Kimberly Rogers Inquest Alerts

Poverty's Bitter Fruits
The welfare system's emphasis on "the shortest route to employment" instead guarantees long-term need

by Barbara Anello and Jacquie Chic

The Toronto Star
Opinion/Editorials
Friday, December 20, 2002

The reality of poverty in Ontario doesn't square with the stereotypes advanced by the Conservative government. That much became clear at the inquest into the death of Kimberly Rogers.

During eight weeks of evidence, jurors, who released their recommendations yesterday, were presented with an insider's view of life on welfare.

Kimberly Rogers had so much to live for. At the age of 40 she had just graduated with honours from the social work program at Cambrian College in Sudbury. She was also eight months' pregnant and doing what all expectant mothers do: planning for her baby's arrival.

But unlike most expectant mothers, Rogers lived in desperate poverty.

She was under house arrest, having been convicted of welfare fraud. As a full-time post-secondary student, she collected student loans while also receiving welfare. She was banned from receiving welfare for three months and lost her drug card.

Rogers had been prescribed medication for a range of health issues that prevented her from working.

The government has since introduced a life-long ban on those who defraud welfare, as part of a "zero-tolerance'' policy on welfare cheats. No matter the circumstances, social assistance is unavailable to those convicted of welfare fraud committed after April, 2000.

Rogers had told an Ontario court that cutting people off welfare violated Canada's Charter of Rights. She died before the court could hear her challenge.

But as an interim measure, the court reinstated her benefits, arguing that a pregnant woman's survival is more important than the "integrity" of the welfare system.

Even so, by the time she paid her rent and money was deducted from her cheque in order to pay back what she owed, she had $18 a month to her name.

Poverty is bad for your health. Studies show that inadequate food and shelter threaten individual and community well-being.

In fact, the gap between rich and poor is itself unhealthy; those at the bottom of the pile are inevitably sicker than those at each successive rung of the economic ladder.

Ontario's Conservative government slashed welfare rates by 21.6 per cent in 1995. There have been no increases since. Inflation has eroded the already abysmal rates by an additional 15 per cent.

A single person receives $195 to cover food, utilities, transportation, and other necessities and $325 for rent, for a total of $520 a month. The average rent for a bachelor apartment in Ontario in 2001 was $623. Present welfare rates compel people to choose between paying the rent and feeding the kids and themselves.

Food banks offer emergency relief but are not a long-term answer.

Studies conducted by the Ontario and Canadian Associations of Food Banks found that on average, people are permitted to go to a food bank only once in a month.

Each visit nets five days' worth of less-than-nutritious food. People who must turn to food banks experience physical and emotional health effects. It's a miserable way to live.

How do you look for work if you have to choose between eating and having a roof over your head, or between feeding your kids or yourself?

What employer will hire you if you can't afford a telephone and so have nowhere you can be contacted at?

How do you look for work when the CAS takes your kids because you can't provide for them?

The government believes that keeping welfare rates at less than subsistence levels gets people off assistance and into jobs. In fact, the present rates are a barrier to employment.

While the province does not collect data regarding people who leave welfare, the City of Toronto does. Statistics show that people cycle between low-wage jobs and welfare.

Education is said to be the key to getting and keeping a job that is stable and pays a living wage.

The welfare system's emphasis on "the shortest route to employment" guarantees long-term poverty because of the failure to take into account the labour market, restricted access to Employment Insurance, cutbacks in adult education funding and increasing post-secondary tuition.

Rogers died trying to fight her way out of poverty. The jury at her inquest saw through the stereotypes that abound about low-income people.

They got it right. Increase the benefit rates. Eliminate the ban. The question is: Is Ontario Premier Ernie Eves listening?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

source URL: Toronto Star


Barbara Anello is a steering committee member of the Ontario Social Safety Network (OSSN). Jacquie Chic is the Director of Advocacy & Legal Services and a lawyer with the Income Security Advocacy Centre.

Note: Ontario Social Safety NetWork (OSSN) had joint standing at the Inquest with the Steering Committe on Social Assistance (SCSA). The Income Security Advocacy Centre (ISAC) served as counsel to the OSSN/SCSA at the Rogers Inquest.