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

You are disappointing me.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Income Exemptions

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

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

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

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

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

LIFE IN THE TIME OF CORONA (Sequel to "Love in the Time of Cholera")

Last Friday afternoon, I felt that my life has slipped into becoming a Stephen King novel.

My City has shut down and my province's courts, tribunals and many other public services have also shut down.  I received a phone call from our local library to inform me that a weekly course that I have been taking has been postponed until after the pandemic.  Other monthly meetings I usually have were also cancelled by email by the organizers as a case of "abundant caution".

On Wednesday, March 11, 2020, the World Health Organization (WHO) has declared this novel corona virus a pandemic.  There is not so much panic in the streets, as there may be in other circumstances, but it seems to be panic in the grocery stores.  In particular, people are buying up huge hoards of toilet paper, which is puzzling, as this virus is not supposed to cause diarrhea.  Empty shelves, panic buying and re-selling on Kijiji has become a thing.  People are coughing all over their adversaries, saying they have the corona virus, now called COVID-19, as it is a specific corona virus.

There is not a lot known about this COVID-19, even as I try to research it online.  All I know is this has become an invisible enemy that nobody seems to know how to fight.  Today, Premier Doug Ford declared a State of Emergency in our Province.  This means that movement of people and goods now comes under the order and control of authorities, as opposed to the free market.  Most governments are now trying to damage the economy and people's lifestyles as minimally as possible, as completely closing off commerce would be impossible and would result in shortages of food, supplies and so forth.  We also know the economy must continue to function at some level or things will crash.

On Saturday night, I knew that soon bars, pubs and other premises would soon be shut down, so we went to our favourite neighbourhood bar, played some pool and enjoyed libations of the hour.  This virus is ensuring that most of us will not be able to get together to do that type of thing in awhile.  That is okay, as I had that opportunity to get this out of my system before today's announcement.  Ontario's Medical Office of Health, David Williams, has hinted that there has been some "community spread" of this virus, which means that the chances of anybody in our population of catching it has substantially increased.  Prior to this, the pandemic was largely affecting those who have traveled and those who live and/or work closely together.

Some companies are allowing or requiring their staff to work from home, when possible.  Others are operating at skeletal staff, or like us, they are operating in an amended way to still ensure service is available, while attempting to function more online as we go.  I would love to work from home, but I am not even set up for that.  If we have to close up shop, Trudeau is offering a package apparently to help people and small business endure this crisis financially.  On Friday, I posted our response and reassurance on our website as to how we are dealing with pandemic.  People are calling, some are okay to come in, most are not, which is okay as we set up a service by telephone/Zoom protocol.

I am hoping to rest for a bit during this pandemic, but I don't want to lose money.  Most of us are losing money.  There is a special forum set up for legal professionals online to discuss how to respond to this thing, how to still make money and where to seek help if we lose money.  People are once again coming together.  It is interesting how people come together when it is a crisis, but in 'normal times, everybody is at each other as cut throats.  Prior to this virus taking front seat, the talk of our profession was the slowness of the Landlord and Tenant Board (and other tribunals) due to a lack of new adjudicators to have hearings, etc.  Now, things are ground to a halt.  There are not even any evictions allowed during this crisis ... (and we in the profession can see how this can be abused).

I am fearing the upcoming trip to the grocery store this Saturday.  All the restaurants have shut down (although some are offering take out or delivery) and I am unsure where I am going to shop.  I am also unsure if there will be enough stock of the things I usually need to purchase.  A couple of friends online are petrified if public transit and taxi service shuts down.  I would be too, as I don't have another way to travel.  Given my tongue in cheek attempt at humour, the Internet has a very substantial supply of entertainment for people quarantined or who are self-isolated and need to feel a little cheered up.  One wonders what happens to people, but I do know that things are going exactly like Stephen King anticipated in his books.

The news media is having a hard time transmitting correct information about this virus.  People are worried about catching it and dying, or somebody else catching it and dying.  However, given my usual intellectual approach to research and common sense, I can say the following:

1.  Only a small percentage of people are at risk for serious illness.  Most are over 70 or those who have other health issues that compromise their immunity.

2.  Community spread is the tipping point for calling a state of emergency.  This is when the risk for an average person substantially goes up, as it is no longer just those who travel or those close to them.

3.  A pandemic is getting worse when its doubling rates get closer and closer together.  This is the curve public health officials are speaking of.  The isolation, the closings, etc. are an attempt to increase the periods of time between doubling and to reduce the doubling effect altogether.  A pandemic is known to get better when the number of new cases decreases substantially over time.

4.  Even though the vast majority of people impacted by this virus will only have mild symptoms, not enough about this is known as to how it is spread and who can develop serious illness.  Without a vaccine like there is for flu seasons, there is little anybody can do to otherwise to protect those who are vulnerable from getting ill.

5. Some people view this kind of thing as the end of the world.  I lived through several of these kinds of things:  the October Crisis, stagflation, several recessions, the Cold War, September 11th, SARS, the 2008 Crash, among other events until now.  The world has not ended and we are all going to be just fine.

6. This doesn't mean there is not a lot we can learn from these things.  Unfortunately, the human race tends to be persistently ignorant and panic tends to be drawn from us when these things happen.  We also tend to keep our eyes glued to screens as we watch these things happen.  I remember when September 11th happened, people everywhere were watching the news all day long, even in places where television is not normally watched.  That was creepy.   

7. It takes time for our politicians and public officials to properly respond to these events.  Many may be dismayed at the closures, the economic shutdowns and the isolation, but if you look at how Italy, Iran, China, etc. are doing, you should be glad we are taking these steps now.  Those other countries only started recently, after far too many died.

8. Our government probably has to spend a ton of money now to ensure there are preparations for a spike in the use of our health care facilities, as well as assistance to individuals and businesses impacted by the pandemic.  Many are not able to afford time out of work without pay and businesses that are losing money either due to isolation or reductions in business are concerned about staying alive.

9.  The amazing thing now is that unlike prior to the pandemic, it seems like Doug Ford and his like Premiers across Canada are now finding value in working with the federal government.  Both levels of government are now attempting to ensure protection in their respective areas for our citizens.  I hope this cooperative federalism continues after the pandemic is resolved.

10. At this time, nobody know when this pandemic will let up, or whether a warmer climate will kill the virus.  For myself, I am probably amazed but not surprised by the reaction of humans to this very pandemic.

Your thoughts?  Share your experiences?

DEAR PREMIER FORD ... ONTARIO CANNOT AFFORD YOU!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ON THE MODERN POOR HOUSES AND POVERTY CHARITIES

                                           The Rise of Modern Poor Houses

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

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

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

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

These are some notable facts:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                    Ongoing and Ever-Present Dangers

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

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

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

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

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

Your thoughts?