STIGMA AS THE ENEMY -- MENTAL HEALTH CONSUMER/SURVIVORS BEWARE

There was a major series on Mental Health in the Globe & Mail recently.

There was a lot of discussion about how painful the stigma is. Many people do not seek treatment because of stigma. They may notice issues happening within themselves, and then the TV begins to repeat stories about people like Vincent Li that stabbed Tim McLean to death, or about some other killer that ended up happening to have a diagnosis ... smaller headlines accompanying the same story try to repeat that people with mental health problems are LESS likely to be violent than people with mental health problems. So, if this is the case, why mention the mental health diagnosis at all? We certainly don't refer to people's hemorrhoids or gastritis when it comes to reporting their crimes, so why do they beat the mental health dead horse?

There were a number of panelists and presenters that told their stories or spoke about potential solutions for the mental health crisis in Canada which resulted in a report from the Senate Committee on Social Affairs, Science and Technology entitled Out of the Shadows at Last. I read the entire report. While it did highlight some important components to mental health, it did not really give a lot of answers as to what to do about the stigma, other than suggested the latter established Mental Health Commission to embark on some campaign to end it. There are some attempts out there to try to compare people with mental health problems with persons with diabetes, but unfortunately, that isn't working. If it worked, it would have worked a long time ago, and we not be faced with a continued stigma that even prevents many persons with mental health disabilities from entering the workforce, engaging in relationships or doing other "normal" things. The media images don't show mental health clients doing "normal" things -- they are always portrayed as violent or completely incapable of looking after themselves.

In Helen Henderson's regular Toronto Star column, she referred to a British study where it was shown that one in eight persons stated they did not want to knowingly live next door to a person with a mental health diagnosis. Further, this same study revealed that over one third indicated they did not believe people with mental health issues were entitled in the same way as others to a paid job. Similar studies have been done in Canada that have also revealed that many people would not knowingly engage a professional like a doctor or a lawyer if it was known that the person had a mental health diagnosis. So, what incentive is there to get help anyways?

There are a large number of working people I know, many in the professions, that have told me in confidence that they have suffered from depression, bipolar disorder or some other diagnosis for many years, and to maintain confidentiality, they seek help from a professional in another region, as opposed to getting it here. These people are not homeless. They are not on ODSP (although a couple of them I am aware have been receiving a partial supplement from ODSP, as they work -- but they keep that to themselves too). These people are living independently and do not need "special housing" of any kind. They, like everybody else, needs a home that is affordable, with a door that locks, a roof that doesn't leak and enough space for them to enjoy their day to day living activities.

One of them was in my office the other day and we were talking about the Registered Disability Savings Program and he wanted to know how to get it. I advised him that he would need to qualify for the Disability Tax Credit first, then I explained what happens once they become eligible for the program. It is actually not a bad program for people with serious physical disabilities, as they do not need to stigmatize themselves by applying. However, for somebody with a mental health problem, they need to show that 90% or more of the time, they have a marked restriction in thinking, perceiving and/or remembering, which would reflect more of a neurological condition, although the examiners for the purposes of qualifying people would accept arguments involving problem solving, capacity to live independently, etc. as part of their evaluation for eligibility for mental health disability.

The problem with this is that if one values their status as a professional, a student or perhaps, even an executive or manager of an organization, accepting this definition of themselves would render them unemployable, which is something most of my professional friends do not want. They do not want to face a Fitness to Practice committee of the Teacher's College or other professional regulator that would somehow question one's capacity to carry out their profession, if they allegedly have "marked restrictions" in these areas. Of course, as soon as my friend went through my literature on the topic, the whole question of the RDSP became moot. The one gentleman who receives a partial ODSP now knew this would not work well for him, thus forcing him to live within the restricted means of that benefit.

People with mental health problems CAN get the Disability Tax Credit. I have appealed many cases successfully in the past; however, in not one of these cases, was the subject able to work. In fact, even in these cases we had to prove severity. These folks had problems managing their money, handling their personal hygiene, using public transportation independently, as well as being unable to handle stress - thus, the problem-solving issue. Some of these people were relatively high functioning, such as the case with Buchanan v Attorney General of Canada, but in the end, his case was proven but he was not able to work, and had to be cared for by his wife. The new 'mental health consumer/survivor' as they call themselves today wants to be independent, competent and functioning as a human being to the extent possible, and in most cases - if analyzed at the surface, they certainly wouldn't be eligible unless they met the criteria of my successful appellants in the matter.

If somebody were injured in a car accident, for example, and ended up in a wheelchair, or if they had only 20% of their hearing and required sign language or other adaptations, then the stigma of applying for and receiving something like this isn't there. The examples given in the Canada Revenue Agency guide appear to favour physical disability over mental disability and this is post-review of the criteria, despite what some progressive mental health organizations might like to pretend they have accomplished on people's behalf. To me, this should be based exclusively on additional costs - direct or indirect - as a result of having the disability. This was in fact the original purpose of the credit. However, a high functioning consumer/survivor that is working, but needs to pay out of pocket for psychological counseling services isn't eligible. A high functioning professional with epilepsy that cannot drive due to seizures is not eligible. This can be a very long list indeed, as we can all cull out examples from our own experience.

One of the other issues faced by consumer/survivors is that they are too often chronically unemployed or under-employed regardless of their educational attainment. In a study cited by the Global Business Roundtable on Mental Health, employers tend to under-estimate the number of people they have working for them that could possibly be consumer/survivors. In this study, the figure estimated was almost always under 5% - when the general figure given is that one in five persons at one time or other experience a mental health problem, according to the Canadian Mental Health Association. When they do have problems, they are not usually accommodated, but instead sent on disability leave. If the employee is fortunate enough to have a long-term disability insurance plan, they will at least not be forced into poverty, like so many thousands of others. The loss of productivity is shameful and dispiriting.

Some consumer/survivors think it is a good idea to get consumer/survivors to work in a consumer/survivor-run business. To most of my friends I spoke of earlier, this is NOT a good idea, as one is permanently labeling themselves and later restricting their employment options, as research and experience has shown that society has not yet progress far enough to recognize the skills and talents of people without the label first. However, for those consumer/survivors who may never work again in a "normal" job, it may be an option for them. If they can be taken off or substantially off disability benefits, that is even a better thing over the long run.

So, it seems that people still do not want to accept people who directly experienced the services of the mental health system. How does one go about resolving that? This is an age-old question.
I, for one, do not like the term "mental illness", not only for its logical inconsistency, but it does contribute to the stereotype of incapacity. Moreover, there is no actual peer-reviewed research that definitively ties mental health diagnosis with a specific physiological cause. This is not to say there is no value in the use of medication, as many consumer/survivors are helped by the different medications prescribed for their condition. Because a medication may "work", it does not mean it corrects a physiological condition, but may provide symptom relief in other ways, such as a person suffering from a major headache taking an Advil. Again, as always, one needs to be informed about their medications and ensure they try different ones before they settle on a cocktail that may eventually be proven to be most effective over time.

But not all so-called "mentally ill" respond to medication or need it. Medication is just one part of an array of services, or weapons, against the problems of the condition. Alternative therapies help many consumer/survivors, as does some forms of psychotherapy. When given a wide range of choices, understanding the benefits and drawbacks to each, a consumer/survivor will eventually find their way. But, to label them "mentally ill" automatically generates a picture of somebody who is "mentally defective" or "mentally incapable", whereas the focus is on what the person cannot do, as opposed to what they can. Advocates attempting to "educate" on mental health issues and to eradicate stigma should take this issue into account.

Nor are persons with "mental illness" likely to be homeless as a direct consequence of their condition either. Unfortunately, the media and even many social workers tend to paint this picture of their clients, as people who are not capable of caring for themselves. Earlier, I referred to the Out of the Shadows at Last report from the Senate. Various deponents slated the percentage of persons with mental health disabilities as unemployed or underemployed as 75 - 90%, which also explains a lot. When you are unemployed, especially chronically so and without access to long-term disability under a private plan, you are forced to impoverish yourself in order to be eligible for the remaining programs, Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program. Neither program pays well and a single person, even on ODSP is several thousands of dollars below the poverty line.

I spoke to a homeless gentleman named John, here in the city. He supposedly had a mental health "history", but he chose homelessness over starvation, because he knew he could not afford both housing and other basic needs on ODSP. As such, most times when I seen him, he was enjoying a meal of sorts. To me, it's the consequent poverty that often arises out of discrimination and stress from the job market that leads to homelessness, not the other way around. Can you live on $572 a month and cover housing, groceries, clothing, transportation and other needs with that? My suspect is that most of the homeless are like John. The only ones where I actually feel their disability itself may have played a part are those that are addicted, as many would "blow their rent money on drugs". For those folks, we simply dry them out and get them treated and housed, but for somebody with only a mental health problem, get them enough money to live on or housing they could afford - period.

One of the consequences of linking so-called "mental illness" itself to homelessness is the danger of it translating into social policy, whereby one's liberties are once again at stake. Proponents of this "model" tend to favour forcing people into mental health treatment -wanted or not - effective or not - on such persons and keeping them under some kind of prison-like condition in the community. They would be under curfew, forced to share their accommodation with others, often with worse problems than their own, and forced to take medication at the risk of being evicted if they don't. While this policy may keep some people on their medication, it does not necessarily "cure" them, nor does it help them progress to citizenship status that we all take for granted. You need to ask yourself if YOU want that kind of quality of life FIRST, before you suggest imposing it on others. Nevertheless, liberalizing mental health incarcerations and follow-up supervision has NOT reduced the homeless numbers one bit.

Instead of attacking people for what they are labeled as, one needs to view all people for who they are. People sharing the same diagnosis are two very different people with different needs, interests and abilities. But nevertheless, they are people first. It is high time we start to demand treatment from mental health professionals and their advocates that assume they can eradicate the stigma by telling everybody how poor John is crazy, hopeless, incapable and delusional, so he becomes homeless ... How does this advocacy make John look like a person, other than distance his problems from those of yours and mine? Instead we need to stop the labeling and let John speak for himself. We might learn something.

Your thoughts?

POVERTY A CASTE OF ITS OWN

Some of us believe that Canadians treat their low income individuals and families well, compared to say, what other countries do. The middle class folks who have always lived this way, without ever knowing the feeling of living from paycheck to paycheck for the most part do believe this country actually helps its poor. Most of these same people feel that low-income people can become middle-class if they really pulled up their socks and tried.

The reality according to many sources - particularly the lived experience of people living in poverty - proves differently.

There are many types of poverty in Ontario and for almost all types, it is getting worse and much harder to escape. Stereotypes about who the low-income and poor folks are is just a beginning and unfortunately, public attitudes turn public policy. In Ontario for the past twenty years, this public policy has become public disaster.

The first kind of poverty includes the unemployed. There are less and less Canadians eligible to collect Employment Insurance today than there were twenty years ago. Before the unemployed officially were pushed off the marginalized category of our society with the rest of the low-income population, benefit levels more closely reflected working income and at least 85% of those that paid into the program were able to collect if they lost their jobs. Today, nationally less than four in ten workers are deemed eligible for Employment Insurance, regardless that they paid into the program for years before losing their job.

What happens to the sixty or more percent of those that do not qualify? These people get thrown in the trash heap sooner than those that do; however, with the present recession, even among those that do manage to collect EI, the likelihood that they will fall into destitution is real, given that the next step off the ladder is Ontario Works - if they can get it. But, let's continue with the EI poverty folks first. Benefits are presently capped at 55% of one's earnings or $423 a week, whatever is less. For a single person living in a medium sized metropolitan census tract region, this may be approaching poverty line. For a family, it not even nearly adequate. Assuming one gets the full length of payout (which most don't), benefits "run out" in 45 weeks.

While on claim, one is expected to search for and accept any work for which one is reasonably capable of doing. One must also be deemed always available to start work at any time during their claim. Those that attempt to leave the country for a brief vacation can get caught and lose a period of their benefits, if they are not excused for this ahead of time. If it can be proven that a job offer was given, but turned down, one can lose benefits altogether. The only saving grace one really has is the fact that administrators of the program during a recession like this one tend to be overworked and lack the time to oversee many of these things; however, people have been "reported" and subsequently accused of not being eligible, or even committing fraud.

Work programs for those who are eligible for EI (or who qualify for "reach back" for benefits that have recently been received) tend to be of a higher quality than programs serving other low-income workers, although many are reportedly difficult to access. One example is the Second Career Program, which many people found to be Kafkaesque in its application process and subsequent approval, after which it is allegedly determined that person applying must "prove" the new career they are attempting is actually going to result in a job. If anybody can adequately predict this, then we should be consulting the same people about lottery numbers so more of us can be winning the millions. Nevertheless, once one gets onto this program, it offers not only payment for the training, but also living expenses -- something unheard of for other low-income recipients that want to return to work.

This category of people unfortunately has since become stereotyped by the federal Conservatives as a group of people paid to sit at home essentially, thus their reasoning for not reforming the EI program so that more people are eligible for this "insurance" policy. However, if you are sitting at a lower step of the ladder in this caste system, those on EI are probably the best treated group of people living in poverty.

First, EI is yours and even if your spouse was a millionaire that owns hundreds of properties, your EI is not impacted. Even if YOU owned hundreds of properties, your EI is not affected. While there is a bit of a boot given to you to "get a job", you are not immediately at least forced into destitution and desperation like hundreds of thousands of other Ontarians are. But at some point, EI will "run out". Some will be lucky enough to find a job before that happens. Others have family and savings to rely on to stretch this idiocy a little longer. However, many others are forced onto the welfare rolls.

The majority of middle-class Ontarians actually believe it is easy to get "on welfare". The truth of the matter is that it is not. In fact, you have to burn almost all of your bridges, including family support, retirement savings plans and in some cases, your vehicle, before you can access this system. For those who have been on both EI and Ontario Works, they will almost unanimously tell you that Ontario Works is a lot worse.

First, the amounts one can receive is a LOT lower. There is no rational connection between the actual cost of living and what one is actually given on welfare to live on. A single person is supposed to find living accommodations for under approximately $360 per month. This does not even cover the cost of a room in most jurisdictions across the province. However, somebody on welfare is supposed to find housing of that price range. For many, this means losing their current accommodations, as for most people on welfare, their current accommodations cost much more than the total amount they get one their cheque, let alone just the shelter allotment.

To make matters worse, some welfare offices have harassed recipients who were paying more than this amount for housing, threatening to cut them off if they don't find "cheaper" accommodations. Others are given a form to complete to identify their total income and how they cover their monthly costs. Most, if not all of them, either don't eat most of the month or rely on a patch work of food banks, soup kitchens and occasionally, family. If it is learned that one is getting help from family or friends, their next cheque can be deducted by approximately the same value as that "help" received. So most that do get any of this help don't mention it. The fear and reality of starvation are too closely aligned.

On top of financial humiliation and abuse received by people getting Ontario Works, they are expected to take the fastest route to a job. A lot of research has gone into this philosophy and it was found that folks that did just this ended up back on welfare shortly thereafter, as the jobs they would get would often be low-paying, short term and have no benefits. Of course, welfare recipients are a boon for slimy employers that want to refuse minimum wages, or even any wages at all, or to employers that have a management style that includes bullying their employees -- using of course, the three month quit or fire rule in the event that a person is forced from the job. Welfare offices do have discretion on how they handle this, but many people still end up in its quagmire, which ends in homelessness and often losing what little they have.

Many people on welfare are disabled or have multiple workplace barriers. If they didn't start off this way, many of them end up this way. Therefore, such folks often aspire to apply for the Ontario Disability Support Program, or ODSP. ODSP pays roughly twice the amount a single person on welfare gets and some of its rules around assets and income are more liberal. However, with regards to assets, transfers from Ontario Works to ODSP aren't usually concerned about this, as they lost almost everything they have just by trying to become and remain eligible for Ontario Works.

Those that later go onto the ODSP program that have managed to keep their housing or some kind of housing are often quite far into debt by the time their file gets transferred. ODSP rules help in this case, as one is paid back to the time they first applied to the program and many recipients get months, if not years, in retroactive adjustment payments to help cover these bills. Some end up above the allowable asset limits for ODSP and are told to discharge the excess in about six months' time (and some are granted a longer period for various reasons). Most have no trouble doing so, as housing itself takes up an average of 73% of a market renter's ODSP cheque anyways.

The unique circumstances of ODSP recipients are such that they are made to live their lives in a similar way to people who are welfare recipients, only they get paid a little more to do so. While not required to take a job, many ODSP recipients feel forced to work in order to make up the gap in income required to pay their basic living expenses. For those that cannot work at all, living on ODSP for the long term is unhealthy and downright dangerous. For the person who once pointed out that 'poverty kills', this is in fact a reality. While many people on ODSP may have shortened lifespans due to their disability that brought them onto ODSP in the first place, there is hard evidence that poverty itself is even a bigger contributor to this quandary.

Life on ODSP becomes very difficult and isolating once its recipients discover that:

1. They will unlikely attract a spouse or life partner, as if they do - that spouse or life partner ends up being on ODSP too, even if they never signed up for it in the past. All the asset rules, earnings clawbacks, etc. that apply to the recipient also apply to the spouse, so there is very little incentive for somebody who is not already on ODSP themselves to get involved with a recipient.

2. If they are working, they will not be able to contribute to a retirement pension (unless they are also eligible for a disability tax credit which has a strict criteria and the program that is tied to - the Registered Disability Savings Plan - depends an awful lot on having wealthy and generous friends and family that can contribute to this account on your behalf ...). If they aren't on an RDSP, then they can't put into an RRSP, even if they can afford to contribute something - as one's assets are capped at $5,000 (for a single person).

3. If they do work, half of one's NET income is deducted right away off their next ODSP cheque. While some costs can be written off, most costs for working cannot be. Therefore, you probably would be netting just as much money sitting at home picking your nose than you will by working and maintaining your eligibility with ODSP.

4. Employment supports provided as part of the ODSP program are available to any recipient that wants to try to work, but again, this is complicated. They must sign on with a "service provider" whose job it is to help one get and keep a job. Service providers are paid on the basis of being successful in doing so, which all sounds well and good for accountability's sake, but what this in fact does is encourage recipients to once again to take the fastest route to employment. Again, slimy employers love this program, so more under-employed people can be hired to work for low wages, no benefits and no security. After all, as some of these slimy employers told me, isn't ODSP supposed to subsidize the minimum wage?

5. There are a lot of stupid rules involving loans being defined as unearned income, which ironically makes the recipient pay it back twice - first to the lender, then back to ODSP as an overpayment. A particularly large loan that is not approved in advance can cause a recipient to be cut off altogether in the month in which it is received.

6. Sometimes the recipient waits for the requisite Godot and manages to get into rent-geared-to-income housing in their respective region (average wait is five to seven years for a single), and later learns that if they decide to work and collect ODSP, their rent-geared-to-income unit costs them more as they earn more money, thus even COSTING them to work at all. ODSP will catch up to some extent, but again, you are expected to find shelter that costs $456 or less (including all utilities - good luck!). Once you hit that magic number with ODSP, you are paying out of pocket for the privilege of having a paid job!

7. At the same time, while ODSP recipients want to work as much as anybody else, many cannot work and others try, but encounter many of these stupid rules and quit trying ... the middle class public believe most, if not all, ODSP recipients don't "really need" to be on it. It is like members of the general public suddenly become doctors and are capable of assessing people they don't know from a distance as to what they can and cannot do. While the same folks that approve people to get on ODSP in the first place are sort of like that, they do have medical training and their decisions can always be appealed. But stigma from the public cannot.

So, while one is treated a little bit better on ODSP than they are on welfare, it is a double-edged sword that one cannot help but wonder if it is its own "kiss of death". ODSP is a legitimate program with legitimate need, but major reforms must be done to make this program almost unrecognizable and thus, more useful for the person with the disability.

The fourth category of poor is the elderly. Middle class Canadians believe the government wiped out elder poverty with the Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. The truth is unless you worked for a time as a public servant or were a well-adorned auto worker, it is not likely that you will be getting any pension other than that publicly offered by the government. CPP maxes out at just over $1,000 a month (and that is if you made over $40,000 most of your working career). OAS is just under $500. Guaranteed Income Supplement is for those seniors that do not get a pension and not enough CPP ... and I've had them in my office, folks. These people don't get much more than people get on ODSP (a difference of about $150 at most), plus these seniors lose the dental, special diet, medical travel and other benefits apart from drug coverage once they turn 65. Sounds like something to look forward to, eh?

This group of poor is not as stigmatized by the public as the other groups I identified above. It is just not recognized as being as large as it is by most Canadians. Something certainly has to be done with pensions to ensure NOBODY over the age of sixty-five lives in poverty.

The final group I want to raise is the working poor. These are folks that get no welfare, ODSP, EI, or pensions, but do get a wage - except the wage does not add up to enough money to pay the rent and feed the kids in the same month. It seems that more and more people are falling into this category and for many employers, it is perfectly all right as many of them do not want to pay what people need to live on or even what the skills of their workers are actually worth to the business. Many of these same employers are ironically great corporate citizens. They participate in the United Way drives, give major donations to the food banks and so forth, but lo and behold, they fail to realize that the majority of their employees are probably using these same stop-gap band-aid programs these employers praise in the media just to get by.

There is also a group of people that don't really fit in any of these categories, but may or may not be poor - at least at first, depending on the generosity of their accident employer. This is the injured workers under the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, or the WSIB. At some point, I will write more about the politics of the injured workers' industry (and yes, this is a BIG industry) and what tends to happen to the person that actually got injured on the job through no fault of their own. In Ontario, since the early 1900's, employers bought into this 'no fault' formula that would pay workers financial compensation that does have some relevance to real wages (unlike most social programs like welfare and ODSP) until such point they recover or are able to return to work at a different job. The legal politics are there and the explanations complicated, but nevertheless, when the WSIB pie is divided up at the end of the day, it is always the injured worker that gets the smallest piece.

A colleague of mine called me up earlier in the year to ask me if I was noticing a widespread epidemic of injured workers being cut off of WSIB benefits at the drop of a hat, it seems. At that time, my caseload for WSIB cases alone had increased 400% - most of which include unpaid lost time claims and/or discontinued benefits. "Reasons" for being cut off are myriad, similar to those of people on Ontario Works and usually have something to do with "non-cooperation" and in the odd case, somehow a person turns up with a "pre-existing condition" they never had prior to the accident but this condition somehow has caused the injury and disablement blamed on the accident ... people working in this field learn how to speak a lot of double-speak and bureaucratise. If a worker has an honest claim, they will be paid, but it appears that the job of the WSIB is to either delay payment for as long as they can (hoping that a certain percentage will not bother to appeal) or try to deny it altogether by inventing some new rule or circumstance as to why the person is suddenly ineligible. The interesting thing is that the injured workers drawing the higher level of benefits tend to be the ones they want to kick off the system the fastest and the ones on the lower level of benefits tend to be steered into low-wage jobs ... sound familiar? I might sound like a conspiracy theorist, but I do believe our own government is working hand in hand with these slimy employers to provide them with a cadre of desperate workers willing to work for next to nothing.

Your thoughts?
Further,

STAND UP FOR YOUR RIGHTS!

I have been trying to put together on a book on advocacy practice for some time, particularly around what constitutes ethics. Initially it focused primarily on the ethical parts of advocacy geared to the legal profession, but then again - we already have plenty of guidance in that through our regulator and various professional associations. However, my work is much more than that ... I talk more about meaning, what it means to speak up for yourself, speak up for others, or to represent a constituent group.

Limiting ethics to practice work is difficult, as in practice, doing advocacy as a profession still stifles us to a specific framework of how we advocate, how we present ourselves and how we maintain our clients' respective position. But nevertheless, my focus here is on self-advocacy, individual-focused advocacy and representative advocacy. There are basic ethics and guidelines in how to do these things correctly, but more or less, why you want to do it - that is the important thing.

I always say people who are white male millionnaires never need advocates. Such persons are capable of generating the resources they need when they feel threatened or backed into a corner. These are the people that threaten newspapers with libel action when unfavourable press is generated about them, or somebody at one of their social clubs attempts to exclude them in some way. The people I work with are those that need assistance with self-advocacy or need somebody to back them up big time.

I always pride myself in that I have a voice and I am eager to use it whenever I have a chance, and I will use it whenever I feel under attack. Part of self-advocacy for me is identifying my boundaries. Personal boundaries are a big thing. You have a right as an individual to decide what comes into your home, into your life or what level of abuse you are willing to exchange for valued goods and services. To me, I feel I should not have to follow any rules that are different than the rules that are followed by others. Under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of this country, I am supposed to be considered equal before and under the law and under this province's Human Rights Code, I am supposed to live a life that is free from harassment and discrimination regardless of mental or physical disability, creed, ethnicity, racial origin, gender and a myriad of other reasons.

It is unfortunate that most people don't think this way, particularly when they are disadvantaged in some way, either by disability, ethnicity, poverty or some other issue. In 2006, I filed a couple of legal actions. These things took a lot out of me, as I don't like to get involved in protracted legal issues unless I feel I can bring something important to a final or interim resolution by doing so, when other strategies have failed. It is 2009, and these two actions will soon be winding their way back in the system. I am trying to find some time to obtain some important documentation because both of these cases are of public interest. Many people around me are aware of these two legal actions and for most, they cheer me on in the background; however, when I ask them to join me in the action, they are hesitant. For me, it is the number of people who are hesitant, not only in taking legal action, but raising hell in other ways, that leads to continued and entrenched discriminatory practices in society.

In my last posting, I made reference to Tim Hudak who campaigned and successfully won the leadership of the provincial Progressive Conservatives in part because he announced early on that he plans to dismantle the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. To me, that is a bad move. I am not a big fan of the way things are set up with the new Tribunal, as one year of full year practice has already proven for me what I thought would happen. In order to deal with a Complaint of legitimacy, one still waits. Once the Tribunal gets to it, it rushes the process to a point where it is difficult to properly assess, evaluate and play by the rules. Some Complaints that are irrelevant have been pushed through and while the Tribunal has handily dismissed them, the time the process has taken has been lost from legitimate issues.

Hudak's solution is just to put the matter to the courts. He suggested a good model would be the Family Law Courts or Domestic Violence Courts "where cases are heard on evidence as opposed to hurt feelings". That phrase made me laugh, as it is obvious that Hudak has never been the subject of a proceeding before either of these courts. The Family Law Courts handle both matters of separation, divorce, custody and support, as well as Children's Aid matters. If any of these subjects hit home with you personally, you know these courts are certainly procedurally minded, but many do feel they do not work on hard evidence. Families facing the Children's Aid feel they are kneeling below the Sword of Damascus no matter what they say or do. Parents and couples separating have found the family courts to depend largely on what Judge hears your case or how competent your lawyer is, if you can afford one. Nevertheless, many families have gone through these endeavours only to come out on the other end broke, penniliess, exhausted and alone. Many men as well also know what it is like to be accused of domestic violence as well ... what that does to their family, children, relationships and to some extent, in certain cases, their employment.

To the contrary, I do find the Human Rights Tribunals to base their decisions on evidence. In recent cases I have dealt with before the new Tribunal, I find the adjudicators to be very impartial and push parties to stick to the facts. They have mediations, discovery processes, interim decisions, motions, case conferences and other means of resolving disputes. As a young Tribunal, it is struggling still and at its birth, it was unfairly hit with thousands and thousands of cases, many of which were transferred over from but not resolved by the Ontario Human Rights Commission. If one reads the decisions of the Tribunal, which are printed through its website, one sees that the decisions are based on both fact and law. Many people do come to the Tribunal with complaints that may not necessarily fit the mould of the Code and the adjudicators are careful to ensure that the parties have an opportunity to review the law and take the opportunity to see if their case truly falls within its jurisdiction.

It is not the fault of the Tribunal that the occasional person puts forth a ridiculous lawsuit such as the one that is now before it about an alleged trans-gendered person that is accusing a ladies gym owner of barring him/her from the premises. There are reasonable defences to this respondent and I do hope he wins. However, cases like this do not necessitate the elimination of the Tribunal. People like this always seem to find a way to grind their axes in the court system too. I've encountered them in my own professional practice. An individual representing themselves puts forth a ridiculous lawsuit against my client that is either statute barred or based on non-justiciable issues, or on no evidence whatsoever, and despite motions to shut it down, the court tends to allow them to continue for a time until case conference or after some point in discovery or even in the lower courts, at time of trial. Yes, justice prevails here too, but only after months or even years of a stupid case winding through the courts.

However, the main reason I object is the issue of access. Courts are more difficult to deal with, are inherently more complex and if one is to pursue them, they usually need representation. In many courts, particularly the kind that Hudak alludes to, one can ONLY be represented by a lawyer and not by agent or paralegal. So, if a Complainant to this fictitious Human Rights Court wants to file a Complaint, they need to have money and LOTS of it ... as I said before, the white male millionnaires will probably not be filing complaints in this Court. But, the ones that really need to be in this Court will be shut out for financial and personal reasons. The Tribunal, on the other hand, while not perfect and still littered with too many rules in itself, is more accessible. More Complainants can self-represent in a meaningful way and others too, with some summary assistance by its Legal Support Centre. In some cases, the LSC will be able to represent a party all the way through a case. As well, paralegals and other approved agents can also represent a party before this Tribunal.

My concern is that if Hudak ever gets elected as Premier of Ontario and follows through with this above promise, rights abuses against vulnerable citizens will become more tolerated and accepted because there will be fewer people able to stand up against the abusers. With less Complaints, people like Hudak will make it look like Ontario is wonderful and tolerant and that the government is 'looking after' its people, while the pain and malcontent is simply shoved further beneath the surface.

Some people see how I instruct folks on self-advocacy. They complain that I can do this because I have legal training. The truth is I was doing it long before I got any of my legal training. What I understood and what I try to get people to understand is that you need to become aware of and respect YOUR personal boundaries. You know what is right for YOU and many times, when something does not FEEL right, it is not right. I sincerely believe that if even ten (10) percent of the population of low-income citizens or the population of persons with disabilities were to become effective self-advocates, many of the abuses that take place today will soon become intolerable in our society.

But unfortunately, many people do not become self-advocates or choose not to do so for a number of reasons: (1) They feel there is always somebody like me that is going to do it for them. I can't be everywhere, so other people need to chime in. (2) They feel they cannot be effective or they cannot win. Of course, you will not win by not fighting back. You can never choose your outcome by learning effective advocacy, but by not doing so - you are - you are choosing to lose. (3) In some areas of self-advocacy, they fear reprisal. People living in public housing fear they will get evicted. People receiving ODSP think they will get suspended or cut off for some real or imaginary "rule". People who assert their rights to law enforcement persons, such as the police force or even children's aid think they will be penalized in some way. The key is assertive, not aggressive or silly. (4) They fear unwanted publicity. To me, I always found the media to be an effective tool when "quieter" forms of advocacy didn't work; and (5) People feel they don't know their rights. There are always ways to find out what your rights are if you are not sure.

Some of the keys that worked for me is:

NEVER BE AFRAID

If your opponents note that you are not afraid of them, they are more likely to become afraid of you, especially if you start to assert yourself. To me, I approach all people I meet in various situations as simply other people who are doing a job. Many times, the person who is doing the job is not sure themselves if they are doing their job correctly. They will never share with you, but if you know they are acting in a way they are not supposed to, that will set them off ...

BE IN A POSITION TO INFORM, NOT ATTACK

Inform your adversaries of the facts. Back it up with evidence, as required. Do not agree to any position that makes you feel uncomfortable. Sometimes, I have had clients encounter agents that try to get them to sign a statement that includes an admission of guilt for something the person does not feel they did. There is nothing wrong with refusing to sign it. A couple of times, I noted an ODSP agent writing or alleging statements that my client is not declaring an income or an asset, or is living with somebody or has lived with somebody. If these allegations are not true, say so.

Many times, I informally meet with government agents, for example, who may be unaware a certain regulation was dealt with in a particular way by a court, for example. I come in with a copy of the court decision and provide them with it, as part of my "information" and "support" role. Do this in the spirit of cooperation and support, not an attack. People will react better to you when they better understand your position. I have had many crazy decisions overturned before they even reached the appeals stage that way.

BE PREPARED TO TAKE IT FURTHER

If the first stage does not resolve the issue, take it up a level. Get to know how your opponent is organized. Do they have a formal complaint process? Do they have a chain of command? Does the system you are fighting have a formal appeal process? I have had to advocate for myself and others in various systems, such as student loans, the school board, the welfare office, the co-op board, funding agencies, etc. many times without knowing what the process was at first, but I learned it.

Take the time to get to know your opponent. Who do they answer to? How do decisions by your opponent get made? Are they governed by any particular legislation? Is there a visible chain of command? Start at the point of the person you are disagreeing with, then go up the ladder. Do this in an informed way, while respecting their processes, yet at the same time being very clear as to what the nature of your concerns are.

LEARN ABOUT YOUR RIGHTS

Your opponent is not going to tell you what rights you have over them. However, no opponent, particularly any "official" opponent has absolute power and control. These people have less power over you than they try to let you believe. There are great resources to conduct research on your own to find out what your rights are. Google is a wonderful tool, which saved my hide several times. If your opponent is a government agency, you can obtain an organizational chart online to learn who is above the person who made the decision you are concerned about. There will also be information about how to file a formal complaint or appeal a decision on the organization's website or on the websites of persons or agencies that often support people like you who are fighting certain issues.

DO NOT BE AFRAID TO SPEAK TO THE MEDIA, BUT USE JUDGEMENT

In many cases, going to the media can be a good thing. It is often the straw that breaks the camel's back in certain bureaucratic abyss' that might not move otherwise. Get to know your local media, who is in charge of it and how you can reach somebody who might be interested in your story. Many reporters have "beats" that can be used to channel your information. For example, a health reporter might write a story about a mess-up that happened in your local hospital. A police reporter might be interested in how you were wrongfully arrested, placed in jail and then cleared, but how this impacted your life. An education reporter might be interested in the fight you are having getting supports for your child in your school.

If you want to try the media, be careful first. It is wise to speak with somebody who has dealt with the media before you try to do it. Keep your point simple. Emphasize three points in your release to them, and try not to make your story too complicated. Readers and viewers like the 30-second clip or the newspaper article that grabs their attention with key facts. Pay attention to your timing. If there is a bill before the legislature about your issue, you may want to bring this to the reporter's attention. If your issue just happens to be taking place during Mental Health Week (e.g. having trouble finding mental health help for your child), Poverty Awareness Week (e.g. how you just got cut off ODSP for a "phantom" job they claim you have), etc. it is timely. Make sure you approach your reporter when nothing of immediate concern is going on, such as a multi-car pile up on the QEW, the resignation of the Prime Minister, somebody getting shot in your community, etc. These other issues tend to draw reporters away, at least temporarily from what story you might have.

MAINTAIN BALANCE

You may be passionate about your issue. Your issue may be the only thing that lights up your life at this moment, but remember that whether your issue is going on or not, the rest of the world is still going on as it always has. This can make you feel alone and isolated. Talk to friends, families and community organizations that might be of some support to you and your issue. Take respite breaks from your issue to do things that relax and empower you, whether that be that hot bath, that glass of wine at dinner or listening to that new CD you bought.

HAVE FAITH

Rome wasn't built in a day. Your issue will not be resolved in a day either. Any progress in the right direction is positive progress that needs to be acknowledged by you. Keep your issue in the spotlight where possible. Write letters to the editor. Write articles or post online to discussion groups that are related to your issue. Meet informally with others who have an interest in the same issue. Keep in touch with the people that have power over deciding about the issue that concerns you. Send them articles and Internet links that support your position; keep them in the loop.

AS A LAST RESORT, TAKE LEGAL ACTION

You may or may not need to do this, or legal action may not necessarily be what your issue needs, but in some cases, it will push the issue to the top of your opponent's agenda. Being sued has a way of making people pay attention all of a sudden. However, before taking legal action, seeking an hour of a legal expert's time is a good investment. This person can tell you what laws apply to your situation, what legal options you have and how you can best push for your position. They can also tell you if you should take this course of action as well.

There are resources on the Internet that can help you represent yourself if you are articulate and knowledgeable enough about your issue. There are legal experts that might be willing to coach you while you represent yourself on a matter if you cannot afford to hire them to do it for you. In some circumstances, in Ontario a licensed paralegal or agent can represent you on certain matters. In others, you might need to consult a lawyer.

However, if you choose to represent yourself, make sure your documentation is done correctly and you follow the rules of whatever court or tribunal you are taking the matter to. Make sure you come prepared, have all of your facts together along with any evidence. Prepare in advance for what your opponent will say and make sure your documentation addresses this. Be clear as to what remedy you are seeking and justify why that remedy is appropriate.

Even if you are taking legal action against your opponent, treat them and any legal representatives they might have respectfully at all times. This can pay off in big dividends, particularly if your opponent admits part of your case or may be considering some type of settlement proposal. However, when you file for legal action, be prepared to take your case all the way to Trial, even though many cases, you will be able to settle the case before that. It still surprises me to this day how an amicable settlement can still be worked out in many cases, even when it seemed that the involved parties are so far apart on the issues.

SHARE YOUR SUCCESSES

When you accomplish something, write about it. Talk about it. Join or start a group where other people might also be seeking similar solutions that you were able to achieve. If you advocate for somebody else, train that person to take their own stand so that when you are finished your task, there will be at least one more person speaking up about the injustices and doing something about them.

To me, it is only when more and more people take a stand and forward action on human rights issues, that the rest of society will even begin to see their importance and stop any discriminatory practices they might have, or even intervene when they see it happening to somebody else. To me, this is the kind of society that truly respects one another.

BACKLASH AGAINST PERSONS WITH DISABILITIES: BE AWARE OF THE UNDERCURRENT

There are two seemingly very different, but disturbing trends that may impact on the well being of persons with disabilities in Ontario. One involves current policy discussions on the design of disability income supports. The second involves the provincial Progressive Conservative leadership contest and the stated intentions of at least two of the candidates to disband the Ontario Human Rights Commission and Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. While both issues may appear to be distant and not within the realm of the possible to many people who care about human rights, we better start paying attention to the progress of both initiatives.

With regards to the income support issue, our provincial government in Ontario has promised as part of its poverty-reduction strategy to carry out a review of both the Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Programs. While anti-poverty activists welcome the review, many of us are taking a cautious approach to this. While many of the reviewed items will be to enhance one's "incentives" to join or re-join the paid labour force, poverty-reduction activists are cautious because we are not sure of what this scope would mean and how disability benefits would look in the future, if proposals become adopted.

A federal paper by Richard August, who is a policy analyst from Saskatchewan, cites a proposal that leaves many advocates in Ontario concerned. The paper, which can be found at the Caledon Institute of Social Policy website, raises the spectre of "passive disability benefits" versus something that the author contends would place conditionality to its receipt. While August does support taking disability supports outside the welfare system, which is a point many people in Ontario's disability advocacy community do support, the concept of "conditionality" in his paper leaves this path to be less clear. The reference to the term "passive" would imply that receipt of disability benefits on the condition of entitlement and eligibility alone would hint the obligations on the part of the recipient should be increased.

A clear read of this policy paper which is more than thirty pages in length leaves the reader concerned that if this proposal were to come to light, there were be greater conditionality on the part of persons with disabilities to find and keep a job, and that one's income supports would be measured by the degree to which "outside supports", such as assistive devices, personal care attendants and other related disability related needs are required. For those of us with experience in the mental health field, we know this would exclude most persons with mental health diagnoses, leaving them to live on what very little income supports that may be left for them. At the same time as imposing conditionality, August does not impose similar obligations on the employers who more often than not shirk their responsibilities in hiring and paying good wages to persons with disabilities. The assumptions raised in this paper assume that if "barriers" imposed by social assistance regulations alone were removed, that all persons with disabilities that want to work, will find jobs.

Further, benefits themselves would be restructured where income supports and disability supports would be separate benefits and measured based on need, as opposed to membership in the "disability" category. While this may make sense for some types of disabilities, there are many "disability related costs" that are more hidden and pervasive that such a policy would not cover. For example, for people who do not drive, their costs for most basic goods and services are much higher than for those that do. For persons with "invisible" disabilities, the types of counseling and training supports required are not covered under provincial medicare plans and need to be paid for out of pocket. For some persons, it is imperative that certain supports and expenses be covered to enable labour force participation to any extent. For example, I am presently challenging the whole notion that it depends on where one lives, if somebody on ODSP can access dentures, orthotics, braces, etc. as opposed to need. It is possible such a reformed vision of disability supports might remove this form of geographic discrimination, but then again, will it limit for all what supports can be covered?

Further, what would the author of such a paper feel is an adequate income to cover basic non-disability related needs, such as housing, food, normal travel, clothing, etc.? Even this author seemed to want to tie a subsidized housing benefit to the disability program, which I have frequently pointed out in other entries in this blog would work against labour market participation, as well as penalize those who have family members move in and out of the home. While the author did say there appears to be a dichotomy between the issues of adequacy and "incentives" to work, he has not addressed this issue very well either. If you create more "incentives" to work by reducing benefits, this is not going to make more jobs available to those whose ability to participate in the labour market is limited. All this does is create greater financial distress for people who have no other source of income than disability income supports.

Until we get employers willing to hire people with disabilities in ALL levels of employment within their organizations and pay them the same as they would a non-disabled counterpart doing the same job, this is not going to work. Reports are as high as 90% of persons with mental health issues and vision loss are unemployed and at its best, maybe 50% for some other disability groups. For those employers that do hire persons with disabilities, their skills, education and prior work experience are not recognized and it is assumed that such employees are only capable of doing low-skilled, repetitive work. This is in spite of the fact more and more persons with disabilities are gaining a higher education, and even among them, there continues to remain a high rate of reliance on social assistance.

I sat downtown at a fast food take out station near the hub of our downtown, where many persons with disabilities meet and obtain coffee after their daily activities draw to an end. Among this group, I have a man trained in forensic psychology, a man with a degree in social work, an engineer, a woman trained as a teacher and another, an early childhood educator. Virtually all of them are on ODSP and unable to secure any work, let alone work in their fields. Is it really a good thing to tell these people that their incomes will now drop to OW levels to give them more "incentive" to find low paying work? To me, all this does is enhance the low wage labour force and allow abusive employers to continue to operate with impunity. At the same time, it is denying society the skills these people would otherwise offer in more appropriate occupations, which would usually pay enough to get them out of poverty -- let alone off assistance. To me, forcing people into low wage labour does nothing to counter poverty.

The second issue is related to the Human Rights Commission and the Human Rights Tribunal of Ontario. Many people are not aware that there is currently serious debate about scrapping both the Commission and the Tribunal and forcing these types of issues to be heard in a regular courtroom. While people who are not usually the type who would be subject to human rights abuses would not see this as a problem, regular courts are inaccessible to the vast majority of those who would file human rights complaints. Every annual report from the commission identified that the vast majority of complaints are filed by persons with disabilities and in most of those cases, the issue involves employment. Other cases creeping up the ladder involve services, including government mandated services, such as education, transportation and access to certain kinds of benefits.

Human rights tribunals are specialized and now empowered under Bill 107 to provide certain equitable relief in meritorious cases. You do not need to be represented by a lawyer to go to the Human Rights Tribunal. A licensed paralegal with experience in this field can do just as well, and some articulate persons themselves would be able to manage the Tribunal on their own as its procedures are more simpler and straight forward than a court, which would often require multiple discoveries, etc. Going to court would always invariably involve hiring a lawyer, most of whom ask for $2,000 to $5,000 upfront for this type of case and at the end it may cost between $40,000 to $60,000 to take the matter to trial. Legal Aid has enough difficulty paying for certificates to cover criminal cases and certain family law cases, and does not cover these types of cases at all. Almost all the human rights cases my office has handled over the past few years involve a "plaintiff" that is unable to pay these kinds of fees up front or any fees at all.

The reason why some interests are even discussing this measure is because employers, landlords and other interests are getting tired of getting whacked with human rights complaints and the orders that come with it. Many of these respondents want to continue to discriminate with impunity and not suffer the consequences of their actions. They pick straw man arguments, such as the debate around Ezra Levant's defence against a claim filed against him at the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal (which was dismissed in Levant's favour by the way). They say human rights commissions interfere with free speech. First, neither our provincial Commission or Tribunal have the power to decide on issues of free speech, nor do either have the authority to penalize a writer or publication for being "politically incorrect" - even blasphemous in their tones to protected classes of people.

Human Rights Tribunals in Ontario rule on acts of discrimination, as well as discriminatory policies that are placed intentionally or unintentionally that keep people from protected classes from having equal access to valued goods and resources, such as a job, a place to live, a membership in an association, a service, etc. To take these matters of access to a regular court would remove the balance of power between the applicant and respondent to the point that very few claims will be filed, due to costs and lack of resources. This would be just an invitation for all employers, landlords and others to discriminate with impunity, while policy makers for the former issue will continue to cut access to income and other resources on the presumption people can simply find work in the "free market".

If you don't believe this is a real possibility, both Randy Hillier and Tim, Hudak, leadership candidates for the provincial Progressive Coinservative party have announced this in their platforms. Unfortunately, many of their supporters are drawn to promises like this - the same ilk among the public that cheered when welfare benefits were dropped by 22% in 1995, leaving many people homeless and destitute. Please read Hudak's latest announcement where he promises to scrap this easier method to access justice for legitimate human rights complainants. The Code has provisions within it for Tribunals to screen out frivolous, vexatious and other minor complaints in the public interest and the Rules of Practice for the Tribunal are being drawn up to permit these types of considerations, just as the Commission had when it was in charge of accepting and screening complaints.

The fear that I have is that Dalton McGuinty was stupid enough to introduce the harmonized sales tax (HST) at a time when Ontario has plunged into a major recession. Over 67% of persons polled oppose this tax, and both the PC's and the NDP are adamantly taking this matter to the public and hoping to gain electorally by this opposition. Even though it is not clear to those opposed that it WAS the federal Conservatives imposing this change on Ontario, led by the PC's own former Finance Minister Jim Flaherty, too many voters in Ontario will move to the PC's over this issue. I know for a fact that if the PC's did get to power, they will eventually impose the HST anyways, so it would be unwise to change your vote just because of that issue. But I fear that many voters will ignore the issue of scrapping the Human Rights Commission and Tribunal of Ontario, thinking they would never face these circumstances until it is too late ... I would recommend that voters in PC ridings that are concerned about this to write to their PC MPPs expressing YOUR personal opposition to this policy of scrapping access to human rights protections. Further, if this is kept up, significantly and personally, I would sooner vote in McGuinty (holding my nose while I do it mind you) for another four year term if it meant maintaining human rights protections for people with disabilities in Ontario.

Another issue that sort of floated below the radar of publicity is the 75% reduction of medical benefits paid for by insurance companies in the event of a car accident. Instead of a policy limit of $100,000 per claim, most claims will now be subject to a $25,000 cap. Again, this is another issue that most people don't pay any attention to until they need the help. The types of rehabilitation services paid for by insurance are not otherwise covered by OHIP. The government took chiropractic, physiotherapy, etc. out of its billable schedule a few years ago, as well it never included psychotherapy ... and anybody seeking psychotherapy even without an accident knows that costs for this range from $85 - $180 per hour, depending on the provider. To me, this is just another way to further impoverish another part of the population and push them into low paying, unstable work ..

Your thoughts?.

Source:

http://www.caledoninst.org/Publications/PDF/763ENG%2Epdf

NIAGARA LACKS SKILLED WORKERS? WHY DON'T THEY LOOK AROUND AND ASK?

The Niagara Training and Adjustment Board (NTAB) under its new moniker Niagara Workforce Planning Board, has released a report on April 6, 2009, to tell the world that while we are not suffering a 'labour shortage' per se, we are suffering a shortage of skilled workers. When Trudy Parsons was asked about what was referred to as 'skilled workers', she implied health care, administration, professional services, technical services, management in the social services, as well as specialized manufacturing sectors.

The general manufacturing sector has taken a major dump here in Niagara and there isn't an economist alive that believes that Niagara will once again return to the boomtown it once was with the auto rich sector, spreading its wealth into sub-sectors and spin-offs, which was something we relied upon probably since the 1950's. The service sector and knowledge-based economy is growing by leaps and bounds, which means people in professional occupations of all types, health care, administration, as well as IT/multi-media skills will likely be the 'want' of the future.

This study which was done as one of seven pilot studies in Ontario and funded through the Ministry of Community & Social Services, appears to be comprehensive, except one thing: there are too many glaring ommissions in this study that even if fully implemented, a large number of skilled people will still be shoved to the sidelines. Not a word was mentioned about persons with disabilities ... oh, I forgot, none of these people have any skills. Sheltered workshops, anybody? How about Niagara's addiction to cars, where it is almost impossible to get any kind of decent job without a driver's license and personal access to a car? Oh, non-drivers are probably rejects anyways, and they certainly don't have any skills. When statistics show that 93% of those who are not working in Niagara rely exclusively on public transit (another joke ... as it exists sparsely and too far between), none of these people are considered 'skilled' either.

Perhaps the researchers asked the wrong questions like they usually do. They should attempt to get a picture of who the unemployed are ... both newly unemployed, as well as those who have had major barriers to working for years. One might be surprised that many members of this group are indeed highly educated, highly motivated and certainly not slackers, yet they are pushed on the welfare rolls for very long periods of time to rot until some rare employer might peek from behind the rocks they hide behind to discover that yes, non-drivers can offer significant skills to an employer, as well, so can many persons with disabilities ... and no, many are not interested in minimum wage jobs, as why would they have bothered to go to school beyond high school?

Right now, it is the skilled trades that are being dumped ... not because they are not needed, but there needs to be a shift so their futures may indeed still use these skills, but in a different way. But when I speak to people with disabilities who may be well-educated, many of them spend long spells of time being unemployed or underemployed, while employers are allegedly looking for "skilled workers". Either the employers are lying about what they are looking for, or they are not looking hard enough. In my view, employers attach way too many criteria to the jobs they have that most people with disabilities, even those with the skills they are asking for, are scared away because they are not welcomed. Over 55% of persons with disabilities are non-drivers for various reasons; many others simply cannot afford to drive although they do have a license. Computer workstations, programs and telephone systems are set up for the able-bodied, not those who see things, hear things and communicate differently.

I hate to be a sour grapes type, but there is a website that just started for Niagara called NiagaraShares.Com, which is supposed to link people with disabilities to various services. The vast majority of people who are receiving ODSP receive benefits for 'invisible' disabilities, such as mental health issues (36%), developmental disabilities (27%) and learning disabilities (15%) - yet the kinds of disabilities discussed on this forum are strictly physical. That is fine, but people with physical disabilities are not the only ones that have severe limitations on their lives and in fact, many of them are not forced into poverty for various reasons. I perused this site out of curiosity a few weeks ago to see if anybody had a "story" to tell that showed that poverty disables people way more than the disability itself. Even the services suggested for persons with disabilities all cost money, way more than a person on ODSP can afford ...

... so what is a person living with a disability and poverty supposed to do? At this time, they are living at the bottom of the barrel. They are forced to go to food banks and charities for help. I stated in a previous post that those that turn up at the door of registered charities are not dealt with as "equals" and those serving them tend to believe that the folks at their doors cannot do the same work that they are paid to do. This is why many folks like this --- educated, ambitious, and at least partially empowered -- do not go to charities or use agencies, unless the agency is set up to meet their needs.

I will not go to subsidized housing because this will not get me out of poverty. Those going to this type of housing lose most of the money on the shelter portion of their benefit and as a result, their incomes fall even further away from the poverty line. If they work, their income is clawed back by more than 80%, making it not worthwhile to make the trek to independence. I will not go to food banks because they will not get me out of poverty. They will provide their second and third hand goods for which you are expected to be grateful, as you are further scrutinized for your income and what other services you are using ... you can't use too many services, lest they find you to be "abusing" the system.

To me, there should be no difference in the services given to rich or poor. Legal Aid is not what it is cracked up to be, as well - many very poor are forced to turn to shysters who are not licensed, insured or educated to deal with their legal matters. Licensees need to be accessible to everybody; payment based on a sliding scale while the licensee can still make a reasonable living. Food is purchased in grocery stores by those with money; food is taken from food banks and churches by the poor ... is that right? The quality control is in place in the grocery stores, but is not available in the food bank ... are the poor not entitled to quality control and equal access to quality goods?

Transportation is another one. The poor cannot afford newer vehicles in good repair that are fuel efficient. Wealthy people can. If the poor cannot afford to drive at all, they are relegated to the end of the line when jobs are concerned ... it doesn't matter their education, skills and workplace history. When using taxis, wealthy people can pay regular licensed taxis that are properly insured. Lower income use the "scab cabs" that do not necessarily get driven by licenced and insured drivers, which can result in trouble if there should be an accident. There are stories as well of people who were sexually assaulted in such cabs. It is okay for the poor to be put at unnecessary risk, but not people with money.

Jobs should be given to people who have the skills to do them - period. Employers whining about not finding skilled workers need to look beyond their noses and pretend requirements and ensure that non-drivers, as well as other people who read, communicate and move around differently are given an equal shot at the position ... and in my view, if an employer chooses not to, perhaps those folks on disability seeking employment should receive a large top-up to their benefits, all paid for by employers that choose not to hire them ... so at least they can comfortably live until an enlightened employer does come along.

What about training? More opportunities for access to higher education need to be made for persons with disabilities of all ages. I am sorry, but places like BUILT Network and a cashier/ janitorial course is not good enough, if somebody is not satisfied to remain below poverty. Sadly when you ask these government funded agencies how many people they REALLY place, nobody wants to tell you the truth and among those placed, nobody wants to admit that the majority of placements are only short-term, low-paid and/or seasonal. Are your bills only short-term obligations, only required to be paid in certain seasons ...?

The report was an interesting read; nevertheless, I feel it is so full of holes, there is enough to make Swiss Cheese out of it. Until the day that people with disabilities get real opportunities and stop getting subject to stereotypes, and employers start to scrutinize their requirements more deeply to ensure they are not leaving people out by simply outlining job duties that block a lot of people from even considering ... there will always be a skills shortage.

I think if there were suitable opportunities for many people on ODSP, they would work and choose not to collect ... but if this continued discrimination is an ongoing factor, while people who don't need many of these jobs, or worse yet, people less qualified than many of the disabled prospects get hired ... the government might as well raise ODSP rates by 150 to 200% to at least allow people to eat AND keep a roof over their heads in the same month.

Thoughts?

DISABILITY - WHY IS IT THE PROBLEM OF THOSE WITH DISABILITIES?

Our society's progress on the rights of persons with disabilities is likely akin to what the rights of African-Americans were before Rosa Parks did her famous stand down on the city bus and refused to move to the back, as they were required then. African-Americans received a major boost with the election of President Barack Obama. I am not saying things are now perfect for this group, as still there is far too much poverty, too much racism and too much violence in this population. However, they are many steps away from the rights of persons who are differently abled?

In Hamilton, Ontario, a 22-year old man was lured to an address in a run-down neighbourhood in that city by four males, then subsequently locked up in the attic and beaten within a mere inch of his life. There are reports that he'd been raped, forced to eat his own feces and starved. It turned out this man was someone with various disabilities. An informant in my community told me he suffered from major epilepsy and mild intellectual disabilities. He grew up in several foster homes and of course, when he aged out of that system, they left him on his own. I am not sure of the background of this situation, how well the offenders knew this man and if they were aware of his vulnerability. Nevertheless, they certainly took advantage.

When I was younger, I used to do enumerating for the elections (yes, I am old enough to remember when actual humans used to go knocking on doors). One building on my route housed a number of adults with mental and intellectual disabilities. After I knocked, the woman who answered attempted to push me away by telling me that none of "these people" voted. I phoned the Returning Officer at that time, who then advised me that the owner of a residence like this cannot turn away enumerators, so we returned and pushed ourselves in and interviewed a number of people, many of whom wondered why the manager tried to chase us away.

Nevertheless, a few months after that, a man who happened to live in that home came to a club I was running at the time, complaining that he was fed only one meal a day which consisted of bologna sandwiches and tomato soup, sometimes weiners. When I stirred the pot on the issue (as I never go without stirring pots when I have the chance), some social worker came to my building to try to discourage me from acting further ... I hated social workers since, even though it is one of the professions I worked in for a time.

In another situation, another group home reached the news with workers on strike over what they found were appalling circumstances they found their resident clients living in. They brought attention to the media about spreading a single can of tuna over fifteen sandwiches and handing a man a bus ticket to get to the hospital when he was suffering from chest pains. This man was quickly diagnosed as having a heart attack, but it was too late. He died before anything could have been done for him.

Some of these incidents and many others sparked an enquiry led by Prof. Ernie Lightman, of the University of Toronto, who led the Enquiry on Unregulated Residential Accommodations. I did some work with this enquiry at the local level, interviewed many people who lived in these types of "homes" across the city and made policy recommendations. Steps were taken towards the implementation of a Resident's Rights Act and later under a subsequent government, board and care homes were given some protection under the then Tenant Protection Act.

While these incidents apart from the incident in Hamilton took place in the early 1990's, nothing has changed at all for persons with disabilities. People with disabilities are still viewed as being "less than", "less skilled" and "less valued". This dangerous thinking that preceded the Holocaust whereby hundreds of thousands of persons with various degrees of disabilities were experimented upon, then disposed of (well before the Jewish community was targeted) ... still exists in its most mildest forms. It remains in our laws. It remains in our government programs designed to "help" people with disabilities. It remains in how people with disabilities continue to be viewed by the "able-bodied public" that believe they pay taxes to people that don't want to work and use "disability" as an excuse, or at worst, they campaign for the re-institutionalization of many persons with certain types of disabilities, such as mental health.

Before we can truly address prejudice and discrimination against people with disabilities, we need to address our cultural assumptions. We need to address the pictures that come into our minds when we hear the term "persons with disabilities". For the able-bodied, most see the wheelchair, the walker or perhaps, even the white cane. They believe we should make sure people get access to buildings, restaurants and other destinations so they can go where able-bodied people go. This is the enlightened view. However, even among the enlightened, we fail to see how these same people, as well as many other persons with other types of disabilities that may prevent them from driving, as an example, can get to many of these places in the first place, even if such destinations represented the epitome of accessibility.

Able-bodied people take a lot for granted. They trust that when their brain directs their legs to move and to pick themselves up, they will be able to walk across the room, climb those stairs and read from a regular book or magazine with ease. It is when we lose some of this ability do we realize what we had, how precious, for example, our eyesight, mobility, agility and other physical attributes represent with respect to ensuring we have a quality of life. If this happened to you, I am willing to bet that you would want support services, assistive devices and other systems to "kick in" to allow you to take part in your favourite activities. If our home is no longer useable for us, we want somebody to help us set it up so that we can continue to live there. We don't want to be shunted off to some nursing home.

If your problem is mental health related, and yes -- one in five of us do experience mental health issues at some point or other in our lives. Of that one in five, 10% suffer from what one might identify as a "severe mental health problem", whether it be named schizophrenia, bipolar mood disorder, generalized anxiety disorder, post-traumatic stress disorder, etc. If you have never experienced the serious side of things here, it is too easy to believe the stereotypes ... those being that people with serious mental health problems are either violent and unpredictable, or they are bumbling idiots who are unable to care for themselves. These two are the predominant themes that describe people with mental health issues in the media.

In the 1990's, I managed a local mental health agency, then later moved to work in the policy area. Very few of the affected that came through my door were either violent or bumbling idiots. However, in many cases, their medications often made them look different, or their self-esteem was so low that they did not feel they were capable of ever working again. In my life, there are many examples of people I met even with the most severe of mental health problems who have picked themselves up and made themselves into community leaders. Bill McPhee, publisher of Schizophrenia Digest, and recently a publisher of another magazine geared to people with mood disorders, is not shy about talking about his beginnings ... as a man who was diagnosed as schizophrenia himself. While I may not necessarily take a pro-medical approach, as many of the articles in his magazine depict, he also includes lifestyle issues, advocacy issues as well as spiritual commentary. He has been a public speaker at numerous events before a wide variety of audiences.

Bill Wilkerson, previously an insurance executive, co-founded the Roundtable on Mental Health and the Economy. Former federal Finance Minister Michael Wilson was also part of this initiative. Michael Wilson's interest in the initiative was personal. His son Cameron was reported to have committed suicide at such a tender age when he became frustrated at not being able to find work, despite his education and skills ... he was apparently diagnosed as having a bipolar mood disorder. Bill Wilkerson engaged many others in his initiative and together with other coalitions, the federal government eventually set up the Mental Health Commission, which is designed to help educate, research and train people in this delicate area.

However, in a recent article in the Globe & Mail, Wilkerson began to disclose his own personal interest, a long-term diagnosis of depression, something he kept well-hidden from the media until he believed it to be the right time to disclose. If somebody like Wilkerson, who has been at the top of the business echilon, and with obvious skills to bring this Round Table together, was unable to disclose his personal interest earlier in this project's progress, one can only imagine how others without these significant personal resources would do it.

There are barriers to disclosure. There are too many Vincent Li's out there that commit heinous crimes that are well-publicized (e.g. Li was the man that viciously murdered and dismembered Tim McLean on a Greyhound bus last summer), and to make matters worse ... it becomes well-publicized that he is declaring to "hear voices from God" that apparently directed him to kill McLean. Whether this was true or not, this does nothing for mental health advocates who are attempting to work with those others so labeled to even get them to the door to get help ... we never hear of stories that counter these conclusions, such as how Bill McPhee overcame his disability to become a spokesperson and advocate for the cause, or Bill Wilkerson, who only recently disclosed his own interest in the issue, or Michael Wilson's recount of his son's suicide ... these latter cases are stories we need to hear more about and the Vincent Li's of the world, we need to hear less about.

In a recent edition of Mother Jones magazine, a section was devoted to photos taken of mental hospitals around the world (and yes ... these are hospitals that operate in 2009). In the words of the publisher, it seems that once one is labeled, many people think they can do whatever they want to persons with mental health issues, whether this be experimentation with dangerous therapies, such as ECT or insulin shock, or drugs with questionable benefits, such as haliperidol, lithium and thorazine. I'm not saying that there is no place for medications in the treatment and amelioration of mental and emotional distress. I am saying that the process or dynamic that leads to the labeling of such persons, and how such treatments often become drilled down, are in fact, done to as opposed to done with the person in mind. Often times, people can become further disabled by the treatments themselves.

Culturally, people with disabilities, including people with mental health issues, are not looked upon as credible people in their own right. As a result, many members of the public misunderstand who these people are and assume they either have no skills, or are incapable of learning new ones. Sadly, when I report my own personal knowledge of people in various professions who have had mental health diagnosis, people don't believe me ... and I shield their names, as these folks do not want it to be popularly known that they suffer. One lawyer friend of mine told me he wanted the "secret" sealed, as he feared public knowledge of his "condition" would lead to questions about his ability to practice. While many of these fears may be unfounded, they are realistic enough to know that members of the public may see it differently - that they'd rather not be treated by a doctor they know has been treated for mental health issues or to have a lawyer handle their civil case who was hospitalized a few years ago for a bout of depression ... there are surveys that prove that public opinion is real.

Another lawyer I know has a severe physical disability; shortly after he passed the bar, many of his colleagues challenged his ability to work as a professional, simply because they saw the wheelchair and the breathing apparatus, but not the man. Some people say we need a champion, but nobody wants to be the first one. Nevertheless, the prejudice and stereotypical ideas about persons with disabilities continue.

Even when it is known what education and skills a person with a disability has, employment workers can often be their worst enemy when they attempt to work with them at their career development or transition (in the case of an injured worker, for example). Telemarketing and call centre work seems to be the most sophisticated work a person like this is referred to, as the worker believes the person with the disability wouldn't handle the "stress" of a more advanced position. Well, did they ask? Likely not. This is so analogous with the scene where a person in a wheelchair and a temporarily able-bodied friend are in a restaurant together and the waiter approaches their table, only to ask the able-bodied person what the friend in the wheelchair wants ... something like this happened when I brought a friend of mine who was severely visually impaired, guide dog and all, into a restaurant and the waiter attempted to make me her interpreter ... I just told her, "Why don't you ask her what she wants?". Yet this kind of scene is repeated everyday in the social work and employment agency world when it comes to persons with disabilities ... they don't know what to do with those that know exactly what they want, nor do they know how to deal with employers that seem to deliberately screen people with disabilities out of jobs they can otherwise do quite well. To me, I always wonder why they have these jobs if they are doing nothing to connect the persons with the disability with the employer, but then again, I must be naive.

One person I know that uses a wheelchair felt that those with invisible disabilities had nothing to worry about, but after I gave him a little history of how people with mental health problems, intellectual issues, even autism, were treated, he was shocked ... and realized the importance of working in a cross-disability alliance. All people with disabilities experience discrimination, humiliation, stereotyping and marginalization, although different disabilities may attract different kinds of prejudice. Persons with mental health issues are believed to be stupid and irresponsible at best, or violent and unpredictable at worst. Persons with physical disabilities are sometimes seen as demanding, when they ask for accommodations, when in fact providing them with the same actually puts them on a level playing field with the able-bodied. Scary.

One of these days, I will write about the dangers of ODSP income support and how in itself, it acts to marginalize and isolate persons with disabilities, as well as perhaps, even shorten their lives. As an advocate for persons with disabilities, I am often a lightning rod for comments, as I always try to get people to understand there is always more to every story than meets the eye. I hear all the time from members of the so-called able-bodied public about how people with disabilities can just do "desk work" or they often exaggerate their conditions to get welfare and then not lift a finger to "help themselves". I hear from some people who outrightly say that "at least half of those on ODSP" are not really entitled. I always ask them how they know this -- are they a doctor? Do they know everything about the people of whom they speak? The most interesting thing, however, is when something happens to them and they reach out to our dwindling welfare state to find help to keep them from sinking, they seem to change their minds relatively quickly about what they used to say about so-called "disability people".

The only thing we can do is to iterate the facts, which I will attempt to do in another post later on, so that the reading public can understand what hardships people on ODSP really do endure and how unintended (or intended?) consequences are killing their spirit.

Thoughts?

ORCHESTRATED CRISIS AND CHAOS

The global stage is going through a major recession, unlike anything seen since the Great Depression. Every day, we are hearing about how thousands upon thousands of jobs are being shed by company after company. We hear stories about people walking away from their houses in the States, tent cities being set up after people lose their jobs and the sudden need for billions of dollars in corporate bailouts to save what few jobs are left.

On the street, people are getting cranky. Public servants, frustrated by an increase in their respective workloads, are talking back to their customers in ways that provoke, instead of provide insight. People are butting into lines everywhere, worried that the last scrap of whatever folks are after will be gone by the time they get there. Pensions, investments and other trusts we once believed were safe are rapidly disappearing, leaving many pensioners the choice of living their "golden" years in poverty or returning to work.

We hear more about school shootings, rampages where gunmen go crazy shooting up everybody in their home and then move on to random people on the street, or work rage, where the same thing can happen at the place of a former employer. Last Christmas, we heard about a man who dressed up as Santa Claus, drove up to the home of his former in-laws and began to throw pipe bombs and tried to torch the home, as well as shoot anybody else who got in his way. In the end, he blew himself up, when one of his home-made weapons set itself off too soon. We learned the shooter in this case was laid off from a well-paying job as an engineer, then his wife sought and won a court order against him for more money ... He planned to come to Canada. God only knows what he had planned for us up here.

In Germany, a 15-year old suddenly takes a gun and goes to his former high school and begins shooting. His targets were mostly female students and teachers. Though reportedly treated for depression two years earlier, one would question how relevant that is to this mass explosion. Another man in Alabama came home, took the lives of most of his family, as well as took down a few random people on his street, before ending his life at a metal plant (possibly where he might have been recently laid off). Two parents in Quebec had a suicide pact, whereby they were to kill their children, then one another, after leaving a detailed note as to why the economy was hurting them. This goes on and on and on ...

People are more likely to sue or get sued in these rough times, or fall behind in their debt payments, subjecting more folks to the ire of collection agencies. Family law disputes are taking on a more bitter tone, leaving many to the courts in what are known as the "high conflict" family files. Government agencies undergoing cutbacks experience an increased rate of error and declining rate of empathy, as payers of support payments end up with less than 50% of their income and often, end up in dire straits themselves. One man called me from his car, which is where he is living these days after he lost his job and then his home.

Many times, the only thing we can do is make appropriate referrals, or provide encouragement and moral support. Many of these people do not have money for legal services, nor do they fall under the purview of Legal Aid Ontario. On paper, their income is too high, but after the garnishment, they cannot even meet basic needs. Their only choice these days is to approach Family Law Advice Counsel at the court house, or to phone Lawyer Referral Service, with respect to how to best represent themselves in what will likely become a battle of a lifetime. They need to vary the court orders, amend visitation or even seek custody of children, or reduce or eliminate spousal support payments. Unless they can pay a lawyer, most of them end up representing themselves.

This has always been part of the problem, even before the chaos of the present recession began. The present recession is just wearing people down more. People talk to me more about how much they hate, as opposed to how upset they are. I lost someone to suicide in January 2009, and then somebody else to so-called 'natural causes' in his forties in February 2009. If the second one had access to a family doctor, medications and transportation, I am sure he would have survived (which is all I can say publicly). Poor people die, while rich people thrive.

Policy makers know the poor are worst off. They know that poverty is costing us more than $30 billion annually. They know that poverty is a good part of the reason our health care costs are skyrocketing. The growth of poverty seems to coincide with the growth of methadone clinics in urban areas; unfortunately, they too are responding to demand. I hear stories about how a few have sold their weekend carries on the street, or prostitute themselves to get the "real" thing ... or turn to booze or another drug of choice. Tenants get evicted more now for illegal drug use or for dealing from their units.

My work is to evict them. There have been cases when I met the same tenant time and time again, through different buildings, after a repeat performance of the first time they were evicted. The public and private interest is to get these people housed and protected, but at the same time, one must ask where ... living on the street can only exacerbate whatever problems they created when they started with my buildings. The problem only leaves one building, only to land on the doorstep of another. One thing my mother was right about was that things started to go really bad when drugs were introduced in society. Trying to remain impersonal and objective throughout this chaos is difficult to do, but one of my responsibilities.

I know there is a huge increase in addictions and drug dealing in general, as I see it in the streets, hear about it through various people I speak to, and learn of it from the coffee shops. But it is not just the low income people on Ontario Works or even ODSP that are using; many of the people who are using get no formal income, as well - many are fully employed. There are also wealthy professionals who also find themselves entangled. They just go to better places and are able to hide their habit better. People cry for a war on drugs, they cry for prohibition, when we know this will never work ... esp. when the world is falling apart at its seams.

In my building where I work, I often have to chase people out, feeling bad at the same time as many of these people have nowhere to go, except the streets. Many of these people do not have any income, as they were kicked off Ontario Works a long time for some misunderstood transgression. Perhaps, they lost their identification and did not have the funds to renew it, or they happen to be living rough and their OW worker can't really communicate with them, nor can any employer for that matter.

As an advocate, I am a lightning rod for people that feel strongly about things, from both the right and the left. The right wants to believe in the existence of the welfare queens, that continue to procreate with impunity to increase their income. Of course, they have no evidence of this except from "a friend of a friend who knew somebody that had fourteen children so she can make a mint off the 'system'". I have worked with low-income people as well as middle and upper income folks for years, and I have yet to meet anybody that would even want to have more and more children, particularly when they could not even feed themselves. There were a few teen mothers who never heard of birth control, as some might add, but they were referred to programs where they learned how to become successful parents, as well as finish high school.

From the left, they want governments to spend, spend and then spend some more to get us out of this global crisis. Spending more in a recession is not a sin, but indiscriminate spending can make the problem worse than when it started. While building "affordable housing" will create some construction jobs in the immediate term, money is still going to be needed in the future to maintain these units. The City of Toronto has a half a billion dollar backlog in repairs to its own housing stock, let alone thinking of building new stock. At the same time, poverty groups are pressuring the City to fix their units, which are more than just a mere "leaky tap" ... many have ceilings falling down, bad foundation, vermin, mould, as well as other problems that make their unit uninhabitable. We have to decide if we want to spend billions and billions of dollar propping up these buildings, many of which should be razed and rebuilt anyways, or whether the money can go somewhere else that might increase the incomes of all of the poor to encourage greater local investment, and thus, more capital to invest in the private market.

Today, an interested observer noted that "half the region is on Ontario Works or ODSP" and now more people are trying to get Employment Insurance. He suspects a secret government conspiracy that the powers that be simply want to put everybody on welfare, where they can control them. Others say they are attempting to make people so desperate that they will take any job, even jobs that do not pay minimum wage or follow health and safety standards, just to keep oneself one step ahead of starvation. Other theories are more foreboding; one has shared with me the idea that there is a policy of "slow genocide", whereby the weakest of society will be forced to slow starve to death or die of many of the diseases the poor are more likely to get, just so we can save a few tax dollars. Well, we all know they cannot directly put us all in the gas chambers anymore, or put us all against a wall and shoot us. That is too humane.

But billions of dollars have been handed to large companies ... people are becoming wary of how the executives are getting paid, even union workers in such industries as the auto sector. People are rightfully concerned that the majority of taxpayers that earn much less than these people collectively should continue to fork over money to keep these relatively wealthy classes alive. In the Toronto Star today, there was a story over "pension envy" where people in the private sector get no defined benefit plan (as these are slowly moving to the status of the dodo bird) are continuing to be forced to pay into secure, relatively high pensions of those in the public sector or even GM workers. Pension reform certainly needs to be on the table. I wouldn't want to be old right now; I would not be able to retire, as what is given to those without a private pension plan is peanuts. Again, we will be forcing our seniors to choose between housing and eating.

People are wanting greater controls over CEO salaries and perks, as well as some control over certain sectors, whereby it seems that wage hikes beyond inflation, plus retention pay, seem to be the order of the day, even when times are tough for everybody else. President Barack Obama has taken a great interest in a story of AIG executives receiving bonuses all of a sudden, right after receiving billions of dollars in taxpayer handouts ... I say, fire them all and make them pay it all back. Never going to happen, of course. But if somebody on welfare got a little more than what they were entitled to, you could bet your life that this individual will be hauled before the courts, charged with fraud and then thrown to the wolves. To me, what is good for the goose is good for the gander. Maybe Barack Obama represents a change in direction. We can hope.

As for seeing our way out of this chaos, I am not sure. Some economists, such as Mark Carney, Governor of the Bank of Canada, and Prime Minister Stephen Harper, see this as being a short, sharp dip, whereby Canada will be less scathed than the many. Others are not so optimistic; Don Drummond from the TD Canada Trust, is saying about 500,000 jobs may still be lost ... it is going to get a LOT worse before it gets better.

In the meantime, some communities are getting together and holding rallies. I wish there'd be more of them in Niagara Region, but nevertheless there are more rallies ... politicians need to stop playing Chicken Little, as the sky is truly falling, but they can't simply run, scream and point their fingers at everybody else. They need to take action.

How positive action would certainly help me ... I would stop feeling so much in chaos. It is so bad that our building got its water cut off, then it was followed by a flood and now the plumbing on the second floor washroom (the only "public" washroom in our building) has no water and we can't even flush the toilets ... and we go downtown, walk down the street on my side and then we see construction job after construction job, whereby holes are dug up and filled up again ... I am pleased somebody gets to do the digging and the filling, but they are ensuring people's essentials are getting cut off, people are commuting in chaos and it has become rapidly known there really is no definite street I can walk through in my own neighbourhood ... too many holes, too many tractors, too many excavators, too many shovels ...

Now, if we would only get that shovel in the ground for that hospital we are supposed to build in west St. Catharines. To me, this chaos and crisis was orchestrated; it was certainly not something that would come out in the end to harm the elite ... just put us old runts through yet another rough patch. I just look forward to the day that this is finally over and I can actually talk to people about something else once again, instead of the havoc this world is wrecking on our little world.

Your thoughts?