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.

FOLKS, IT IS COLD OUTSIDE ... PLEASE DEMAND SOMETHING BETTER!

I heard that more people are dying from drug overdoses in the streets of St. Catharines over the past few years.  One time, I was sitting with friends at a downtown Tim Hortons, only to be witness to yet another fire engine, an ambulance and a police car careening to a stop in front of the old courthouse downtown.  I watched as somebody carried a body on a stretcher into the ambulance, and slowly the small crowd gathering around there disappeared.  Doug Ford's answer to this was to de-fund existing sites, or refuse to fund new supervised injections sites.  This, in favour of the many unsupervised sites that are now inhabited by many of "the people" that Ford does not speak for,  The "people" are dying everyday; occasionally, saved by somebody that will call fire or police to the scene to get naxalone to the person on time.  Many times, we only have minutes.  This goes on while they continue to "study" the issue in the legislature, as the community tries to bring attention to this issue.

Vigil after vigil attempts to explain to the broken people out there that their lives are valuable and for them not to throw it away; however, Ontario's "government for the people" has quietly shown us just whose lives are more valuable than the rest of ours ... Ford's government has decided that cuts to mental health services is the best way to resolve these issues.  Increased funding to the police at the same time appears the way to go with these folks, so that we can further criminalize the poor and the homeless, thinking this will make these problems go away.

Over the past several weeks, the news brought to our doorstep the reality of what goes on in "the people's" lives.  At least two (the ones that were publicized anyways) people jumped over the Burgoyne Bridge and onto the highway below, leaving the roads blocked by police for hours as they investigate what many of us already know: people are taking their lives more often in the past few months.  Calls for a suicide barrier, a fence or netting have made its rounds, but sadly this is another expensive band-aid for that bridge that has already costed taxpayers about $91 million.  To put barriers up, it would be yet another cost, as folks found out in Toronto when they wanted to stop people from jumping the Bloor Viaduct.  Millions of dollars went into the construction of the so-called "luminous veil", but the suicide rates in Toronto did not go down.  As somebody I knew told me at the time, if somebody really wanted to die, they will simply find another way.

In the meantime, many folks on the front line are literally walking on tenterhooks, worried about what Doug Ford has planned for the most vulnerable people on November 8, 2018, particularly those that rely on Ontario Works or Ontario Disability Support Program.  While many receiving OW can work, there are still too many that fell into that system who are waiting to be placed on ODSP.  To make people on OW suffer, this means it is okay to make many people with disabilities suffer ... Again, these are still part of "the people" of Ontario; henceforth, with lives that are not nearly as valued as the well heeled that will be needlessly rewarded with cuts to their taxes, as less revenue is generation to provide vital health and services other "people" need.  

Some of us believe that Ford is planning to create a crisis of sorts. He followed former Premier Mike Harris' playbook by cutting deep, acting fast and blocking as much opposition before it can be formed, even daring to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to force a mid-election change in the number of Toronto council seats.  The news adds a type of contagion in the community that puts a black cloud over the heads of every person who works with those folks in the community, on the streets and in the mental health "system" (if we can call it that).  Some of this is certainly playing in the minds of at least few who have taken their lives, while most anticipate a bigger spike after November 8, 2018, if all that is being predicted with Ford's new 'social assistance system' rears its ugly head, as believed.  Those of us who were around back in the days of Harris know about the inquests, public inquiries and contempt for the public, while a number of people who died under Harris' iron fist.  We try to tell people who refuse to remember history, that they are bound to repeat it.  Sadly, many of us believe this may be too late, at least as far as Ford is concerned.

Poverty costs us a lot of money.  It costs more on a per capita basis to keep any individual poor, than it would to get that same person out of poverty.  Some say it can cost up to $100,000 a year or more to keep one person living on the streets, as opposed to putting them into safe, affordable housing.  Poverty costs us as well in terms of safety in our communities as well, both real and perceived.  It is also easy to understand that minor thefts and property crimes also go up dramatically in response to community impoverishment.  How do we know that poverty is costing us?  The signs would include hearing about how funds appear to be added to the police budget, when everything else is cut.  There appears to be louder cries for harder, tougher sentences for anybody caught on the wrong side of the law.  These things also cost us money, yet do nothing to stop the crime.

At the current time, the UK Government has been internationally criticized and monitored by human rights groups for its deep cuts it made to people with disabilities.  There has been a report of over 120,000 people dying as a direct or indirect result of these cuts over the past few years.  Reports such as this should get the International Criminal Court and groups like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch interested, as it was not that long ago in the 1930's that the Nazis saw fit to directly kill approximately 300,000 persons with disabilities (others say over 400,000), given that such persons were seen as non-productive and of no value.  In fact, it was reported that at one of the six facilities involved, after staff cremated their 10,000th body, they celebrated with beer.

While it would be certainly unacceptable today to take people with disabilities to gas chambers or to take them behind the woodshed to shoot them, our modern governments have created new ways to control this population.  That is through denial of basic needs, cutting necessary services for survival and attempting to force them into their definition of what passes for "productive".  This is what is happening in the UK today and leading to a disproportionate number of deaths among people with disabilities.

The whole concept of valuing human lives comes with its own irony.  Many of those in the anti-abortion movement press for laws that would protect the unborn from a mother that seeks to terminate her pregnancy.  They argue that the unborn child has "rights" and that one of those "rights" is the right to be born and to live.  However, many of these same people in the anti-abortion movement also support political parties that promote deep cuts to welfare, health care programs, supports to single mothers and mental health services.  It is almost as though that a "right to life" exists upon conception, but disappears shortly after birth, especially if that child is born into a family that is poor, disabled or of an ethnic minority in certain culturally homogeneous countries.

Our times are changing rapidly, which means many people do not understand the political and socio-cultural changes developing around them.  Most people seem to notice "more homeless people", "more food banks" and some people feel bothered by panhandlers seeking pocket change.  Many of us turn to social media, which often turns us to hateful sites or to posts that serve to denigrate these parts of our community that most need our support.  The concept of dignity and human rights is poorly understood by most.  These principles do not comes with money or celebrity.  They come naturally with any human being that lives.

I've noticed more bullying of homeless people, as well as facilities attempting to push homeless people away.  Banks are routinely locking up their ATM's at night, fences and spike coverings are placed in laneways where homeless often seek to lie down, and panhandlers are chased away from businesses and told to "move along".  They are often unwelcome in coffee shops and enclosed malls due to their appearance.  The idea of "homeless" is too often linked to "mental illness", when it is known that only a portion of those without a home suffer from such disability.  Further, it can be argued that how we treat people who are homeless can often lead to depression, anxiety and a tenuous grip on one's will to survive.

It is these trends that I am fearing, often for good reason.  My own community has had three random shootings this year.  These are the incidents where the shooter aims at anybody at random, and not specific to gang violence as we know it.  There has been a rash of stabbings downtown.  Some people are afraid to walk the street alone at night, especially in some of the seedier areas of the city.  My community has been identified as having at least the second highest rate of opioid deaths in the province.  With Doug Ford turning his attention away from this issue, it indicates to me that this form of genocide is policy.  I have also heard many of his supporters post on social media to say that allowing these people to die or commit suicide will save us all money over the long run, which again sadly reminds me of the Nazi's pre-holocaust extermination of people with disabilities.

For those of you reading this, we need change.  We need to change the attitudes of people in the community to start valuing all of its members, as everybody has a story to tell, something to offer.  We need to move away from the idea that "cutting the bums off welfare" will save us money, but understanding that once this is done, the so-called "bums" are not going to disappear.  We need to call out hate crimes against the vulnerable and hold those that perpetrate them accountable, even if some of them happen to be members of our so-called elected governments.  Lastly, we will leave you with this sad video that has opened my eyes in many ways over the years, and led me to develop an understanding of the word "dignity".

See video.  We are not claiming any rights to this video, but I recommend people watch it after they read this blog, so they can understand what is happening to people today.

Thoughts?

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

Another provincial election has come and gone.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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