LIFE*SPIN
presentation at the Pre-Budget Consultations
Standing Committee On Finance And Economic Affairs 28 January 2004
Excerpted from Hansard of Jan. 28 Budget Hearings, pages 17 - 18
LIFE*SPIN
Ms Jacqueline Thompson: I’m here today to represent LIFE*SPIN, Low Income Family Empowerment * Sole-support Parents Information Network and, on behalf of the network, to express grave concerns about the unravelling of the social programs in our province and the escalating social deficit.
In 1995, the assistance rates in Ontario were cut by 21.6%, and the cost of living increased about 18% over the same time. There have been no similar increases in allowances. As a result, families have sunk deeper and deeper into poverty. Living in poverty can have a negative impact on the lives of children in terms of physical health, emotional well-being and school performance, all of which have long-term implications and costs for Ontario.
The despair resulting from the elimination of social standards is now dreadfully visible on our streets. Living in homes with no heat and no hydro during an Ontario winter is not an acceptable standard of shelter in the minds of most people in Ontario, yet hundreds of families in our community experience this on a daily basis.
Countless studies and surveys demonstrate that Canadians care about their neighbours and the provisions and protection of our social programs and the values they represent. We care about them so much they’re enshrined in our constitution.
We the people in this community believe that never again should our children have to go to bed hungry, never again will our homeless languish in the streets and die in our public markets from cold, and never again will the sick be refused access to equitable health care.
Ontario has the obligation and the interest to protect the inherit dignity of human persons and the right to an adequate standard of living, health care and education.
In 1995, the provincial government narrowed the scope of available assistance through numerous restrictions regarding eligibility and reduced levels of assistance. The introduction of these restrictions validated an assumption that the need for assistance is attributable to personal rather than societal and structural failings. Blaming the recipient resonates in all subsequent policy revisions to the Ontario Works Act. In fact, in Ontario 31.3% of all applicants are denied welfare. They are no longer considered eligible with the restrictions. When people do apply, they are required to undergo a lot of detail, and actually the process of applying sometimes turns people away, even though they are eligible.
I’ve given you an example of a gentleman from our community: John, who is 61 years old. He’s dying of cancer. He lives with his 88-year-old mother. The radiation treatments that he’s having won’t save him; they’re only slowing the inevitable end of his life. In Ontario, that means he can only have Ensure, if they have it at the food bank. So he’s either going to die of cancer or starvation. It’s happening to this gentleman. He should qualify for a drug card and a special diet allowance, but when he applied for welfare they made him bring his old mother in as well. Numerous questions about her pensions, her assets and eligibility confused her and upset her, and she was left feeling that somehow she was responsible for her son dying. When she broke down, with tears running down her gentle, tired face, her son ended the interview. He couldn’t bear to see his mother tortured. Literally, he felt that he would rather die.
In addition, when people do receive welfare benefits, sometimes there are things that stand in the way of that continuing. Applicants are hampered in their ability to challenge some of those decisions by the length of time it takes for a tribunal hearing. Another example from our community is Sandra, who has bipolar disease, a mental health issue. Once she was diagnosed and given proper medication, she was able to return to gainful employment, and each month her hours gradually increased as she showed herself willing and quite capable of doing the job. The last month she received welfare, she only got a $130 top-up to her wages. The following month was December and she got extra hours because of the Christmas rush, and she got cut off of welfare. That meant she lost her drug card.
The Chair: Pardon me. I remind you that you have about a minute left in your presentation.
Ms Thompson: OK. She was scheduled to work her regular hours again, but with the loss of the drug card, she couldn’t handle the stress of not having the medications. The mental health symptoms returned and she was fired. There is no reason why this woman is not working in her community other than that her drug card was cut.
When Sandra reapplied for welfare, she was told she was not eligible and will not be allowed to return to social assistance for three months. She has no available income whatsoever for three months because she violated the quit-fired rule.
I have given you a number of examples throughout the written presentation, and you’re going to have to take time to read over that on your own. I have included revenue-generating changes that can be made to the system. As well, the Honourable Mr Bentley might be of assistance in reviewing a particular example of cost savings around the welfare fraud stigmatization that’s going on in the province now.
I would like to leave you with just one more picture from the Ontario disability support program, which needs immediate attention. The Liberal government was elected on a platform that offered change, that promised healthy communities and attention to children, women and families. We expect you to live up to your promises. The budget must be built on the premise that all citizens have a basic right to income support and that a wealthy province like Ontario must set and meet near targets for the elimination of poverty. This government must keep those campaign promises for change or you will have claimed the Tory legacy as your own.
Darren is living on the streets of London. He is a gentle man when he has the medication prescribed to deal with his mental illness. Because he’s homeless, he does not receive any money for his shelter needs. Because he’s homeless, he has to pick up his welfare benefits from the Ontario Works office. He cannot go into the Ontario Works office unless he receives security clearance first. Every time his cheque is put on hold and he does not receive his drug card, the symptoms of his mental illness are further exacerbated and he becomes more and more frustrated with the system that has beaten him down. Darren is angry.
Darren has started the application for ODSP several times. From the time the application starts, he has 90 days to get it to the adjudication unit. Because he’s homeless, his life does not have regulated stability, nor are his Ontario Works benefits regularly accessible. He has no phone to start the application process and there is no phone number to call him at. There is no address to update him at or notify him of appointments. He now has no family doctor and none are available in our community for new patients. Psychiatric specialists are frustrated with having to continually fill out the same forms and having him frustrated with their office staff. Darren is angry.
Darren disappears every two or three months into a psychiatric ward or to jail. Even the local legal clinic has tired of trying to get this man the disability benefits to which he is entitled. On good days, Darren finds housing. Then he applies for community start-up benefits that have never been processed fast enough for him to secure the only places that are affordable on Ontario Works. When he’s ill, he must become dangerously ill to get a bed in the hospital, just to get out of the cold during the day. If he received shelter amount for ODSP, he would have housing. One critical factor as to why he does not get ODSP is because he does not have housing.
1050
The fact that the Ontario Works office recognizes the mental health issues and has implemented measures to restrict his entry into their offices should serve as a fast-track trigger to get this man the disability benefits which would enable him to live with some dignity.
The process for application restricts this man’s submission. He cannot apply for ODSP on his own behalf due to the conditions of his mental illness. Doctors cannot apply for ODSP on behalf of their patients and frequently do not attach the official reports necessary for the adjudication unit to be convinced of their diagnosis. Ontario Works workers and managers cannot apply on behalf of recipients. Who, then, is responsible for the imminent result of leaving this man homeless, without critical medication, without hope? Who allows this unfair, unjust legislation to restrict eligibility to benefits that are rightfully his, beyond question? When will you change this legislation that endangers Darren’s life and perhaps the lives of all those who cannot help him?
The Chair: Thank you both for your presentation this morning before the committee.
Return to DAWN Ontario index page
Page last updated February 5, 2004