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 CONTINUING DARK AGE OF THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PART VI 
AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMON LAW

Unity of legal personality abolished

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

Capacity of married person

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

Purpose of subss. (1, 2)

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

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

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

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

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

HOW SIMPLE ACCOMMODATIONS CAN MEAN SO MUCH ...

It is easy to pick up emotions when one has a tendency to empathy.  Having this, one can realize when not to strike and when not to attack.  Accommodation for people is a very important act that addresses the needs of people, whether in a workplace or in housing or some other situation.  It is not enough to know about one's identity, one's label, culture or handicap, to understand how to approach them.  I posted something on Facebook recently about the topic of anxiety.  I have a close friend who suffers major anxiety, and I currently have three claims going through the legal system on behalf of people whose anxiety has created such major problems for themselves, that others have infringed upon their rights in some way, either by doing something or failing to do something.  I have been told by others that such people should just stop worrying and pick themselves up by their bootstraps. Sadly, it is attitudes like this that keep these folks hamstrung by their disability.

Back in the nineties, I was involved in many different kinds of organizations, particularly a few where I was in a position to employ others.  During the early nineties, it was not necessarily a big thing to accommodate people with disabilities, although this was the law since the 1960's.  He was a superb performer who I hired to take on responsibility for the various policy initiatives the agency that employed me engaged in.  W accomplished a lot together in a short time.  During that time, I was the type of person that can write excellent proposals and put forth great ideas, utilizing strategies for matching funds, top up funding, project based initiatives and so forth.  My success rate was fairly high and at this time, we created programs that can be utilized across Canada.  We went through the bureaucratic channels of identifying our initiatives, our selected proponents, our objectives, etc.  He and I worked on several of these projects together, occasionally traveling together across Canada to meetings or site visits.

There was then a period of time my spider sense started to bite me about this fellow.  Prior to this, there were no complaints about his work, his ability to relate to others and to complete tasks.  I was never a direct accountability manager, as I always tried to see the many moving parts of a project work together, so that I would coordinate, delegate, observe and encourage others to work as a team.  We made decisions together, even though it was my right to direct otherwise.  I don't know whether this is because I am female, having held different executive type positions in non-profit or public organizations, as well as in my own private sector businesses, and naturally being more empathetic to how people are feeling.  First, I don't deal well with a lot of negative around me.  I can sense it even if nobody else is talking about it, or even appearing to suffer from some type of awkward environment.  When I began to sense this, I would ask how I can help instead of just trying to find who to place the blame for such a travesty on.

My fellow started to come in late a couple times a week, which was troublesome but not to the extreme, because while it is important to have predictability and organization, stipulating specific punctuality on the dot is a bit too much micromanaging for me.  There would be times when he would be at his desk, not appearing productive.  Certain deadlines we set together slipped, and then slipped again.  Many of my colleagues would wonder whether this was drugs, alcohol or plain old laziness.  I was more naturally inclined to get a discussion going about what this person can share with me about their situation at the time and how the workplace can best accommodate them.  Is there something I should be doing that would enhance or perhaps, provide support to this person (as this kind of pattern to me signals a need for support, not disciplinary action).  After I heard the situation and what was needed, I made minor changes in the workplace that would allow him to address his needs.  He told me how shocked he was because prior employers never expressed that concern, but my concern is keeping good people on the job working productively.

What is this script about?  It is about understanding other people.  Everyday, we work with people, many we love and enjoy working with, others we may have difficulties with.  Usually the moving parts work well together as a well oiled machine should, but there are occasional breakdowns, usually enhanced as a result of lack of communication or if communications is being done, it is done in a way that is aggressive or hurtful to the other party.  We are not always aware of how our own communication patterns can affect others.  Even I have fallen victim to this, but I have had to at least convey an apology to the person concerned and learn how not to deal with a situation like that in the future.  However, sometimes others do not.  This builds the toxins in the system, gradually wearing down on the machine that made that place work.  People want to blame.  People want to dump on others.  People want to run.  None of these things are productive.  I sometimes wish there were people who knew how to communicate using the concept of Johari's Window.

A window would have four frames,all of which represents the following items as they concern themselves with communication.  One frame would be the facts within one's own private knowledge and thoughts.  These are the things that are affecting you, or that you are thinking about, or opinions that are being formed, but I don't see them or hear of them.  The other frame is the things that are happening to me, my own thoughts and reactions to them, as well as how I might have felt this morning when I got up out of bed and fell flat on my face.  I am not going to say that to you.

The third window includes the things that are happening that neither you or I know about.  These are things that are outside of my awareness, or as I often say, "things that fly over my head".  These are also outside of your awareness.  Your son might be out at the time and getting into an accident and smashing the car.  Your partner might be preparing a big surprise party for your fiftieth birthday.  The final frame is the frame that includes you and I and what you and I both know, both facts that we share in common as well as knowledge that we know of each other.  I know your favourite colour is blue.  I know you enjoy your coffee black.  I know you and your partner have been having a rough time lately with bills, your teenage son and making arrangements for your mother, who has been getting on in age and needs more care that either of you can provide for her.  You know I just lost both of my parents, have been tied up at work with a major project that is taking on more dimensions that I expected when I first started and that my health has been an issue as well.

I come into your house with seeming a chip on my shoulder.  Perhaps I am impulsive, acting more erratic than I usually do, especially in my style of communications.  You are taken aback by this and wonder what the heck you did to cause me to be angry at you.  However, because I did not tell you about the idiot that cut me off on the highway, the cheque that bounced that was supposed to go to my mortgage, and my neighbours that held a party the night before until three o'clock in the morning.  At the same time, you did not tell me about your son's illness that was just diagnosed yesterday afternoon and a pending series of layoffs at your workplace.  You are naturally anxious and afraid that your job will be affected, but in not telling me that, you are seeing my behaviour as erratic and more aggressive than usual and you wonder if it was your fault.  To you, your world is coloured with fear and anxiety.  You are worried about your son's health.  You are seeing me as the aggressor that is somehow coming down on you or perhaps, being overly critical of things in general.  You begin to get upset, turn away from me and ask me to leave.  That is not your style.  You are usually open and are able to take me in most of my moods and help me laugh it off.  I wonder what is going on with you and what the heck I did to you that is making you indifferent.

So that becomes another jab at my day, now that one of my closest friends wants nothing to do with me.  I go home, wondering, scratching my head, and thinking about the possibility I did something wrong to you.  You are wondering why I was seemingly so irritated with you.  The fact of the matter here is that neither you or I are any different than we were the day before, but circumstances, our own set of facts unknown to the other person, have become a communication barrier.  Sometimes, what needs to be done is to open that damned window and allow the relevant facts to come in.  The facts are put on the table and then I can start to see why you were so indifferent to me, and you can see why I was unusually agitated.  We both know at that point that this whole thing had nothing to do with either of us and that we are still friends.  Life will go on.

It is kind of hard to explain, but that is how I address the people issues I encounter in my career and how I seem to know how to accommodate people when I know the facts behind a person's need.  In the above case scenario, once I learn the facts, I might offer to do something with you that would help bring you and your son closer together.  I would talk to you about strategies to learn more about what is happening in your workplace, while I treat you and your family to a nice dinner and musical or something like that.  I keep an 'open door policy' on things.  In a business relationship, we try to see what can make your work easier, keep you at a productive level and proactive, about what can be done in the near and more distant future.  At the same time, it would be nice for you to know that I am human too, and people having parties next door does not promote good mental health for me.  Because I am likely to be tired, maybe you can offer to drive me to my business meeting in Hamilton later that day instead of me driving myself and risking some other idiot cutting me off.

These principles, although humorous and simplistic as they appear, also apply to more complex situations.  Communication is key.  I know people's complaints, but in what way do they plan to be part of the solution?  If a workplace accommodation is needed, you need to tell me what works and what doesn't.  Just because you get migraines, it doesn't mean that another person I worked with who had migraines needed the same accommodations you need.  We are all individuals, shaped by our various values, experiences and personal objectives.  For me, I need an environment of certainty, to some extent predictability, while at the same time offering me a range of options to choose from to further grow in my career goals, personal goals, or whatever.  I try to offer the same in return, although some people tend to like the unexpected ... I am just not one of them.

Developing the empathy and the skills to do all of this has taken a lot of time for me.  However, doing this has furthered my abilities to grow, gain new experience and meet various people I might never have had an opportunity to know.  This is an important skill for people to have, especially in the business world.  As an employer, you need to be open to ensure that you are not unreasonably limiting your positions to certain people, aka people like you.  This is important in customer service as well, as you do not know who will be coming through your door.  Is your building easy to find?  Is it on a bus route?  Is there reasonable parking nearby?  Can people easily get through your front door? Is your place of business on the level ground, or is there an elevator?  Are your doors wide enough to admit even those in a power chair?  Is there access to quiet space to meet with someone? How is the lighting?  The same thoughts should be in any other area of your life's activities.  

This goes back to my friend with the anxiety disorder.  What this person also needs is certainty, acceptance and open communication.  Sadly, in all of my three cases going through the legal system right now as a result of somebody failing to accommodate somebody's anxiety issues, this simple structure and assurance was lacking for them, which in turn led to more serious problems.  The more cynical in my profession sees these situations as an opportunity to litigate, but the more humane side of me sees these situations as something that could have been handled much better and opening more of the world to these specific people who are involved.  

THE RISE OF THE ANOMIE GENERATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING CRISIS RECONSTRUCTED

We are hearing from more and more news reports that certain cities that young, upwardly mobile professionals are increasingly getting locked out of the housing market, without help from parents or winning a lottery of sorts.  This is particularly true of Vancouver and Toronto..  We are learning that political authorities have been trying various measures to "cool" the hot housing markets where there is this difficulty, such as imposing a tax on foreign investors or a vacancy tax.  Younger people are still buying, but further afield from their workplaces, thus amounting to a longer commute for them to go to work each day (and thus contributing to the congestion problem).

At the other end of the market, we are talking to people who have purchased homes perhaps in the last few years, but can no longer afford to stay in them.  This is particularly true of seniors, as pensions are diminishing and forcing more and more elders into poverty, or due to health issues that such seniors cannot afford to cover the costs for (e.g. home care, accessibility renovations).  Low income persons in their own homes are also impacted by higher costs and stagnant benefits.  With the removal of the Home Repair Benefit that used to assist at least on ODSP to perform necessary repairs in their home has been cut, leaving only loans and discretionary programs that rely on geography and even then, on the whims of the region or county one lives in.  There has been a substantial hike in the number of low income persons, including assistance recipients and seniors, who cannot afford to repair leaky roofs, heating systems, electrical system, etc.  In my own practice, I've represented such persons who were essentially threatened with an unsafe building order when it was learned that these people were living in such states of disrepair.  Unfortunately, my region thinks the only solution is for these folks to live in shelters, where their health will decline quickly.

At the very lower end of the spectrum, people are only seeking rental housing at a reasonable cost.  For those on social assistance, there is nowhere in Ontario they can live and stay within their allotted shelter allowance without having to take the majority of their "basic needs" benefit to cover their shelter costs.  Average rents across Canada and Ontario have been rising, not falling.  Yet social assistance rates have been falling further and further behind the costs of everyday items.  The only other options for such folks is to get on the wait list for social housing, which hardly seems worth it as lists are very long and there is little turnover in available units within the respective municipalities. Even if we can manage to build 171,360 units overnight, the wait list will be refilled by others who see movement on this eternal wait list and want to join up too.  The cost of building all the new units we need would be way too expensive - in the multi-billions! However, the wait lists are not getting shorter, nor is the wait times getting reduced.  Even people with so-called "priority listing" can wait at least a couple of years before they get a unit.  Others can wait between six years in some regions to twenty-one years in others.  It is obvious the social housing system we have adopted is not working.

Even when people do obtain a unit, the municipally owned ones are often in a state of disrepair.  In my opinion, the municipalities do not have the money to keep them up.  The larger their owned housing stock, the worse the problem appears to be.  In Toronto, TCHC units have a $2.6 billion repair backlog, while Niagara Region (a smaller region with a lower proportional housing stock) has a $120 million backlog.  In its report, entitled Neighbourhoods First, the Smarter Niagara Steering Committee has presented a number of problems with social housing itself, particularly how those in social housing are segregated and are made to know their place in society (as being less valued and sought after).  Their suggestions have been interesting, to say the least:

1.  The Cost:

In this report, it stated  What is not measured is the public tax benefit (much less the human benefit) of diverting children to better outcomes compared to the cost of providing subsidized housing to subsequent generations. This approach to addressing housing affordability costs all of us in lost productivity, continued social assistance, and in the physical upkeep of the properties. Much of the current affordable housing stock is in disrepair, largely due to the failure to adequately invest sufficient initial capital funds. Many buildings were cheaply built with low “maximum unit prices” and other methods of capital cost limitations. Insufficient reserve funding also meant that these projects suffer from budgetary deficits and are now forced to refinance for capital improvements well beyond what private market units would require.  Children who have grown up in public housing often end up living in public housing themselves as they grow up.  People in one part of my husband's family have all lived in public housing as children, only to grow up and have children living in public housing themselves.

Repair backlogs are expensive.  I've been inside units in my region that have had serious issues, such as mould, rotting ceilings and nonworking appliances.  When taken to task for repair issues, the municipality cries about lack of budget, whereas we can force private landlords to fix their     properties relatively easily comparatively.

2.   Segregation:

Particular buildings and housing complexes are known as "public housing" and act as ways to   segregate low income people.  When people living in these communities go outside, they do not see a diversity of people, with a diversity of lifestyles and different levels of ambition.  They mostly meet people much like themselves who could only teach one another how to better "survive" poverty.

3.   Social Housing Rules:

The rules determining rent rate depend on what a family's total income is, as well as number of people.  If there is a mismatch between the number of people and the unit size, the family may be forced to move.  If a family with several children live in a social housing unit, as each child leaves the household, the family may be forced to move once again (at their own expense and trouble).  This repeats itself until the person is living alone or half of a couple, whereas then they are not permitted except under slim circumstances to have a second bedroom, where many families outside the subsidized system use the spare bedroom as a place for a child to return home to, to house a family member in temporary need of a place to stay, or even to start a home based business.  In social housing, none of this permitted, even having a home business run out of one's unit (although this might have changed recently although one is still likely not allowed to allocate an extra bedroom to run the said business).  In addition to this, those receiving OW or ODSP are further punished if they attempt to earn significant incomes or try to reduce their reliance on social assistance. It is stated in a study by the Social Housing Services Corporation that a full time worker living in an RGI unit gains a net of only $1 per hour for working full time, as opposed to remaining on social assistance and not working at all.  Further, as individuals work more hours, their housing rents go up accordingly, eventually trapping the person into making very difficult choices: quit the job/reduce one's hours or move to market housing.

4.    Maintaining Families as Permanent Renters:

If you are paying only $139 a month for rent and you go to a bank or mortgage broker seeking a mortgage to buy even a low priced ownership property, you will be laughed out of there.  Somebody paying full market rent for several years without issue has a greater chance of being accepted for a mortgage than somebody that hasn't.  There are some assisted down payment programs available through social housing providers, but they are limited in scope.  Even seniors that own their own homes have to sell within six months of being accepted into social housing, which means they cannot maintain an asset that might do them well as they move on in years and might need additional income or leverage for borrowing, or even to pass down to their children in an inheritance.  This makes poverty further inherited and embedded into the family structure.  In the market, technically home ownership and renting should be competitive and if rents are set too high, tenants should theoretically have the option to move to ownership.  It doesn't work that way, so of course, the rental market is more likely to be difficult for lower earners.  Saving for a downpayment is that much harder for them.

5.    Little Assistance for Low Income Homeowners:

Imagine you became sick and had to leave your job and had to resort to disability benefits.  You own your home, can manage (barely) the monthly costs of ownership, but cannot afford the extras, such as when your roof blows off or your furnace quits in the middle of January.  There are way too many homeowners in this position.  Some of them can afford to take on more debt, by applying a home equity loan to the cost of their repairs, but this would increase the monthly cost burden to those whose income is too low to take that on.  Further, some homeowners end up with something major happening, whereas the insurance refuses to cover it or only covers a portion of the repairs.  There used to be the RRAP (Residential Rehabilitation Assistance Program) run through the federal government and there were provincial counterparts, as well as the Home Repair Benefit for people receiving social assistance.  Virtually all of those programs were scrapped in favour of a municipally-run discretionary forgivable loan (for my region the maximum one can acquire is $5,000 for every 10-year period which is truly inadequate).  There were tax credits, but they were not refundable meaning people have the money to do the repair, spend it and then later can "write it off".  Those people without income to begin with are sharply disadvantaged.  Repair costs can add up rapidly and quiickly exceed the $5,000 maximum, as I've seen in many cases.  Most of these people live in their homes without adequate heat, hot water or other issues, hoping beyond all hope nobody finds out.

In most cases, homeowners do not want to return to the rental market, especially under the current rules in place, which effectively keep them impoverished and cause them to drain all or most of their assets just to receive an inadequate amount of support.  Perhaps, if this help was more realistic and made more readily available to low income homeowners, there would not be the downturn of assets and impoverishment the current rules force on people.

6.    Stigmatization:

Lastly, there is a great deal of stigma with certain addresses or housing run by certain groups (e.g. housing for people with mental health problems).  Most people who have mental health problems do not want to live in a "mental health" housing unit, as this usually denotes the requirement that they need twenty-four hour support or at least daily support.  People may need this support, but it should not be connected to their housing unit and the person should be able to stay there if their needs change later on.

Recommendations include:

1.  Change the RGI income rules so that the same dollar is not clawed back twice or more if the     resident is on social assistance.  The Marginal Effective Tax Rates are very high for this group,       ranging from 85% to sometimes exceeding 100%.    While we have billionaires complaining that if they have to pay a single dollar more than the 15% rate they currently pay, they say they have no incentive to hire or to invest ... why is it any different for poor people?

2.  Be easy on the rules about over-housing/under-housing.  If somebody has a reasonable need for a second bedroom, allow it.  If I had to move to a one-bedroom at the time I was literally being   harassed to do so back in the 1980's, I would have had to quit school not having a quiet place of my own to study.  People's needs differ and the "one size fits all" mentality has to stop.  For others with larger families, they may wish to move to a smaller unit to get in to social housing and out of overpriced rental housing just so they can have a place to stay until an appropriate sized unit is available to them.

3. Quit segregating the poor into specific buildings or projects.  Tie the subsidy to the person or        family, not the unit.  Let people move where they want and give them a portable subsidy to top up their income so they can reasonably afford average market rent accommodations for their needs.  This way, people should have the right to move if the need arises.  People in segregated complexes are often left to live with less than desirable neighbours, one of whom was beaten up by his neighbour for being a Muslim and told to move back to "his country" though he was born and raised here.  He asked for a transfer, but was refused.  If one's neighbours are up all night partying and dealing drugs to others in the complex, one should also have the right to move, esp. if the housing complex refuses to evict them (which is often the case as they refer to themselves as "last resort housing providers").

4. Work on the economy from the bottom up.  Never mind tax breaks for those that can afford to   pay them and get rid of those boutique tax breaks that most low income people will not be able to use anyways, such as children's sports credit, children's art credit, etc. (and myriad of other credits available to families that can easily pay the costs to these things, only to have a tax break for part of the purchase).  These taxes if paid would go a long ways to assisting those at the bottom, many of whom will be able to spend the extra money and grow the economy.

5. Recognize housing affordability at the lower end is an income problem and not a housing       problem.  At the present time, landlords cannot afford to drop their rents so that lower income     people can afford them.  However, there would be less issue with maintaining and developing new rental properties if more people can afford to rent them.  Some of the proposals regarding a portable rent subsidy in Michael Mendelson's paper are worth looking at, particularly those that would allow all low income people on assistance to afford average market rents.  This should also be available for homeowners that are paying too much of their income on basic monthly costs for their homes as well. Supply will eventually develop as more landlords see the potential to rent to more people in the market.

6. For those in |"supportive housing", there should be a disconnection between the support and the     unit.  Therefore, the support would come to the person on an as needed basis, while it would be reduced over time as the person needs less help, but can still remain in the same unit.

7. There should also be innovative funds for people wishing to enter the market for renting units to others.  For example, a homeowner of a single family home may want some assistance to purchase a tri-plex or four-plex and renovate them to enable them to provide affordable rents to those seeking rental housing in their communities.  Doing this should be encouraged, even if the homeowner is on ODSP or other social assistance and can rent the units to recover some additional income over and above the maintenance costs.  Some people on ODSP do want to retire with some assets and not have to rely on GIS.

8.  Also, municipalities should be allowed to buy and sell their housing stock to anybody, or even sell their stock and remain only in the business of managing the housing supports.  Given this additional freedom, this will reduce the repair backlog and also enable some social housing tenants to purchase their own units, either on their own or collectively.

These are my thoughts.  What about yours?

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?