|
We've
learned little from Kimberly Rogers's death
Globe and
Mail, August 9, 2002 – Page A13
By
Joanne Frenschkowski
It was sweltering hot this time last year when Kimberly Rogers,
40 years old and eight months pregnant, died in her Sudbury apartment.
She was serving a six-month sentence of house arrest after pleading
guilty to defrauding the Ontario Works program (she'd collected
welfare while receiving student loans to cover her studies in the
social services program at Cambrian College).
What have Canadians
learned since she died? The B.C. government has actually reduced
welfare benefits and tightened eligibility criteria; single parents'
cheques have been trimmed along with allowances for clothing and
school supplies. Ontario has continued to ban other people convicted
of fraud from collecting welfare benefits, and some of those bans
are for life (three cases are being challenged in court). Could
Kimberly Rogers's tragedy happen again? Yes.
Under the Ontario
Works Act, student loans are considered income, despite the fact
that the primary goal is to cover the cost of tuition and books,
and are to be repaid. Never mind that Ms. Rogers had taken the initiative
to change the direction of her life, had graduated near the top
of her college class and had excellent prospects for moving into
the workforce.
Her sentence
was strict. She was only allowed to leave her house for three hours
a week. A restitution order also required her to pay back the excess
amount she had received. And she was placed on probation for 18
months.
Her guilty plea
also triggered a newly enacted section of the Ontario Works Act,
which banned her from receiving welfare for three months. This left
her with no income -- at a time when she was prohibited from leaving
her house to work or look for work. Along with the ban on welfare
benefits, she lost her drug card and could no longer afford the
medications prescribed for her migraines, insomnia, anxiety and
depression (the Elizabeth Fry Society was able to get the card reinstated).
Pregnant and
desperate, Ms. Rogers found only a few charities willing to help.
Had she gone to jail, she and her unborn child would have at least
had the necessities of life.
On May 31, 2001,
as apart of a constitutional challenge, a judge temporarily lifted
the ban, reasoning that the act of forcing a pregnant woman into
destitution would harm both Ms. Rogers and the public at large.
Ms. Rogers began to receive benefits again. But because she had
to repay welfare, her debt was deducted off each monthly cheque,
reducing $520 to $468. Her rent cost $450 a month, leaving $18 a
month for food and other expenses.
A year ago she
was found dead in her apartment.
What has society
learned?
Ontario's welfare
rates remain as low as they have been since they were cut by 21.6
per cent in 1995 (there hasn't even been a cost of living adjustment).
A single person still receives a maximum of $520 per month.
Just months
before Kimberly's death, Ontario introduced further amendments to
its social assistance laws. Now, for anyone convicted of welfare
fraud committed after April, 2000, there is a lifetime ban. Those
convicted can never receive welfare again. Ever. Not even if they
need it to survive. The fiscal savings that result from clamping
down on welfare remain a greater political priority to government
than the lives of citizens who are left without shelter and food.
And the Ontario
government is still crowing about the success of "workfare" in helping
welfare recipients return to work. But the reality is different:
Instead of integrating people into the new, knowledge-based economy,
workfare is geared toward pushing people into low-paying, insecure
jobs.
Still, some
things have changed.
Opposition to
the province's treatment of welfare recipients is growing. To date,
10 Ontario municipalities have passed resolutions to oppose the
lifetime ban. Recently, the Court of Appeal determined that the
province can't discriminate against welfare recipients simply because
they are welfare recipients and dependent on government programs
for support -- in other words, a government does not have carte
blanche to impose stricter conditions on welfare recipients than
any other citizen. And later this year the Ontario Superior Court
will consider the cases of three people who are appealing their
lifetime welfare-benefit bans.
What the government
did to Kimberly Rogers, it did in the name of Ontario's citizens.
So her case forces all citizens to think about what kind of society
we want. One that truly gives us all opportunities to participate
in all aspects of society? Or one that condemns the most vulnerable
to die alone? We cannot ignore these questions even if we wish to:
An inquest into Kimberly Rogers's death is set to begin Oct. 7.
JoAnne
Frenschkowski is a staff lawyer with the Income Security
Advocacy Centre in Toronto.
© 2002
Bell Globemedia Interactive Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Justice
with Dignity Campaign and the Committee to Remember Kimberly Rogers
Go To Top
Back
to DAWN Ontario homepage
This
page was created/updated on August 9, 2002
|
