Monday, August 4, 2014

OPEN LETTER TO THE ONTARIO PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE LEADERSHIP ...

The provincial election has come and gone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Contact me through this blog if you have any thoughts.