THE CONTINUING DARK AGE OF THE RIGHTS OF PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PART VI 
AMENDMENTS TO THE COMMON LAW

Unity of legal personality abolished

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

Capacity of married person

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

Purpose of subss. (1, 2)

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

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

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

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

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

TALKING BACK TO BELL CANADA ON MENTAL HEALTH

January 27, 2016, is the day Bell Canada set out to talk about mental health issues.  I can assure you that I do talk about these things.  Many clients come into my office to talk about these things.  Many agencies have discussed these things.  However, I have a very different perspective when it comes to "talking about" mental health.

This is a good thing that these types of initiatives get people to talk about or think about mental health issues in a way that can help deal with stigma.  However, the discussion that I seen take place, both in their commercials and in the superficial coverage of the topic in the press tends to increase stigma. These commercials focus on the workplace where the protagonist in the first one tries to explain her absences and depression to a colleague who then winces that she had to be absent during inventory.  The second one involved two coworkers referring to a "Stuart" who was off again and they said he was bipolar.  Again, the worry about the workload left on his peers.

While this is appreciated to raise this issue in the workplace and to talk about it among larger employers with human resource departments and the time to do this, it is quite another thing to show real life examples of employers actually hiring somebody they know ahead of time has suffered some type of mental health issue.  Back in the 1990's, advocates cited a statistic that 80 -90% of people with a diagnosis of serious mental health issues were unemployed, I don't see that figure improving today.  It seems that the main advocacy organization in Canada, the Canadian Mental Health Association, agrees with me as it refers to unemployment on its website.  It saddens me that these commercials always seem to take place in large employers, which comprise less than 4.5% of all employers in Ontario which are for the most part, involved in a hiring freeze or laying people off.  A straw poll my own agency in the 1990's conducted with employers of various sizes confirmed that employer attitudes have not changed much.

Mental health issues are complex to address, but it does not have to be expensive or complicated.  Accommodations are as individual as the person concerned.  Most people who have mental health issues will not inform their employer, for fear it will affect their chances of advancement or cause them to be treated differently than others; however, the major fear which seems to be based in reality is that applicants for positions will not disclose for fear of being denied the job.  According to study cited by the CMHA, only 50% of us would disclose to friends and coworkers that a family members has a mental health disorder, while we would disclose the same about cancer and diabetes more than 75% of the time.  Only 12% of respondents stated they would retain a lawyer who is known to have suffered from mental health issues.  Slightly less than half of us would socialize with a friend we know that has mental health issues, and 27% of us are afraid to socialize with such persons.

The public is inundated by the entertainment industry that makes persons with mental health diagnosis seem violent and unpredictable, while the criminal justice system intersects with the media to make it seem that offenders who have mental health issues are violent, irresponsible and incapable of knowing right from wrong.  We see them in movies, slasher films and crime dramas as being haunted by their delusions and hallucinations after they stop taking their medications.  When yet another mass shooter or real life slasher like Luka Magnotta wants to be declared not criminally responsible, it sets us back yet another hundred years.  The defence of not criminally responsible is rarely applied to violent crimes, but the media wants us to believe it happens all the time.  People see this happening and will not seek help, as the conflation between mental illness and violence these situations depict can make an individual not want to be stigmatized in the same way.

The courts have also recognized mental health and addictions as an explanation for an accused's actions and consideration is given in the sentencing, as opposed to using NCR. This still leaves the accused responsible, but offers them a second chance to get clean, to get treatment or to better themselves in a way that will detract them from committing a similar offence in the future.  In fact, ninety-five percent of the time, these explanations are used for much less serious and mostly non-violent offences (e.g. shoplifting, theft, fraud).  I have used this angle myself while defending people in appropriate circumstances, which explains to the court why they did what they did - and giving it the thrust the person needs - to ask for help. I find the courts are genuinely interested in supporting the right outcomes for the specific accused, as opposed to a blunt instrument of right or wrong.

To me, the stigma is a huge problem for people with mental health diagnosis.  The public needs to move beyond the label.  Jack is not a :"schizophrenic"; Lucy is not a "manic-depressive"  Jack is a person who also happens to have been diagnosed as having schizophrenia (a label I question but nevertheless, the argument here is the same). Lucy is also a person first, somebody who just happened to have been diagnosed as being "manic-depressive".  Would it surprise you if I also told you Jack is a published academic, a psychiatrist and the head of a mental health rehabilitation agency?  Would it surprise you to learn that Lucy is a high profile defence lawyer who is also an accomplished pianist who in her spare time raises funds for Sick Kids?  If you met Jack or Lucy in these other roles and never knew about their mental health concerns, you would never consider that they might just happen to be "one of them"?

This is what today's stigma busting campaigns often forget about.  Bringing in accomplished people to talk about their experiences is not a bad thing, but it negates the fact that social class plays a major role in what opportunities each of these folks had in overcoming their issues and obtaining the right supports.  I have yet to meet a single one of these champions that spent a good part of their life on ODSP (Ontario Disability Support Program) who was inadvertently handed a major opportunity and viola - here they are!  The public needs to see the possible:  how these supports, opportunities, respect and understanding, can be extended to all persons with various levels of mental wellness.  Opening doors to self-employment, dignified employment, public speaking engagements, and so forth, to me, is more therapeutic to somebody than simply leaving them on ODSP or referring to their "broken brains" (which again has as much art as well as science fiction).

When you read above that only 12% of Canadians would knowingly hire a lawyer who has had a history of mental health diagnosis, what does that say about Lucy?  What does this also say to hundreds of employment coaches and employers that are so nervous about hiring people with mental health issues, that they prefer to relegate them to low wage, low skilled jobs, regardless of their talents and potential?  I know this because I have interacted with a leader in the insurance industry here in Canada (who I will not identify nor will I identify the companies they work with) who I bumped into at a conference.  She told me her companies hire all kinds of people with disabilities, including mental health disabilities.  "They love them in the mail rooms," she said. This is unfortunately still a major problem or a group of well educated Canadians would not have needed to form Canadian Association of Professionals with Disabilities - protesting employers that ignore one's talents, carry low expectations and assume that most want to stay on their disability benefits.

If Bell and its sister corporations that are involved in this important campaign really want to accomplish a lot of good with their work, how many people with mental health labels has Bell  Canada hired in the past year?  Or intends to hire in the future?  At all levels of the organization, from the mail room to the next CEO?  For its media partners, how many people with mental health disabilities will they hire to produce, direct and appear on various productions?  There are a few journalists I know who have been through horrific barriers due to mental health issues.  Putting them on front and centre to read the news, to report the news, to produce and present documentaries, or even aid in developing television shows that portray people with mental health issues in a much more positive light?  And that is ... just as people.  People like you and I.

Now that was my volley.  I kindly await yours.

THE MYTH OF DRIVING AS A PRIVILEGE WHEN ONLY THE PRIVILEGED CAN DRIVE

Often I attend overcrowded Provincial Offences Courts in the Region, where individuals and companies are charged with various offences.  If you can get past the line-ups to the front to speak to the Prosecutor and wait your turn, quite often the Justice of the Peace explodes into a tirade about how driving a motor vehicle is a privilege and not a right.  Reviewing the dockets on these days is an amazing test of stoicism, whereby one sees one person after the other charged with "driving while under suspension", "driving without a policy of insurance", or various other charges, whereby a failure to deal with as such can result in an automatic suspension of your license.  If people plead guilty to driving while under suspension, the Ministry of Transportation assesses a further six months of license suspension on the convicted defendant.  Defences for this charge are rare, as this offence is considered a "strict liability" offence, which means in essence you should have known better.  In theory, all of this makes sense, but in reality this whole concept needs a rethink.

On the other hand, I come across dozens of individuals in my practice who have been diagnosed with medical conditions that have led to an administrative suspension of their licenses on a temporary or permanent basis.  If people think this only happens to older people, they are mistaken.  Virtually all of those I have dealt with were significantly under sixty five, one being a mere twenty-three years old.  Once again, the Ministry is enforcing this whole theory about driving a vehicle being a privilege, again never questioning what happens to the person or their family once that "privilege" is revoked even on a short term basis.  A few of them come to my office and do get a greater than average chance of being placed on the Ontario Disability Support Program, simply because one is now unemployable because they lost their privilege to drive.  One adjudicator here looked me in the eye and asked me to convince her of this, citing there was "plenty of" transit service in the area.  I then readily produced a large package of advertisements copied from the newspaper, Internet or other job posting services, whereby almost all jobs demand of their candidates a valid G driver's license and usually, daily access to their own vehicle.  I then place the rhetorical question as to where this person is supposed to work if they cannot get their license.  If one thinks the state should not provide for these people, then think again.  If you are an employer, will YOU hire them?

In essence, driving is not a privilege here in Niagara, but nevertheless, the privileged are the only ones allowed to drive and thereby obtain all the benefits arising therefrom.  Those that have never experienced the issues above tend to blame the individuals and have in their mind an idea that they are "better than" those who have had their licenses revoked or suspended.  The truth is most license suspensions are not due to driving while under the influence of alcohol or drugs, but instead unpaid fines and medical reasons.  Many of my clients were not aware they were suspended because for whatever reason, they did not receive the letter in the mail.  In an average community, including Niagara Region, thirty percent of its residents over the age of sixteen do not drive.  Many people do not drive because they cannot afford to own and maintain their own vehicle, which means living here in this region will perpetuate that cycle indefinitely because there are no jobs available to those that cannot or choose not to drive. Employers just assume everybody drives, or they want to exclude the riff raff that doesn't, as those discriminatory requirements are in place in almost every job, not just jobs where the bone fide components largely involve driving.  As a result, the majority of people with disabilities, students, older persons and low income persons are trapped into this legislated cycle of poverty, perpetuated by accepted prejudice and legalized discrimination.

It is not just in employment, non-drivers are discriminated against or treated disdainfully by their community.  In order for a driver to remove their lens of privilege, they need to leave their car at home or dispose of it somewhere for more than a month, and then try to carry on their life regardless of not driving.  I would ask them to transport their children to school, drop them off at daycare (which may or may not be close by or at a bus stop), go to work, attend all of one's work meetings or attendances without a vehicle even if this means going to another city for a meeting, and then after work, return to pick up their kids, stop to grab a few groceries and then go home.  In the evening, after dinner (which means privileged workers get to be home by six), there might be time to take in a movie or go for a quick work out at the gym or the YMCA.  Remember, do not use your vehicle, just go to these places anyways ... enjoy the two hour trip there and the two hour trip back, to such a point where you do not want to go there anymore, as it is too much trouble.

As a non driver, you will eventually discover you cannot just do a grocery run on your way back home, as you do not have the time or the bus fare or flexibility in doing so.  You will find you have to take up one of your precious weekend days to do it, if your job or business allows you to have weekends in the first place.  For those without a vehicle, grocery shopping is a bigger chore than it is for those that do drive.  You can only go to the grocery store every week or every two weeks to do this.  You cannot shop at multiple locations.  Tough luck if there's a special in the meat department at one store and a special on produce in the other.  You can't go to both, because once you leave the first store, there is nowhere to put your groceries while you go to the second store to get the balance of them.  Drivers simply put the groceries from the first store into their trunk, but remember if you are leaving your car at home, there is no trunk, so you have to stick to one place.  Research has shown this will cost you at least 15% more even if you normally purchase the same products from two or three locations.  Once you finish the groceries, you need to get them home.  You only have two hands, so taking them on a bus might be impractical, especially if you live a long way from the grocery store.  Many phone a cab.  Cab companies, while charging an arm and a leg for their service, are not reliable transportation for people who work shifts, taking home groceries, or need transport for medical reasons. CT Scams, dialysis and some other non-emergency medical trips are required on a 24-hour basis.  Drunks, however, get instant service, while it is not unheard of for people to wait at a hospital, a grocery store or elsewhere for two or more hours to get a cab if one comes at all.  That is the kind of "service" and respect people that don't drive get in my own region.

I often hear drivers complain about the cost of gas, insurance, maintenance, etc. for their cars; however, it is more than likely that they have been able to secure employment that pays them enough to cover these expenses, while non-drivers have to pay five to ten times the amount drivers pay on a per kilometer basis and struggle financially.  I have no sympathy for vehicle owners, as they pay much less on a month to month basis than I do to get to fewer places.  In effect, our government, likely through the heavy influence of the auto industry, driving has become a necessity, not just for getting around, but for maintaining one's dignity and belonging to the community one lives in.  After all of these years, I have little attachment to the region because I feel I don't belong here.  I wouldn't miss much if I ever had the funds to move elsewhere.  Non drivers do not go to community events because usually these events are held on statutory holidays, where the transit service is non existent or unreliable.  Relying on other people for transportation is not a dignifying alternative in my region. Most drivers consider it a huge sacrifice to help someone else get somewhere, even if it is to go to the same place they are going anyways.  Non drivers don't have the same ability to use many community services, such as going to garage sales, trading on Kijiji or participating in a swap service, as drivers consider that if they are giving an item away for free, the person wanting it should come to get it.  If all of my transportation needs could be met by me driving my own vehicle, I would actually be able to escape poverty.  This is unfortunately never considered in discussions to find solutions to poverty.

It is harder to get somebody to invest in my business, because they think they will be stuck being a "taxi" for me, or having to sacrifice much of the firm's value on alternative transportation services for myself, thus not allowing the firm to make as much net profit as it would otherwise.  Many of my items have been "returned to sender" because I have been unable to take the full afternoon off to go to the Carlton Street location where the post office seems to send my packages, when in fact I have a post office near my office where it should go instead if I was not present when the package was first delivered.  Other times I had to pay over $20 in taxi fares to do so, so that my afternoon would not be wasted waiting for buses, etc.  To me, my whole community disrespects and treats with impunity non drivers because it could.  They want to force everybody to buy a car, yet thirty percent of the community does not drive and eleven percent do not have access to a vehicle or driver in their household.  I have encountered many members of that eleven percent. Very few are gainfully employed and if so, they are substantially under employed.  If they are young enough, they tend to make plans to leave the region to go elsewhere, because they see others older than themselves stuck here.  I am still trying to figure out what I had done to deserve the kind of maltreatment and disrespect that is rained upon me here in Niagara.

To me, if the Ministry of Transportation wants to maintain its right to decide who can and cannot drive a motor vehicle, and to retain this activity under license and privilege, then it has to provide meaningful, effective and reliable alternatives to those that cannot drive, cannot afford to drive, choose not to drive or who have been suspended for any reason, so these people can access most jobs and get around conveniently.  They would also work with the courts, human rights commissions and other enforcement bodies to ensure that denying people access to employment, other than jobs as drivers (e.g. taxi driver), should be made illegal and such companies would be forced to pay out enough funds so that the non driver can comfortably live without a job.  It should cost employers to deny access to jobs in this way.  If they complain and say, well people have to go here and go there, then too bad - find another way for this to work.  Put the onus on the company to ensure all of its staff can do the essential duties of the job.   Municipalities should also enforce the AODA if cab and private transportation companies even want to keep their license to operate.

For cab companies, I am sorry, but drunks are the last priority for pick-up.  If priorities were exercised properly, and medical, community and employment related trips were prioritized in that order, then drunks will only have to wait an extra ten to fifteen minutes.  This is not an undue hardship on either the drunks or the company itself, as they will still get their fares for all of these rides anyways.  They lose no money.  For priority trips, it should provide a ride within twenty minutes or the ride is free - simple as that.  Dispatchers have access to software where all requests are spelled out and priorities can be taken.  It would not be a substantial hardship to put medical, community (getting groceries) and employment at the top of the list for all dispatchers, while the drunks can wait a few extra minutes and will get taken home as well in a reasonable period of time. The later at night it is, there would be less "priority" trips, so it would not be an undue hardship.  Cab companies will complain about how they will now have to organize their fleets this way, but this is THEIR problem, not mine.  I am tired of waiting and waiting and waiting for taxis while my food is going bad, or in the rain, because some drunk needs to get home from some festival I couldn't get to anyways.

As somebody who has been unable to obtain a driver's license for years due a medical condition, and even if that were resolved, going back to the graduated system in place would be impossible for me at my age.  That should apply strictly for people under twenty five, as most of them still have access to parents that would be willing to assist, even though mine never did help me at all when I was that age (but my understanding is that most people's parents have been there for them and mine were in the minority even for my generation).  If the Ministry of Transportation and Ministry of Municipal Affairs, Ministry of Infrastructure and other Ministries think that upgrading RELIABLE alternative transportation for communities is going to cost too much, then they need to reconsider what it costs for the individuals that are deliberately left behind, especially by the Ministry deciding if somebody can or cannot drive ... with the right to make this decision should come the responsibility for ensuring access to jobs and the community for those ruled out of driving.  I don't give a fig about the cost, especially when I have no way of accessing regular employment and enjoying a life where my stress levels can be kept at a minimum.  What if these people ruled out of driving for whatever reason did not want to be on Ontario Works or ODSP, or unemployed?

Then I would say the onus goes back to the government and our policy makers to make driving indeed a REAL CHOICE, and not deprive people of an income just because they cannot, choose not or cannot afford to drive. In my view, if this position were taken by all communities, there will be less dangerous or risky drivers on the road, so it will be much safer for those that do drive.

I am interested in hearing from folks that have concerns about this issue.