Kimberly Rogers Inquest Alerts

Welfare policy a health risk, inquest told
Public health officer raps zero tolerance
Says payments don't cover basic costs


by Kate Harries
Ontario Reporter
The Toronto Star
Nov. 23, 2002. 01:00 AM

SUDBURY — This city's medical officer of health yesterday condemned Ontario's zero-tolerance policy on welfare fraud as a health risk.

Testifying at an inquest into the death of a woman serving a six-month house-arrest sentence for fraud, Dr. Penny Sutcliffe also expressed concern about social assistance rates that don't reflect the true cost of basic necessities.

Kimberly Rogers, 40, died in August, 2001, from an overdose of anti-depressants. She was eight months pregnant

"Clearly, there's a health issue, a health risk," Sutcliffe said of the two welfare regulations.

She detailed a resolution passed by the Sudbury and District Board of Health in June urging Premier Ernie Eves to amend the Ontario Works Act by eliminating the permanent ban because it results in "harsh punishment of potentially infinite length that poses a risk to the health and welfare of families, women and children in need."

The provincial government should also provide benefit levels that will allow people to eat a nutritious diet and have other basic prerequisites for health, said the board.

A letter to Eves was referred to Social Services Minister Brenda Elliott, who replied Sept. 16, a month before the start of the Rogers inquest.

Elliott ignored the issue of inadequate support levels and reiterated the position the government took when it introduced the penalty for welfare fraud in 1997.

"We cannot allow people to take advantage of the welfare system," Elliott wrote. "The zero tolerance policy is intended to ensure the effective management of public funds and restore public confidence in the welfare system."

Sutcliffe said she was not aware of any evaluation by the government before or after the welfare changes.

She showed a calculation made by the health unit of Rogers' monthly financial situation, with a $520 benefit plus a $43 pregnancy diet supplement. From that she paid $450 in rent and would have needed $140 a month to maintain a nutritious diet.

"The balance is negative," Sutcliffe noted, "leaving minus $27 a month," with nothing for transportation, utilities, clothes, toiletries or recreation.

In fact, Rogers situation was far worse, because an oversight meant she did not receive the pregnancy supplement that — at the health board's urging — was provided from local municipal funds after the province cancelled a $37 monthly payment in 1999.

Sudbury ended its extra payment when, in September, 2001, the province reinstated a diet supplement, but at a lower rate — $30 a month.

In addition, the health unit's calculation did not take into account $52 being clawed back from Rogers' cheque each month in restitution of the defrauded amount of $13,500.

Meanwhile, in Toronto, a three-justice panel reserved judgment yesterday on an application to overturn coroner Dr. David Eden's ruling that the inquest, now in its sixth week, will not explore systemic discrimination against women and those who cheat the welfare system.

A coalition of organizations led by the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, which has been granted standing at the inquest, wants to call witnesses to show discrimination is rife in the system, especially against women and those who commit welfare fraud.

The court panel also ruled yesterday that two witnesses proposed by the coalition can't be called at the inquest before it issues its decision, likely late next week. The legal battle over the issue will extend the inquest into early December. Eden's lawyer told the court the coroner had hoped to wrap up testimony by next Tuesday.

WITH FILES FROM JIM WILKES