencies, etc., but we know this is not what this is about ... Hudak said and told us all last week that he will start the track of creating a million jobs by outright firing, terminating, laying off, not replacing, whatever ... 100,000 well paid civil service jobs and replace them with ... low wage, part-time, precarious jobs with no benefits.  Another magician's sleight of hand.  Hudak will make 100,000 jobs disappear and somehow in the other hand, another million will re-appear.  How come I have my niggling doubts?

Health Care Pay attention to this one.  They want to reduce layers of bureaucracy and so forth and take the power away from planners and put it into the hands of people that directly provide the care.  This sounds great in theory, but who plans the care over the regions, how much money to allocate to regions, studies the demographic needs of regions and then implements timely strategies for the same?  Direct service providers don't have that kind of time.  However, there is a proposal to create Health Care Hubs, which means basically hospitals planning health services for the area?  Pots calling kettles black?  This is sort of like the police force determining what its own budgetary needs are and dictating to governments what we must pay.

The rest of this sounds so lofty I don't even want to bother with this, because our health care system is designed so much around the issues, but does not tackle the issues.  For example, I gave scenarios of two elderly residents:  Rick, who is 73 years old, requires dialysis and takes medications for high blood pressure and diabetes, lives in a retirement residence where he pays $5,000 a month for apartment style living, where he has access to communal dining, scheduled activities, in-house pedicures, nursing care, transportation to medical care, etc., while he can also purchase private duty care when needed.  Rick will likely do well for a long time because in these situations, the care is good, the food is high quality and the resident can acquire their own amenities should they choose, as well as come and go as they please.  Mabel is also 73 years old, on dialysis, and has suffered a stroke and complications of diabetes.  She has not retired well and lives only on OAS/GIS and has had a wait to be placed in her nursing home, where she shares a room with another resident that keeps her awake all night.  This home is often short-staffed, many times not getting to her when she needs to use the washroom, so Mabel is forced to wear diapers even though she can eliminate independently, with some assistance getting her there.  Mabel is likely going to get her doctors to tell her family to reconsider her life span and to stop care, especially if her needs exceed the maximum allotted.  How does Hudak want to resolve this?

Mabel could have lived in her own home if she was able to purchase some accessibility modifications, such as a walk-in tub, daily assistance with bathing and some housekeeping, as well as a home dialysis program while she sleeps, which would allow her independence during the day.  But Mabel was living on a fixed income and was unable to afford this care and therefore, was forced into a nursing home.  I don't see how this saves the province any money.  Perhaps, the whole concept of home care needs to be included fully into the OHIP schedule and skilled providers give this care, depending on the level of care needed.  Rick chose to move to the retirement residence he is in, which still allows him to live independently and he gets night time dialysis in his own unit, monitored by staff in the home.  Rick still has health insurance from his job he had before he retired.

Mental health care has always been an interesting political football.  Unfortunately, mental health is the symptoms of a social safety net that has been shredded.  Instead of viewing homelessness as a failure on the part of the social safety net to assist with affordable housing, it views homelessness as a disease.  It perpetuates the myth that people are poor or homeless or whatever because ... of some brain disease.  Science has never established a direct connection between so-called 'mental illness' and a disease or disorder of the brain, although we are amok with a ton of disconnected theories and correlations.  Yes, mental health is a priority and should be, but I don't sense that Hudak will provide a government that will allow such persons to remain in dignity and have the same choices as others do with other health issues.  It is a sensitive portfolio that needs to be dealt with sensitively and without stigmatizing people or treating them in ways differently than other people, and to offer those that suffer a way out of their situation, whether that be treatment for addictions, help with life-induced trauma, help with dealing with job stress, etc.  These aids have to be tangible and measurable and results-based and not simply moved to pharmaceutical management.

On the topic of education, it is even more witty.  Today's teaching students are taught new skills such as how to teach math so that more students are able to grasp it.  Unfortunately, very few of these new teachers are ever going to see a classroom to provide these skills.  Match this up with Hudak's plans to cut almost 10% of workers in the education system, including teachers ... citing that larger classrooms and so forth might result.  I don't see that as a good thing.  However, something that no political party other than the Greens ever suggested that could save a lot of money from the education portfolio is to stop funding Catholic schools and create one public school board system.  That should remove many of the Sunshine Club mandarins that Hudak likes to hate and bash in public.  At the same time, one religion will not be given privileges over others, where parents of other faiths that want to educate their children in their own faith, such as Jewish, Muslim, etc. have to pay privately.  Maybe Hudak remembers John Tory's foibles at trying to suggest all faiths get public support in some way, but this is distinct and different, and represents a clear separation of church and state.  Follow the lead of the Greens and do this, and yes, some savings will be realized.

While Hudak did not go into significant details about his plans for social assistance and for persons with disabilities, my readers can find his plans for this based on one of their policy papers published last year at the same time he released his most controversial paper on 'right to work' (which is still on their website, despite their disavowing it recently when it came under attack).  This paper, Paths to Prosperity; Welfare to Work is offensive, if not more so, than the "right to work" ideas.  While decrying over-regulation and red tape for business, Hudak's plans for people on disability or Ontario Works effectively adds to the layers of bureaucracy and discrimination people already feel.  First, he wants to put people with disabilities back on welfare and have this new unified program delivered by the municipalities.  While we realize this was a proposal from the Social Assistance Review Commission, the Liberals outright rejected it because of major opposition from almost everybody ... we all know the problems with this approach.

People with disabilities who are likely to remain on assistance programs for a longer period of time and some of them possibly for life, need to have a different set of rules, such as collecting benefits as a single regardless of their relationship status with somebody else, the right to earn more money without it being clawed back, a higher level of assets (including ALL retirement savings) and other rules.  People on Ontario Works can conceivably be off the system within months and do not need the same set of rules.  By combining the two programs, each set of recipients will be treated the same by the municipalities.  When this idea was first put forth, virtually everybody I spoke to that received ODSP told me about horror stories of what it was like to deal with the municipality and Ontario Works, especially cheque holds, suspensions, being called into the office without transportation to get there, etc.  Some have lost their housing because of this.

Other plans such as the use of debit cards instead of cash that would be programmed only to allow food purchases would certainly be difficult, if not impossible to properly develop, especially given that 73% of those on assistance pay market rents which means they pay part or all of their "basic needs" budget on housing.  Unless Hudak has some magical plans to force all landlords across Ontario as well as all banks that hold mortgages of recipients where they do exist, to charge only what social assistance maximums are for shelter allowance, then I can't see it working.  In addition to that, this infantalizes people.  Unless politicians, who are also paid by the public purse, are willing to be paid in a debit card that cannot be spent on trips abroad, personal meals, alcohol, etc., then they cannot impose this thinking on others.  This creates an additional layer of bureaucracy and regulations that nobody else has to abide to and can also impede working.  The social assistance paper is a nightmare and I would suggest all people who have been on OW or ODSP or have loved ones on these benefits, to read that paper closely with the link provided above and try to envision oneself and how they would cope under these circumstances, especially in a world where there is nothing going to be done about jobs.  Hudak might be trying to sell us a million jobs, but I strongly suspect as many others that these jobs are not the kind of jobs that pay ... perhaps, they can be better be related as 'snow jobs', 'imaginary jobs', etc. because as I often stated before, and has been proven so far, tax cuts do nothing towards creating real jobs.  It takes consumers with money to create jobs.

In finality, I want you to watch this video and this tells you exactly how jobs are created:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CKCvf8E7V1g
Rich People Don't Create Jobs

If Hudak wants to fire 100,000 real people with good paying jobs, and restrict unions and so forth, as well as cut or freeze social assistance benefits, then there will be less consumers that are able to buy goods and services the businesses, big or small, have to offer ... I know if I have a lot of people wanting my services, and I can't do it myself, I have to hire somebody else to help produce ... and once that person becomes over-busy, then we need another person.  But if consumers don't have money, it doesn't matter if businesses even pay zero taxes, they will not add people to their workforce.  What would these people do?  Just hang around and pick their nose?  Listen to that video and then ask your Conservative candidate how their proposals to cut, cut, cut will lead to all these jobs ...