Ford Government Turning Its Back on People Living with Disabilities

 

Tuesday's Toronto Star has a story by Brendan Kennedy on delays at the Social Benefits Tribunal. (SBT) https://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2021/02/12/delays-at-the-social-benefits-tribunal-have-tripled-leaving-odsp-claimants-in-extended-limbo.html

The SBT is an administrative tribunal that deals specifically with appeals regarding social assistance.  

The SBT hears appeals from people who have been turned down for the Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP).  The law related to this program is called the Ontario Disability Support Program Act (1997). This program is designed to help people with disabilities who are in financial need pay for living expenses, like food and housing.

Why are the delays happening?

One reason is that the Doug Ford government has not been appointing new members to the SBT.  According to the story, there were 38 adjudicators when Ford won election in 2018.  There are only 26 now.

The real issue though is that the provincial government is trying to undermine the social assistance system.  They have no interest in supporting people living with disabilities.

For further evidence take a look at a recent piece in the Toronto Star written by Amira Elghawaby. https://www.thestar.com/opinion/contributors/2020/12/29/has-the-ford-government-cancelled-2021-for-ontarios-most-vulnerable.html

The story makes it clear that:

1. First-level decision by ministry staff to deny benefits is all about  protecting the public purse. 

2 But Ontario gives applicants right to evidence-based, independent review. 

3 The majority of appeals filed in 2020 have yet to get a scheduled date for a hearing.

4 The 80% success rate in appeals of ministry decisions is a critique of the original decision making not problems with the SBT.

The delays are bad enough but there is speculation that the SBT might be eliminated.

Read a recent letter from Laura Hunter and Michael Ollier, Co-Chairs of the Steering Committee on Social Assistance for Ontario Community Legal Clinic.  The letter is to the Attorney General of Ontario and the Minister of Children, Community & Social Services.  

“The right to an appeal process at the Tribunal is enshrined in legislation, and it is a vital one that needs to be preserved. Even in the best of application systems, it is only fair and reasonable to apply a check on the decision-making of Ministry staff.”  https://hamiltonjustice.ca/en/2020/12/10/alarmed-for-the-future-of-the-social-benefits-tribunal-and-appeals-process/

The Ontario government must preserve the important independent role of the Social Benefits Tribunal.  No one should be wrongly denied the benefits they need for their survival.

Getting Worse?

There is ongoing dialogue on social media focussing on Hamilton Ontario City Council and the performance of its members.  Today, long time City Hall observer Ryan McGreal notes "they're actually getting worse. More indifferent to suffering, more reactionary, more cynical, more shameless.”

I've  retired and moved away so it is hard for me to judge however, for what it is worth,  I offer this piece from my blog written nearly ten years ago, - May  2011.

Respect for Citizens Needed at Council Meeting 

May 25, 2011

Over the last ten years I’ve attended a couple of dozen meetings of Standing Committees of Hamilton City Council.

Usually I’ve been there to watch; occasionally I’ve been presenting. From time to time I‘ve gone home happy as the issue that had prompted my attendance had been resolved appropriately, from my perspective anyway.

But almost always I’ve headed out into the real world following these meetings out of sorts because of the lack of respect that Hamilton Council consistently shows for the public.

This lack of respect takes many forms.

First, meetings frequently start late, usually because of lack of quorum. Once I was there for a 9:30 meeting that was about to be postponed. Seconds short of 10:00 a Mountain Councillor raced into Chambers arriving just under the wire so the meeting could get started. (Not having a quorum within thirty minutes of the scheduled start means no meeting.) Let’s face it those who are there to present or listen have other responsibilities that need their time.

Second, Councillors, some more than others, feel the need to get up and leave the room a lot. To be fair it isn’t easy sitting for the hours that the job requires and some, OK most, of the dialogue is tedious but these pols knew what the job entailed when they put their names forward.

Third, and this is what really turns my crank, is the propensity some councillors have for talking with the media in the middle of meetings. Way back when we were toddlers we all learned that it was rude to talk when others are talking. And someone - staff, a member of the public or another Councillor - is always talking at a Committee meeting. In my experience most municipalities’ procedural by-laws cover such matters and committee chairs have the power to enforce.

 In this context I found Andrew Dreschel’s column in today’s Hamilton Spectator interesting.

Dreschel reports that Peggy Chapman from Mayor Bratina’s office wants to start “regulating interactions in the Council Chambers.” That would include, apparently, not allowing reporters to talk with councillors during proceedings and restricting councillors from talking privately with reporters during meetings. The columnist seems to think that the Mayor’s initiative may be more about “exercising control than good form.”

But if Dreschel and others took a look around they’d likely find that Hamilton is out of step with other cities who think that at the heart of good form is respect for citizens.

A Disability Inclusion Plan for Canada

Throne speeches are full of promises.

Amongst the many promises in the federal government’s September Throne speech was a commitment to come up with a Disability Inclusion Plan to address “long-standing challenges” facing Canadians with disabilities.

The Disability Inclusion Plan is a promise that should be kept.

The plan would be styled after the Guaranteed Income Supplement for Seniors. It would include a “robust” employment strategy for Canadians with disabilities.  A better process for determining eligibility would be developed.

The prime minister re-affirmed this promise in a media release on December 3rd, 2020.

It is an important initiative that seems to be flying below the radar.

The Hamilton Roundtable for Poverty Reduction put together a timely policy brief that

looks at the financial costs of disability.  It is a succinct 4 pager which you can read at https://hamiltonpoverty.ca/preview/wp-content/uploads/2021/01/HRPR-Policy-Brief-The-Financial-Cost-of-Disability.pdf

The data makes the case that we must acknowledge “the severity of structural poverty for persons with disabilities.”

Any new benefit must ensure that persons with disabilities can be lifted out of poverty “to a truly dignified standard of living.”

Some Insights from the Roundtable Report

• There are significant costs associated with life-long disability.

• All medical needs are not covered or accessible through existing programs.

• There should be full support for social inclusion.  Adequate resources to permit full involvement in the community must be provided.

• Everyone with disabilities isn’t able to work full time. That means incomes must be supplemented to account for lower life time learnings. 

Learn More: Plan Institute has put together on Building Momentum for the Canadian Disability Benefit which you can find at https://planinstitute.ca/learning-series-canadian-disability-benefit/

Just a Thought- How about a Caretaker for Ward 2?

On Tuesday,  Norfolk Council will consider a 41-page staff report on how to fill the Ward 2 Council vacancy.   https://www.norfolkcounty.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/CIC-Agenda-Feb-9.pdf

We live in a democracy so a by-election is clearly the way to go.

Some will take issue with the financial cost of such a by-election.  Not me.  The expenses are pegged at a reasonable $22,000-$33,000.

However,  as with everything else these days, the pandemic puts up significant barriers to a successful by-election. 

Staff identify these obstacles and list special procedures that could address legitimate  health and safety concerns.  Some examples: 

*The nomination process set out in provincial legislation can’t be amended.  That means that at least 25 people must sign a candidate’s nomination papers.  Since electronic signatures are not allowed a separate form for each signature is needed to reduce touch points of the mandatory forms. 

*Door to door canvassing is problematic.  Staff recommend that candidates undergo a daily health self assessment; door campaigning should take place “through the door” whenever possible and hand sanitizer should be used by all involved in campaigning.

These are all good ideas but impractical and not easily enforceable. 

Other Concerns with a By-Election

There are issues with voting methods as well ;  “complexity” concerns with internet voting, for example.  And internet access is problematic for many in Ward Two.   

Staff prefer a mail-in ballot, although the accuracy of the voter’s list is a big problem which can’t be resolved until 2024.  

One concern not mentioned is that the successful candidate won’t be sworn in and able to begin serving Ward 2 and Norfolk constituents until June 8th. As we know it takes quite a while to learn the ropes in any new job.   Municipal government presents a big learning curve for new members.  By the time the new councillor is up to speed the October 2022 municipal elections will be here.

Given all the above the appointment process might be a better approach. Here is a thought:

A Caretaker

In 2006, I was selected over 20 other applicants through a transparent community process as Ward 5 Councillor for Burlington/Halton.  That process involved a public meeting and an in-camera interview (allowed under the Municipal Act) with Council and senior staff.

What did I offer?  For six years I’d served most of that ward as Councillor before deciding to return to my old field of work.  Voters had not tossed me out and that, I’m sure, was a consideration.  

I had been off council for more than eight years but still had an understanding of how local government generally and local governments specifically worked.  What was most important though was,  in combination with my experience,  I made a commitment that I would not run in the upcoming municipal election.  As Norfolk staff correctly note in their report there is a huge advantage for incumbents in municipal elections.  It can be argued that those who have that advantage by being elected by voters deserve it.  But one who has not faced the electors certainly doesn’t.

I spent nine productive months as a caretaker councillor. I worked with constituents, brought forward some new initiatives that had been put to one side, plugged away on Official Plan updates that I had background on from my earlier term on council and other matters.  I was also quite involved in promoting civic participation through organizing and chairing an all candidates meeting and making myself available to discuss issues with those candidates.

Norfolk County

An appointment process with interviews in public and applicants’  intentions for the next election being factored in to the decision could be the way to go for Norfolk. 

As far as I’m aware, candidates in an appointment process can’t be required to commit to not contesting the next election.  In fact, I recall some who made such a promise then broke it.

My view is that Council can ask for the commitment and if it is broken then the voters can decide in 2022.  

That would be the democratic thing to do.