Kimberly Rogers Inquest Alerts

Kimberly Rogers Inquest - Mon., Nov. 25, 2002 - Day 25
Ontario Social Safety NetWork (OSSN) Summary

Ian Morrison, an expert witness in welfare law called to the stand by the Ontario Social Safety NetWork (OSSN) and the Steering Committee on Social Assistance (SCSA), continued his testimony today.

- Mr. Morrison suggested that the rules that govern Ontario Works are immensely complicated and inaccessible and that the Rights & Responsibilities Form is far from comprehensive. Entitlements should be clearly stated. Caseworker and client ratios should be lower. Part of caseworkers' job description should be to inform clients of available resources and supports.

- At least one third of social assistance recipients are paying at least $100 more than provincial shelter allowances. Through a Freedom of Information request in 1998 of the actual amounts spent on shelter by OW recipients, it was learned that only 41% of OW recipients had shelter costs at or below the shelter allowance. The remaining 59% had shelter costs above shelter allowance with 26% paying up to $100 over the shelter allowance and 33% paying in excess of $100 over the shelter allowance.

- Inflation – Consumer Price Index (CPI) – Stats Canada 1995 – 2001
11.1% + 3.2% to October 2002 = 14.3% CPI … CPI is based on a “middle class” average household. Shelter costs are a larger proportion of spending in low-income families.

- Mr. Morrison spoke about employment activities: Shortest Path to Employment (S.P.T.E.) - OW recipients are supposed to take any job of any kind that individual is capable of. Limited scope of training and education. Kimberly Rogers was on medical deferral and was not required to participate (Jury was excused at this point).

- When questioned about what are the most reliable estimates available on the frequency of welfare fraud, Mr. Morrison responded that we don't have reliable information. A study conducted by KPMG as consultants to the government in 1997, came up with a 3% figure. Mr. Morrison felt there were problems with the study's methodology. Fraud in this context (in its criminal connotations) - deliberately obtaining something to which you're not entitled to - the way the system operates, makes it difficult to use the fraud term in any kind of meaningful way.

There is no easy measure to distinguish how much serious fraud is in the system… there is a huge grey area of activities that may or may not fall under "criminal" but would not fall under "serious". Anyone who knowingly breaks a rule who gets something they're not entitled to, would be committing fraud. The most common activities that would lead to an investigation of fraud would be: unreported income, unreported co-resident, and/or hiding assets.

- In response to a question about the role the system plays in terms of the complexity of rules, Mr. Morrison responded that because welfare rules are complex and because the rules change so frequently, it's hard for people to know whether what they've done is permitted. This confusion can lead to overpayments . .. it only becomes fraud when it's done knowingly.

- Mr. Morrison also testified that we have virtually no information on people that left Ontario Works (not known whether they actually escaped poverty or just got off the roles).

- In terms of the lifetime welfare ban, Mr. Morrison stated his opinion that the ban was a greatly disproportionate response to the problem of fraud. In response to his view of the predecessor of the lifetime ban - the 3 and 6 month suspensions of benefits, Mr. Morrison responded that there was no evidence of serious fraud to warrant this. Talked about the disconnect here - An OW recipient can commit a fraud, be prosecuted much later - months or years later - and have a ban imposed - there is a disconnect to where the person is at or what their needs are.

- Mr. Morrison also testified about the municipal resolutions passed to repel the lifetime welfare ban, noting that the most recently passed municipal resolution against the lifetime welfare ban was passed by the municipality of Windsor, last week.

- In terms of the incredible complexity of the OW rules and regulations, Mr. Morrison recommended that the system be made more comprehensible to everyone. Income rules could be simplified. Asset rules could be made more simple. Asset levels could be raised.

- OSAP has become almost exclusively a loans program. For some OW recipients, the drug benefit card is just as important as benefits. To pursue post secondary education, low income people would still require additional coverage (beyond student loan). Mr. Morrison recommended that the system needs to be changed to make it easier for pursue post secondary education.

The Executive Director of LIFE*SPIN (Low Income Families Empowerment Sole Support Parents Information Network), Jacqueline Thompson, will testify tomorrow as an expert witness called by the OSSN/SCSA.

Barbara Anello
Ontario Social Safety Network (OSSN)