Small Business is Part of the 99%

Occupiers, take heed!

Small businesses are are part of the 99%. As entities, we have not received corporate tax subsidies, large corporate tax breaks, or any kind of hand out. When we get under attack, generally nobody cares because we are just "small potatoes". Yet, virtually every person who works with small businesses, other than other small or even to some extent, medium sized business, has no clue as to how the small business sector is under attack from all corners of society.

Many occupiers associate small business as the petite bourgousie, or a miniaturized version of the capitalists they all hate. While most small business owners are capitalists, they have more in common with the 99% than many realize. After all, when was the last time YOU were given a hand out from the government to help your business grow?

I want to talk about the many things that get done to us as small business from various corners of society, and then you, the reader, you can judge whether it is even worth it anymore to set up shop and pretend to be some kind of merchant, entrepreneur, practitioner, or whatever, that avails its goods and services to the public. Is it really worth it? Why do people even bother? It is time people know the truth about how most small businesses experience life as a small business owner:

1. Through Their Customers:

While most customers are good and are a joy to have around, there is the small percentage that create 90% of the problems that small businesses often complain about. Enough of these customers at the wrong time can make life for a business owner, entrepreneur, solo practitioner, or whatever, miserable. These are people that come into the business, spell out their expectations and are eager to pay when asked, but shortly thereafter, complain about the amount of money the goods or services are costing (while, of course, ignoring the fact it costs money to produce or to provide goods and services). These are the types of customers that string people along, make changes to their order or instructions, and expect instant results. When things do not turn out the exact way they envision after the 149th day, they blame the proprietor. After all, the proprietor is the only one that was providing these goods or services, right? No thought is given that the customer may be at least partly to blame, as they failed to provide changes in writing, or listened to the provider to see if their new choice is even possible or financially feasible on the budget they seemed to assign to the project. Despite warnings that things may not turn out very well if we push this to whatever the person is asking, we get blamed anyways. These people typically underpay and know it too, and act shocked when they are asked for additional funds to put the changes necessary in their work.

2. Another type of customer is the rubber cheque writer. They can't seem to write cheques that stick, and then they seem to wonder why services stop or goods are not shipped, once the bounced cheque is discovered. People can't work for nothing. I am sorry. If you still want the product or the service ordered, go back and pay in cash or money order and add whatever administrative charge that might apply. After all, it is a pain in the neck to track bounced cheques, to contact the cheque writer and wait for re-issue. In the meantime, the entrepreneur, business owner, practitioner or whatever, is not earning any money from you, so why would they continue doing anything for you, until the money is made up? There is a small sub group of rubber cheque writers that are truly fraudulent. Most of them that I met are truly honest people who made a mistake, and will correct it, particularly if they are also small business people, or once were. However, a very small sub-group of these people will do this on purpose. They do this by marking their project as urgent. Perhaps, a defence has to be filed by tomorrow morning, or the clay model has to be delivered by the end of next week for the showing of their home. Many business owners, entrepreneurs and practitioners will accommodate urgent requests, sometimes by asking for a little more money so they can afford to set aside other paying work to accommodate this job which has to be done very quickly. So, the cheque gets written, and then deposited, only for the business owner, entrepreneur or practitioner to find out a few days later, it bounced. My question to these people is, "How fast would you complain about your employer to the Ministry of Labour if your weekly or biweekly pay cheque bounced?" Why should business owners be any more tolerant? I am myself moving to a 'no personal cheques' policy, which leaves some people out, but too bad. I have to eat too, and can't be bothered chasing cheque bouncers around town.

3. Another "ace" type customer is those that like to waste your time with frivolous and vexatious tasks, and then complain loudly when you won't comply. I know one fellow that owned a computer store that was put on a wild goose chase by a customer who swore up and down he had a certain part, and that this part was essential to make his machine run better, and when the business owner went back to the customer to explain there was no such part, or that it would have to be purchased from India, the customer immediately filed a Better Business Bureau complaint and threatened to sue the business. Nobody needs these "ace" customers, as they not only waste your time with their original requests, they continue to waste it when you try to explain why their request is either going to be very expensive or difficult to fill. I get people in my office seeking to sue on this kind of basis, which I tell them they have no case.

4. The next category of customer are the chintzers or the skinflints. These are people that also come in, often in an urgent situation, and waste your time, only to haggle with your fees. If you are offering a professional service, you are not a flea market or a used car dealership where haggling is expected. There are various ways in which these people act. In one example, the fellow went out of my office under the guise of obtaining the funds to pay his retainer, only to supposedly phone a few friends who allegedly told him the fees were too high and excessive. When I told him I do not bill by opinion poll, he became upset, and said that a "friend" of his who happened to be a lawyer said it was too high. The only solution for somebody like him is to tell him if his lawyer is going to charge him less, go there. I know they are not going to get a better deal over there, as many times chintzers and skinflints have returned to my office, only to pay the fee that I asked to begin with, likely after discovering they can't really get a "deal". I wouldn't recommend shopping for professional services on price alone anyways. I've seen the results of that as well, as many of these cases do turn up in my office with far too many corners cut, work done without permits, without proper license, etc.

5. The next kind of customer is the kind that knows more than you do about your product or service. These people are willing to pay you to do the work, but do not expect to accept any of your expert advice. They argue with you at every stage of the job. In my view, if they know so much, return the file to them and tell them to finish it on their own. They hate this. These are also the kinds of people who like to file complaints, but if they knew so much about the job, why did they bother with you anyways? I had one guy like that a few years back, who became angry with me because I refused to include the former vehicle owner in a suit against a dealer. The tort was obviously originating from the dealer, and they also have insurance to cover these kinds of issues, but he wanted me to go after some poor eighty year old lady, which was not going to happen. Fortunately, I managed to obtain a decent settlement from the dealer. Despite this, this guy was still fuming because the previous owner "got off scott free".

6. There are also the customers that want your product or service, but do not have the money to pay. In my profession, we are supposed to try to provide access to legal services when we can, but the difficulty is, many of these people will not pay, even a bit at a time. In my opinion, they should be seeking legal services, or other services from a publicly funded agency where people who are on salary are available to assist in these cases. I am not on salary. I cannot afford to work for free, or to wait for long stretches for my payments. Some people seem to forget that self employed people do not get salaries, or any other kind of "income security", for lack of a better term. They can't afford to give away a lot of their time or their products. People hear about "free consultations" provided by some boutique law firms, and then assume every last lawyer or paralegal is somehow obligated by law to give "free consultations". Sure, I can give free consultations, but somebody at the end of the day is going to have to pay my bills. Those at the boutique law firms that do this are usually on some form of salary, or are earning very good money already that they can afford to give away some of it for "free". This is the same as "free samples" in a department store. They allow you to take one or two to try, but if you go there and grab a whole handful, this would not be appreciated by the store. The real reason I no longer provide free consultations is because too many people came, picked my brain, and then went across the street to see somebody else for another "free consultation", and so on.

In addition to customers, there are abuses by government and regulators:

1. Just about every business has some type of regulation. The bigger you are, the more government regulations you need to worry about. However, professional practices of even one person are regulated to the same degree that large firms of the same type of professionals are, which needs to be reviewed. Regulations are good for the public, and to some extent, good for the business too, so they can adhere to known standards and become the best they can be. However, there is such a thing as over-regulation. I hear about it from bars that move two doors down and have to re-apply and wait for months for their liquor license to come through. I hear about various businesses trying to set up innovative projects and design taking months, only to have the city turn them down on some minor technicality. I have seen businesses having to rip entire fire alarm systems out and replace them, simply because they did not get a permit to install the first set. I have seen businesses being forced to take their signs down because they were too close to the road, or they were too big. These things are all part of starting a business. You have to know all the by-laws, affected regulations, and so forth, before you open your doors ... even before you go inside and start refinishing your property for the business you intend to run. Yes, I like to know that my food is safe, my water is tested, and that my house is not going to cave in on me, but do we really need all of those other regulations? I think it is time that small businesses actually have the opportunity to tell the government how much certain regulations, though not all, are hurting their bottom line.

2. Just as I like my water to be tested, my food to be safe, and the streets safe to walk at night, I also appreciate having employment standards. However, I have found ways these standards can be abused by employees, as well as by employers. I have witnessed situations where an employee quits their job, then claims the employer harassed them or threatened them, when no such thing happened. Bringing the regulators in creates an onerous environment where the employer can feel victimized. Too many times, certain people are taken at their word, when in fact an examination of the employer's overall practices would deny such harassment or discrimination. This sort of thing makes great business for people like me to help employers with such things as documentation, and follow through, but to a small employer this can become more of an annoyance. I know there are many employers out there that don't follow the law, but to me I am witnessing more aggravation from the other side as well.

3. Environmental Regulations:

Another common vigilante attack on small business is so called environmental regulations. Of course, I want the food that I buy to be safe, free of pesticides, etc. I want the water that I drink to be as pure as possible, instead of a complicated chemical formula that can fill a Bible. I want garbage and refuse dealt with in a way that can be diverted from landfill, where possible, and the places where I do business to be clean and healthy. However, there are vigilante activists who are trying very hard to protect that tree, that green space, that wetland, that trail, or even that brownfield, and they will try to fight any business that can take over this land, even if the business itself takes steps to protect these things. Facilities like waste management plants, gas fired plants, energy companies, nuclear plants and similar structures are often targets of protests. Many environmentalists are proponents of alternative forms of energy. So am I. However, time needs to pass to enable these alternatives to develop in a cost effective fashion. Because the average person does not want to pay higher hydro costs, most feel that small businesses can therefore shoulder more of these costs. Certain types of businesses have gone under in the past few years since environmental alternatives have been promoted, especially at the substantial cost that they have. A happier balance needs to be found.

There are also private regulators that can create additional costs to small businesses:

1. While I support regulation by the Law Society for practicing lawyers and paralegals, additional requirements for each member have been added during the years, which increases the costs of maintaining a practice. For example, we need to carry insurance, pay Law Society dues (which have gone up each year since I joined), carry on business in a particular manner (which involves added technology, added time in accounting tasks, added time in filing tasks), and continuing education. All of these things are good things, and most of it is in place to help maintain the excellence of service and professionalism of each member of the Law Society. However, regulation has brought with it substantial costs to my office, which means I have to charge my clients more for my services than I once was able to. The discussion has now turned away from how we protect the public, to how we can provide the public with accessible, affordable legal services. In addition, training and support to the smaller firms is badly needed, as some of the requirements can be time consuming for sole practitioners and small firms (under five persons), while larger firms have the resources to hire staff to wholly manage many of these requirements.

2. Consumer Protection Laws:

These are very broad and often industry specific regulations. We have laws against curbsiders, which are allegedly people selling vehicles without a dealer's license. Regulators scan Auto Trader, Kijiji and the like, to find people selling used cars, and they often phone to make inquiries. Often times, a curbsider gives it away by asking, "Which one?" The fines are heavy for this kind of thing. Jail terms can even be handed out. Yes, there are industry scum out there that need to be hung out to dry, but this law is catching some people that have no intentions of defrauding or hurting anyone. There are taxi regulations, which are usually set by one's municipality including the definition of a "taxi". Advertising a ride sharing service can readily capture some people not intended to be captured under the taxi regulations. How do municipalities tell the difference between a ride share service, which is primarily volunteer (although the person sharing the ride pays the driver for gas), and an illegal taxi service? Ride sharing once used to be an acceptable practice. You book your travel plans on a bulletin board, and somebody else who happens to be going that way contacts you and offers to share the ride. The business PickUpPal.Com got into some hot water recently because they were advertising ride sharing services from one city to another, until the bus companies found out and took them to the Highway Transportation Board for providing an "illegal service". Land use is also affected by regulation. Right now, a gentleman who owns property in the country had decided to use part of his land for an archery club, until the Conservation Authority decided they did not like the idea. To the best of my knowledge, this landowner is still fighting this in court. I wonder somehow what kind of harm this man was doing by offering the use of his own land to a popular sporting activity, which included charitable contributions for the brain injured to participate.

All of these things and more contribute to the hardship felt by many small businesses, and why so many of them end up shutting down, or restricting their practices. This is in addition to the attitudes of some people that small business owners are wealthy, and are believed to be able to take advantage of the same largesse big companies are able to. None of this true. The average small business owner earns 30% less in income than their salaried counterparts doing the same thing. Retail business owners put up with theft, robbery, fraud and breakage. This comes out of the owner's pockets. Service businesses put up with chintzes, skinflints, rubber cheques, chronic complainers, know-it-alls, etc. The price of dealing with these people comes from the regular paying customers' and the owners' pockets.

Nobody thinks about when they try to haggle a price down from a small business owner. Are you also going to offer to haggle the price of their insurance, their memberships, their staff salaries, etc.? These people pay the same expenses, regardless of how much money they take in. By haggling or thinking they can drop their prices, you are taking the food out of their families' mouths. Most small businesses are locally owned and staff are local residents. Yet, many of the above actions done by customers, government, regulators and the like, lead to higher costs for them and for the rest of us. It may also put many people out of business. There are many other issues that are going on that also reduce the chances of a small business surviving. In my world, I shop as much as I can at locally owned small businesses, and I pay my bill when due. I do not haggle or try to get the owner to cut the bill because I know they need the money. I also do not make frivolous complaints to, or about, the business. If I have a concern, I take it directly to the business and work it out with the owner, rather than waste their time or mine with a formal complaint (unless it was of a very serious nature that has remained unaddressed, but to tell you how rare this is, I only had to do that twice in my life). I follow the Golden Rule. I treat others as I would want to be treated, but unfortunately, as a small business owner/professional practitioner, I have felt the impact of others that do not follow the Golden Rule, do not appreciate the time or effort in putting out a product or a service, or the value of my work. I can only help but wonder if these people had ever themselves been self employed. I bet not.

Your thoughts?

LIVING IN A TIME WARP IN MY OWN COMMUNITY

The region has its routines, cultures and environment, overall as each person and family within it have their own experiences. Those that benefit from the region's attributes the most are those that enjoyed a relatively clear middle class upbringing, usually with both parents intact and enough resources in one's family to send each child to a strong start. These are the people that grew up here or in a similar sized community with a pool in the backyard of a house their families owned, and a driver's license at sixteen with even the possibility of help from parents to obtain their first car. This gives people the lack of capacity to understand hardship from some angles, unless something serious and tragic happens within their family subsequently. Often their parents worked as GM workers, teachers, regional employees, nurses, among other stable professions. The last decade in which this stability was even possible for people was perhaps the early nineties, although less and less families have the kind of resources that would produce this element of stability.

People who have had this type of supportive background, parents like this and so forth, cannot picture what life is like without access to an automobile, or access to a good job. Many times parents give their word to employers to assist their children in gaining a foot in the door, or the parents are involved in a business, where they would hire their children to take it over as they decide to retire at a later date. These people who had these advantages have no idea how people without these advantages are screened out of jobs routinely, as employers like everybody else, prefers to take on somebody they know or who are related to somebody they know before they "take a chance on somebody new". A friend of mine in Niagara calls this the Family Compact. There are jobs still available, but not any of the good ones that are supposedly in the "private sector" - just the bad ones that the anointed favourites will not take.

On the contrary, I have met people who have not had the type of background described above, who are now struggling. For these people, economic recovery is meaningless, as the economy does not improve the prospects for these people - ever. These people started well behind the starting line and have experienced significantly more barriers than other people. They may not have both parents raising them, or in many cases, they have lived on their own from the time they were sixteen or seventeen. They did not have parents eager to teach them how to drive, and to allow them to practice with them for their ultimate road test. As a result, many of these people learn to drive late, or in some cases, not at all. It is not that driving is a rite of passage for everybody, but in the Niagara Region, where values of one's progress match those in the 1950's when compared to other communities, if one did not go through that rite of passage at that age, they are looked upon as somehow "damaged goods". Others that might have learned to drive, but have lost their license due to medical conditions are viewed as equally "damaged".

I related this to a Toronto audience, mostly consisting of people who lived in Toronto or other large cities most of their lives, and they found this to be unbelievable. Even those whose youth was demarcated in the same way as described above, their worth or value as a person is not affected because they never learned to drive, or cannot drive due to medical conditions, or whatever. In fact, in a cosmopolitan way, many people choose not to drive in a large city and as such, this choice can be accommodated. An employer does not view any of these people who either cannot or will not drive as any less qualified for most jobs in a true cosmopolitan community, and would consider what that person can bring to the company, as opposed to how he or she brings themselves to the workplace. Unfortunately, in smaller regions, Niagara of which is at least one, employers have created major barriers to persons with disabilities, persons who just did not have the advantage of parental support to get them on the road, or persons without any funds to own and maintain their own vehicles.

Long term reliance on social assistance for these people is not uncommon for many of these people, including those who might have an advanced education. I know engineers, teachers, social workers, construction workers, researchers, and others who have spent several years on Ontario Works due to an inability to afford a vehicle, or due to medical or other restrictions on their driving privilege. In fact, one's access to a vehicle and their ability to drive it on a regular basis has become yet one more tool in the arsenal of employers that may not want to hire "damaged goods". At the same time, employers see no reason not to continue to demand driver's licenses and personal ownership of a vehicle to be a key qualification for a job.

I notice the region has and continues to perform poor planning decisions in this area as well, as the region's decision makers and planners are working under the assumption that everybody from every part of this region has a driver's license and personal access to a vehicle. The city for example is planning to tear down the West Park Pool that is currently located in the west end's only high school, which by the way, is also on the chopping block with the District School Board of Niagara. Those using the pool are from a disproportionate number of public housing projects, senior citizens, as well as students from the entire south end of the community. While some people did drive in to use the West Park Pool, its location was accessible to the people who live in the Western Hill neighbourhood which was identified as a "priority" neighbourhood by the region. Living in a "priority" neighbourhood does not necessarily mean you are poor, but the chances are greater that you are, as there is a large section of this neighbourhood devoted to low cost housing, rent-geared-to-income housing, as well as houses that could be bought for less than the city's average market value. This is a neighbourhood where people downsize in their retirement years, or move into lower cost housing with one's children, particularly single parents.

However, my city does not seem to understand why removing the West Park Pool from this neighbourhood is going to undermine this population's use of their brand spanking new facilities they are almost finished building in the north central end of town. First, there is no bus service to this new facility in the evenings and on weekends, something whoever planned this location has blithely ignored, likely because he or she believes that almost everybody drives or can "get a ride from a friend". At the same time, the parking for this facility has been carefully planned and accessibility for "handicapped" persons has been considered, yet they did not consider core accessibility for those that cannot drive in the first place, possibly due to a disability. The city will not spend any more money to keep the West Park Pool open because they say they have no money, which is unbelievable, given the multiple projects they recently approved to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars. For the fifty million arena the city just approved, they are also seeking a multi-million dollar walkway for participants to use St. Paul Street to go to the arena from the downtown parking lots, presumably. If they have money for this farce, they have money to repair the West Park Pool to standard and to continue its operation, alongside the new one they built.

When I spoke at City Council when the issue of the West Park Pool was discussed, virtually all the councillors around the table dropped their jaws when I advised them of the lack of evening and weekend bus service to their facilities. I asked one of them afterwards what were the qualifications of the person who would be planning and making these decisions. My bet is that the person must have a driver's license and access to a personal vehicle. Failure to consider transit riders in the design and location of a project to me is the type of thing that such an employee should be fired over, yet in a region like this it is highly unlikely. When somebody writing for the Toronto Sun wrote about the lack of bus access to a children's recreational program, their city hall immediately revised a transit route to have a bus stop in front of the said building. I somehow doubt the routes will be amended in this case to accommodate non drivers, as non drivers are not seen to exist in this region. At the same time, I am supposed to fork out increasing taxes year over year for hundreds of millions of dollars in road work, traffic lights, parking lot structures, and other privileges for people that drive. My guess is that drivers would not have to pay to park at the new Kiwanis facility. Why is it the taxpayers' responsibility to ensure a driver can park their car at a place like this, while it doesn't seem to be important to ensure bus access to the same location?

Besides this, the District School Board of Niagara is bent on closing the newest and only high school in the Western Hill neighbourhood. They will instead bus high school kids outside of their neighbourhood to other schools, which means if the child cannot be at the bus stop for whatever reason when it leaves, he or she may not be able to go to school that day. They will also not be able to participate in extra curricular activities, as the buses will likely leave before these activities begin. Henceforth, according to our friend Don Drummond, who had recently completed his review of government services, parents may be charged fees to help cover the cost of this busing. So, once again, we are going to have to pay for decisions made by other people. What is the effect of something like this in my neighbourhood?

First, I live in a food desert. This means there is no easy access to a grocery store near enough to my home to walk there. We can walk, but it takes about forty five minutes to get there, but it is the closest, yet most expensive food store in the area. There are no community centres or service hubs in my neighbourhood, unlike there being access to the same in other "richer" neighbourhoods. With this comes the dearth of after school activities for kids. There are no decent restaurants in my neighbourhood, or bank branches for people to do their banking. All we have is a couple of bars, a Chinese restaurant, a few convenience stores, a closed down body shop for cars, a beauty salon, a laundromat and a chiropodist's office which never seems to have anybody there. In the past few months, we have witnessed three foreclosures on homes that were owned, as well as a high turnover of tenant households. Other than that, we do have some senior citizens who are retired or semi retired, or housing that seems to be increasingly being built for Brock students. There are families here, but I somehow doubt they will remain in this neighbourhood once these other amenities are removed. Who wants to buy into a neighbourhood where there is no high school, community centre or any recreational facilities? Will I be able to sell my house? I somehow doubt it, unless the purchaser can somehow convert it readily to a student residence.

For people like myself, this neighbourhood has literally lost all of its appeal. I no longer want to live here. This neighbourhood has the lousiest bus service of anywhere in this city, especially on evenings and weekends. If the pool and the high school close, there will be no point in us continuing to stay here. I will have to find another place to live that is closer to one of the high schools that will remain open, so that my daughter will have some place to go when she becomes of age. She is not like my son, who is very enthusiastic about school and interested in learning. I do not want circumstances to be in place to encourage her to drop out. I have already heard from some students that were going to Thorold Secondary School, another school on the alleged chopping block, state to the committee that they may not be able to continue to attend school. For many people, a long bus ride each day is too much for them.

At the same time as this, hydro rates are skyrocketing in May, and the last time I went grocery shopping, prices went up by at least five percent. If this were happening in Toronto, it would not be tolerated. People would band together and fight these changes, and many times, they win. Here, there is a half hearted attempt by a citizens group to form a non profit group to keep the pool open, but it seems there is not as much of a fight by the same people to keep the high school open. Don't these folks live in the neighbourhood too? Are they not concerned about what will happen when they try to sell their homes? I must say that I was happy to hear about the group trying to save the pool, but we need a lot of people like our Mayor, city council, and even regional councillors to fight to keep the schools. In my view, all the school board has to do is enforce its own boundaries and they would not have to close any schools, but instead they intend to make it the problem of families that do not drive, do not have access to recreational services and money to help co-pay for the bus services.

Don't they understand? This is a PRIORITY neighbourhood! Perhaps, my next step will be to submit a Freedom of Information Act request to the city to find out ward by ward how much money per capita is being spent on services, and I know for a fact that my ward will show the lowest expenditures, simply because there are a large number of "throw away" people in this neighbourhood, people that city councillors, who all drive and live in big houses, do not consider to be worthy of having accessible services in their own neighbourhoods. I filled out a survey awhile back that asked how well I fit in within my neighbourhood, my community and my region, and my answer to this was "I don't feel I fit in at all". This does not say anything about the people here, as they are okay, but it does say a whole lot about how I feel I am treated as a non driver, who is not able to attend 90 - 95% of even "free events" that are put on by the community or by groups in it, and at the same time, have to be subject to the exhaust smoke of other people's vehicles, have to walk on sidewalks that are broken and subject to trip hazards or cyclists that blithely ignore the by-laws around riding a bike on the sidewalks. Again, if they do this in Toronto, people will bring this to city council and rally around it. Here, it is like nobody cares.

They once asked questions of how the city can improve neighbourhoods and accessibility issues. If they really wanted to do this, they can read this post and implement changes that would stop me from feeling so disgusted that I have to leave, just wishing I had enough money to do so.

NOW WHO OWNS THIS DEFICIT REALLY?

This was a nasty week, though not too full of surprises from either the federal or the provincial budgets. What bothers me most is how governments lie to their people about these things. They assume voters are stupid and will swallow whatever bit of ideology of the day that seems to make people believe they have to "do their part" in repaying the debts of others. Yes, that is what I said. This deficit is not our debt, at least for most of you reading this here. If your neighbour takes out a mortgage on their home and uses the money to enjoy a pool in their backyard and to create a fireplace in their basement, are you willing to give your neighbour some of your hard earned cash to help him pay off this mortgage? Of course not! So, why are we gladly acceding to paying for debts of the wealthy and the corporate sector, while our own incomes dwindle away year over year?

At the provincial level, the Premier stared at the camera and said in his usual gaze: “Others would make different choices,” Mr. McGuinty said, noting that the previous Progressive Conservative government cut welfare by 22 per cent.

“We are not prepared to balance this budget on the backs of families who may find themselves in difficult circumstances for the time being, or on the backs of our children.”

Yet, this is exactly what the provincial government is doing. As the wealthy and higher corporate elites sleep well this week, knowing the government is not going to be picking their pockets anymore, and in fact will continue to be getting even further "out of their way", the costs will all be borne by the poor and middle class. A single individual on welfare, or what is euphemistically called Ontario Works, gets a total of $599 per month to live on for all of their needs ... that means shelter, utilities, phone, clothing, transportation, and personal hygiene products. Most are lucky if they can even find housing at that price, let alone all the other necessities of life.

A single person on the Ontario Disability Support Pension gets $1,063 per month, also for all of their needs. While better than welfare, most people that get ODSP have major barriers in the paid labour force and often vilified by others, particularly those that think "at least half of those on disability aren't really disabled". I would love to have their internal knowledge of everybody's personal medical history like that. Would work nice in today's Parliament, particularly when vilifying another politician, but not in the streets where it is usually done. The people who say these things usually don't even know the people they are talking about, and use their "friend of a friend" story as statistical research. When you work at the ground level with these people, you know they pay rent and usually have very little for anything else, and they also face huge barriers to a healthy diet.

I argued one time here that the policies of the Ontario government are not unlike genocide in slow motion. Through the death by a thousand cuts, these programs are losing their purchasing power rapidly, leaving the poor in the dust, usually with very serious medical problems that could have been prevented if ... they had a healthy diet, they had safe housing and they had an adequate income. You know these are things our federal Conservatives don't want to hear about either? They just decided to cut the National Council of Welfare, a social policy advisory group that was established in 1969 to advise the government on poverty issues. Between that, and their elimination of the mandatory long form census, it is clear they don't want to know about poverty, and what to do about it, so they can lie to the public as well, about how there are no poor people in Canada. I suppose that might actually come true at some point when they all die of their medical conditions the state is imposing on them, but to me, they are no better than the architects of the Nazi Euthanasia program in the 1930s. It is just that those guys in the 1930s were just in a bloody hurry!

The provincial government is indeed making the poor pay for the tax cuts enjoyed by the wealthy for way too long. They say the budget for social programs is suddenly unsustainable, but their program for all day kindergarten isn't? Giving people on Ontario Works and ODSP a decent raise is unsustainable, but continuing the ongoing corporate welfare cheques is not? The Special Diet Allowance was unsustainable, but somehow a double digit jump in the number of low income people with diabetes, heart disease and other malnutrition-based diseases is not? They want to dump the Community Start Up and Maintenance Benefit and the Home Repair Benefit, which helped many people on assistance move from slum dwellings, get rid of bedbugs or replace their furniture after an infestation, or leave an abusive relationship, or fix the leaky roof that is causing mould to grow in the children's bedroom. They want to dump it to the municipalities, so they (the municipalities) can decide if and when they are going to do this, and what kind of benefits, if any, they will continue to offer.

Have you ever tried to secure a so-called discretionary benefit from your municipality? I have seen people repeatedly turned down for essential health services, such as physiotherapy, orthotics, mouth guards, dentures and other so called discretionary benefits, which get awarded on the basis of a worker's say so, not on actual medical need. By downloading these benefits, there are no appeal mechanisms available. Many municipalities use the money for other programs, and when one seeks help for these types of programs, they get handed a list of charities to go begging to. I don't know about you, but if somebody is seeking a job, the last thing they need is for a potential employer to know their personal and financial business. The reason I say this here is because the vast majority of these charities are run or led by local business people, aka employers. I met one woman who had been interviewed for a dream job, only to go to the food bank the next day to find the same man who interviewed her the day before stocking shelves at the food bank. The privacy of the rich was one of the reasons why the long form census was abandoned, while the privacy and confidentiality rights of the poor are so casually disregarded.

Hospitals will now get funding based on expertise and numbers, so if a low income person does not happen to live near a busy, urban hospital, their needs will likely not get met. The wealthy don't have to worry about this. They can just cross the border and use their VISA or American Express cards to pay for what they need right away, while the rest of us will be facing longer waits for poorer quality care. The health care sector is personal beef of Harper's. His strategy is to encourage provinces to "experiment" with private health care, and gradually give less and less to the provinces, so they will end up having to consider cuts. This has already been demonstrated with Harper's health care accord he just imposed on the provinces. There is no need for a meeting, he says. He will tell the Council of the Confederation where it's at.

So, wither the hope for the poor? This is no different how than the poor have always been treated. I don't recall massive spending programs to help lift people out of poverty, ever. Yet, it is these very programs that are now getting blamed for causing the deficit. Like, never mind ORNGE, eHealth, OLG and other programs gone mad under the present regime with truck loads of money being given to people that already have enough to do very little, and despite the controversy around any of these programs -- not a single benefactor, including those consultants billing over $3,000 a day for their "expertise" and their choco bites from Tim Hortons, ever had to pay a penny back! Yet when somebody on Ontario Works or ODSP even dares find a penny extra, it is clawed back before it is even noticed.

Dalton McGuinty has lied to us in the past. We know that. However, please know he is now lying to us once again when he says he will not balance the books on the backs of the vulnerable. He just did. It is too late for this friend of a friend of mine who heard "budget rumours" related to housing or something, that led her wrongly to believe she was going to lose her housing subsidy under the budget. She tried to kill herself, and is now in hospital under 24 hour suicide watch. This $800 a day could have went to give her better nutrition through additional funds to help her eat better, or they could have been spent on making necessary repairs in her building so that she can feel more safe ... but no, another $800 is a day is being spent to pay professionals to protect this woman from herself. I am sure there are more out there like this and I would encourage all of you to share your stories here.

The sad fact is austerity agendas do not save the government any money or lead to more job, but in the end, can actually result in the needless misery and death of many people. It is a form of population control. At one time a former Minister of Community and Social Services suddenly announced there were "too many" people on ODSP. I would hate to believe this is the way the government would go in order to reduce these costs, although it is not difficult to imagine. The same debate is going on in the UK, except it has gone beyond debate into three dimensional reality. There are suicides, hate crimes, continuing harassment of people with disabilities, riots, etc. The government of the day wants to cut more taxes, only of course to make matters even worse -- less revenues means less money to spend and less money to spend can aid a government in enforcing their own prejudices.

The federal Conservatives chose the chicken way to get elected by denying they will ever touch old age pensions, but now as far away as Davos, Switzerland, he publicly muses about how the Old Age Security is no longer sustainable. Perhaps, as he tells his banker and other elite friends, most of whom earn too much to even qualify for the Old Age Security anyways, that it is good enough that people are "living longer" and perhaps, they should be working longer - assuming of course, they even have a job to work in, or can work at all. I have no illusions about ever retiring. People my age were literally robbed of our entitlement to a retirement pension by people like Stephen Harper and other proponents of socialism for the rich and austerity for the poor. It is also another way for Harper to "stick it to the provinces" which will now have to carry more people for two years on welfare or ODSP monies.

Unfortunately, this ignorance is just going to spin its course because there are still too many people out there who are "all right Jack", that continue to believe the poor and disadvantaged are there on their own merit, and not due to systemic issues beyond their control. Personally, I am in a bloody hurry too. I am in a hurry to one day see those who today say, "I'm all right Jack" lose the one or two things that are keeping them from joining the breadlines today. That may be their spouse who earns a good income. Marriage isn't guaranteed in stone, girls. Forty to fifty percent of marriages end in divorce. It may be their health. Not everybody can continue to work if they fall ill, and less and less workplaces are offering benefits to those recovering from serious health issues. Welcome to the world of ODSP, folks... the place you turn to on your way down! It can be their job. Many say they are living one or two pay cheques from the streets, and we all know how fragile jobs can be. Caterpillar is just the tip of the iceberg, folks. Maybe tomorrow it will be your boss that comes in to announce that you will have to take a fifty percent cut in pay, or lose your job. Can you survive on fifty percent of your salary? Maybe not. Even if you can, what stops your boss from coming in two years down the line and asking you to take a further fifty percent cut?

People like me have been watching the trends. Former middle class workers who used to be "all right, Jack" are now living out of their cars, losing their homes, and losing their health. Women who used to be self confident in the corporate world are now getting ill, having to rely on social assistance incomes. Because their doctors have nothing more to do for them, many of them have been shipped to nursing homes in their forties, just so they can have three meals a day! Another man I know, a former home builder, is going to lose both of his legs later this year to diabetes, because his disability allowance leaves him less than a hundred dollars a month for food. I wonder how much all of this is costing the public purse.

Perhaps, we need to take another look at that report on the cost of poverty, and how little it would actually cost at the federal level to bring everybody who is currently living in poverty out of poverty and destitution. Oh, I forgot. The National Council of Welfare that produced that federal report is no longer useful, because they do not march to drummer of austerity like the federal government thinks everybody must. I think all of you need to read the links, understand that the government is making policy choices to keep people in poverty, as opposed to it being an inevitable thing. There are countries where poverty is very rare, and such countries have the best economies of the world. Unfortunately, our governments don't want us to know that, because they want us to become more ignorant of the facts in our own country.

However, I refuse to be ignorant. I refuse to stop asking questions. I also refuse to stop demanding that our politicians start representing all Canadians, not just those that can live in comfort this week knowing their pockets will not be picked and that government will just "get out of the way" for them.

Your thoughts?

DRUMMING TO THE BEAT OF DRUMMOND AND SOCIAL ASSISTANCE REFORM

There is a lot of underground talking about the town.

I am finding it hard to educate the people in my city about what the government is up to because February was the month of policy speak and the Drummond beat. Some people think cutting civil service jobs and "letting the private sector" run things is a great thing. They view the private sector as somehow efficient, streamlined and less costly to the public purse. This is not necessarily the case, especially since many studies of private sector delivery of health care and other services have been done, and it is shown that the "efficiency" of the private sector does not return to the public purse in tax savings at all, but in higher profits for those in charge of the private firms delivering the service. There are also issues of end user costs, accountability, ownership of personal data, and the quality and skill of people replacing the public workers in the private firms.

Don't get me wrong. I don't have any trouble with supporting private sector involvement in areas that are competitively delivered by the private sector in the region as it is. For example, there is no need for a public airline, a public railway, a public automaker, or similar services, where competitors exist in the private market and efficiency can be gained, or offset using other "client" or "customer bases" apart from the organization's public delivery function. For example, a train service like VIA or CP can be subsidized publicly to provide a certain range of services to keep costs to the general public affordable, while the organization can secure private contracts in freight and business class services.

Health care is delivered largely privately as well, but it would be an error to allow health care providers to find profits elsewhere, such as providing quicker service to those that can pay full costs. Health care is different than the trains, as members of the general public do not normally order freight cargo or transport -- but in health care, *some* members of the public can and are willing to pay full price out of pocket, bucking less fortunate people out of line to get served first. Freight trains can add cars as needed. Our health care system is limited by its design, whereas there are only a limited number of providers. Higher demand on the private side may sway many of those providers to serve higher paying customers, but this can and will only detract from the quality of service for individuals that cannot pay.

However, it does not mean efficiencies cannot be found within health care or government as a whole, but we need to make sure that these efficiencies are truly that, and not simply hacksawing services away or putting large numbers of people out of work, just to add to the numbers already competing for the limited number of jobs available. We also have to ensure that the nature of the service delivery does not change to the client group in receipt of the service. For example, one of the proposals by both Drummond and by the Social Assistance Reform Commission is to dump the ODSP program altogether and let each region run it as it so chooses.

There are already problems in regional delivery systems for the Ontario Works program. There are municipalities that do this job well, and have enjoyed successes in reducing their caseloads and keeping more people employed and providing supports through collaboration with local agencies for those with multiple barriers to returning to work. However, in my experience, this has been more the exception and not the norm. After learning of these recommendations, I took it to the streets to speak to people who are currently receiving Ontario Works, or who have received it in the past, and are currently receiving ODSP. In Niagara, there are some positives, such as certain workers that appear to be skilled at working with local agencies and building add on supports at the neighbourhood level. However, virtually all of those I spoke to, regardless of how "compliant" they are to Ontario Works measures, have experienced examples of abusive treatment: cheques suspended, cheques getting "lost", emergency assistance being denied, or cheques put "on hold" until the client that usually has no funds is expected to take two buses to come to the office to provide something they already provided at an earlier date, such as a birth certificate or an earnings report.

All clients on OW are expected to engage in a participation agreement. For many people, it is simple. The person is going to school to upgrade their skills, or they are already working part time and seeking to move to full time work. However, for others, they feel they have been directed to jobs, employers or other situations that, they are being knowingly referred to and set up for failure. Participation agreements often do not honour one's education, career goals, income needs, or health conditions that might restrict them from some types of jobs. I have known of well educated people, often at the Master's or post-graduate level being referred to greenhouse work or call centers. The Case Manager is only concerned with getting an agreement, a job and a file off their desk. This is not the best way to approach some "participants", as the program laughingly calls them. Even if a highly educated person with a strong previous resume accepts a low wage job; if they work at that job for any length of time without outside involvement in "their" field, their next employer will not look at them seriously. I have spoken to employers that become suspicious if a man with a business degree applies for a job at their firm, but their only recent work experience was in a greenhouse or a call center or doing janitorial work. The first question that would come to mind is, "What is this employee hiding from me?" They will be reluctant to hire this person for this reason.

If Ontario Works takes over ODSP, will all ODSP recipients now have to sign participation agreements, and if so, would the nature of these participation agreements be similar to what I described above? To the extent of my knowledge of the people on ODSP around here, these methods will certainly not result in a job for these persons. Many will not be able to handle it, and failure to comply may lead to cut off or suspension. Don't the administrators of these programs know that people have to pay rent or mortgage, and by even holding their cheque for a few days, their housing can be jeopardized? Is that person going to be more prepared to work if they end up having to fight an eviction, in addition to whatever myriad of other problems they already present?

Would ODSP recipients become subject to the rigorous month to month eligibility review status some OW recipients have been through? Income security is very important to persons with disability. Persons have been put onto ODSP for a reason. Many will not take the kind of pushing and prodding that an OW Case Manager might attempt in order to get them off the system. What will happen to them if they start to find their "workers" putting their cheques on hold, suspending payments, or even cutting them off entirely because they failed to complete something minor in their participation agreements? What about their income support? While there were no specifics given, it appears that the municipalities have been pushing for a 3-tiered approach to income support: (a) one amount for those who are most job ready and only need short term help; (b) another (higher) amount for those that face multiple barriers due to disability, addiction, housing or other issues; and (c) a pension like program for persons with "severe" disabilities.

Drummond bought this whole concept of "severe" disabilities hook, line and sinker. In fact, Drummond cited a questionable statistic that only about 22% of persons with disabilities receiving support would fall under the "severe" category. Where does he get this figure? If it is from the PALS survey, he is misusing and misinterpreting this information. Virtually all studies like this come from self report of one's severity of disability. "Severity" is very difficult to objectively define. There are no tests that can definitively place one's disability into a "mild", "moderate", "severe" or "very severe" category, without a substantial input of self reported limitations, symptoms and clinical (not always necessarily scientific) observation. For example, there are people with fibromyalgia that can work, while others with the very same condition and profile cannot work. The disability is very much attached to the person, as much as that person's preferences, attitudes, likes, dislikes, talents, skills, and characteristics. The interplay between these characteristics and self reported "severity" of disability are generally related to one's self-identified experience or success in the labour market.

Further, the labour market is not completely ready to accept people with disabilities. Most employers I speak to want to hire qualified persons with disabilities, but they themselves face a number of concerns: (a) how much is this going to cost?; (b) how will the accommodations we give this person affect the other members of my workforce?; (c) how can I determine the level of performance in a person with a disability for which I am giving accommodation to, as compared to the same evaluation for a non disabled colleague doing the same job?; and (d) what can I expect from this person if they join my workforce? Many of these employers can and want to be trained in learning how to overcome these barriers, but there are issues of access to these kinds of resources, as well as costs. Small businesses often turn to my office for human resource advice, as well as legal issues, as they are not human resource managers. An employer or owner of a company is very skilled at what they do, whether that be providing a service or manufacturing a product. They know their industry well, work hard to develop good relationships with suppliers, client or customer base, as well as delivering their product or service at a price that is affordable to their target market.

Most companies I deal with these days do not operate by a vertical level of authority as companies once did. In the former generation, a large company would try to keep as much of its services, suppliers and people in house, and as their people grow in the company, they get promotions and move up some kind of "company ladder". Today, the private sector delivers their goods and services in a more linear fashion, using internal teams and external suppliers. Cleaning, shredding, IT services, human resources, legal services, accounting, websites and even some technical aspects of the delivery are outsourced today to smaller companies or independent contractors. This saves the main company money, as they do not have to cover the benefits, EI, CPP and other costs for each employee, if they had taken them in house. Henceforth, many companies recognize the specialization offered by the outside firms, and by contracting out, they are buying these highly valued services in the bits and pieces that the company needs, as opposed to keeping somebody on staff to do this work regardless of need.

Because of this, people are often hired on contract, through temporary agencies, or by the specialized suppliers to the larger companies at a lower wage than they would have been had they been hired directly by the larger company itself. This is not much of a problem for people who are entrepreneurial and have a specific skill to deliver, and can support the work of several organizations that need "in time" help for their type of service. However, this represents bad news for people with lower skill sets, less employment experience, and perhaps, unrelated job barriers, such as a disability or other issues that might make the smaller firms nervous and ask the kinds of questions I referred to above. This pattern is also taking place in the public sector to some degree as well, where large facilities like hospitals and universities are seeking these same kinds of horizontal efficiencies as well.

This shift in the labour market is major. The old manufacturing jobs that our parents had are not coming back. If any manufacturing is going to survive in Ontario, it is that of the highly specialized kind. I have client companies that do just this -- highly specialized manufacturing that cannot so easily be exported to India and the finished products bought back by us in Ontario. There are also highly skilled knowledge-based positions as well, such as in "green technologies", IT sector and biosciences. The number of people required for these companies will be significantly smaller, but they will be highly skilled and narrowly purposed. Many people on Ontario Works that have a higher level of education should be steered towards these new options, as opposed to simply sending them off to call centers and greenhouses. If they do not have all the education, then there *must* be ways to develop these people so that they can be educated on the job, as well as through the academia available to train people in these sectors. Others with education and training in the social sciences or business development sectors should be employed BY Ontario Works to assist in the development of viable social enterprises that can be used to train and possibly hire people with marketable skills (e.g. in a region with a high percentage of seniors, agricultural, vinticultural and hospitality-based successes - a social enterprise base can be developed to service these industries).

But what about those people on ODSP? Should they be divided into who can and cannot work? Again, this is just as fictional as the "severe" disability category. Stephen Hawking, Christopher Reeves, Catherine Frazee, Judith Snow, among many other persons have so called "severe" disabilities, but they are productive citizens. On the other hand, somebody with chronic depression, low back pain, anxiety disorder or obsessive compulsive disorder might not be so productive for various reasons, even though their disabilities do not look "severe" on the surface. One of the few things that Mike Harris did right was to separate people with disabilities from those with short term need when his government developed ODSP. His government also set up ODSP to be flexible, supportive and to have an open door for employment. People on ODSP have a choice to work or not, and many do choose to work or try to. By defining some of them as not being able to work, does this mean they will not be allowed to try? What will happen then? I witnessed what would happen when this was the case here in Ontario. People get cut off benefits because they are no longer "permanently unemployable", and yes, this has led to tragedy.

What about those that are considered able to work? There appears to be an implication for the amount of income support they will receive. To me, there is no rationale for lowering somebody's income because they are "able to work". Wait until they find a job FIRST, before decreasing their income support. This is a particularly strong concern of mine. Will those currently on ODSP lose some of their income if they are deemed able to work? This is not going to produce jobs for people -- cutting their benefits down or off completely is not going to create the hundreds of thousands of jobs for these people who by this type of policy are "cured" overnight and thereby ready to compete side by side with healthy, younger individuals. The more likely consequence will be a spike in the number of evictions, increased homelessness, addictions and open panhandling. As it is without this new directive, I am already seeing young people involved in prostitution, hooked on drugs, sleeping in the ATM corridors or in lane ways at night. I also speak to these people. They are not babbling to themselves or crazy or stupid like the media wants us to believe, but they are individuals who at one time had hopes and dreams like everybody else, then something happened. Our government needs to be especially careful to make sure that whatever policy direction they choose, that these things that "happen" do not increase in number and to more people, especially the vulnerable.

It is unrealistic to continue with austerity measures until the economy turns around, as my first recommendation. Austerity must also impact those that can afford to pay more, while at the same time encouraging those that actually do create jobs and increase investment in our communities. Unfortunately, our public attitude is that we have somehow become allergic to taxes and will revolt at any suggestion of a tax hike, while theoretically cuts in services sound good until one tries to turn to them. People complain loudly when their roads are not plowed, potholes are not filled, or they can't speak to a "real human" at a Service Ontario kiosk. What else do they believe tax cuts will bring us? Our public has to wake up and accept that taxes are part of civilization, and while taxes should not be hiked too high to prevent people from making good choices -- they do need to be hiked to pre-1995 levels, including corporate income taxes. This can be done gradually over a period of seven years to allow people and companies to adjust.

Before you go on a tirade about how companies will bolt out of Ontario with higher taxes, this is exactly what they are doing right now with one of the lowest taxes of the provinces in Canada, and amongst the lowest taxes in all OECD countries. These companies have names: Caterpillar, John Deere, Henniges, Canada Food Classics, Lear, CanGro, Atlas Steel, and many, many more ... all left when corporate taxes were at their lowest levels. When a company hires somebody, they do not pay taxes on the income they have that was used to pay that person's salary. Even certain payroll taxes are waived for companies below a certain size. Taxes only affect a corporation when it is profitable. Most corporations -- even those that are well run -- are not profitable, but have good cash flow. Tax policy doesn't affect these companies, as they pay little or no corporate taxes. Individuals with higher incomes are limited to only three tax brackets - the highest being only 29%. Perhaps, this should increase to 35 - 40%. I paid 35% of my income in taxes during the 1990s when taxes were higher for wealthier persons. I was earning in the top 10% at the time, but the taxes I paid did not bother me. Taxes were a price to pay for economic security. Low income individuals may not pay a lot of income taxes (though they do pay a disproportionate share of other kinds of taxes), but they in turn feel insecure. I am constantly being told by many people they are worried about keeping up their rent payments, keeping their homes, feeding the kids, paying off debts, all while they cannot afford so called luxuries like a telephone, a personal vehicle, etc.

Don Drummond in his review of public services in Ontario, together with the implied direction of Frances Lankin and Munir Sheikh, Social Assistance Reform Commissioners, have started this conversation. We, as a people, need to redirect this conversation, or austerity measures will take us all down to a path of societal destruction, anomie, bankruptcies, and personal tragedies like we are seeing in the UK, as a result of actually carrying out many of the reforms being considered by Drummond and the Social Assistance Reform Commission. It is way too easy to push through these kinds of changes in our policies, but a heck of a lot more difficult to reverse the damages once these decisions have been made.

Let's try to stop this running train before it derails all of us.

DOGMA AND PREJUDICE

These are very interesting times.

I just read an article in the online media that those with socially conservative views are disproportionately (though not always) less intelligent than others that do not hold these views. I would assume this group would also fall under the same types of people that believe everything candidates like Stephen Harper feed to them about how tax cuts create jobs, and how we have to keep bowing to the corporate gods, or we will be hit with financial disaster. I didn't buy it then, nor do I buy it now, but then again, I have a higher level of tested intelligence than average.

The actual article raised a level of consternation in the many communities I published it in today, likely for good reason. People who swallow the corporate line, or buy into Christian fundamentalism, don't like to be told they are stupid. They are not stupid, in my view, but the issue of integrative complexity was well known even when I was in university many years ago. At that time, many published studies found a higher level of integrative complexity among those who did not hold extreme views, both on the left or the right, as well as those that were able to acquire critical thinking.

It is unfortunate that most of the politicians elected these days do not appear to have a high level of either integrative complexity or critical thinking skills, especially if the believe the bile they spew out at the voters during elections. It is either that, or they know the largest common denominator of the general public is less educated and they can hire media spin artists to make people believe what they want them to believe. I have a business education, as well as other disciplines, and in one of my year one courses, the professor told us that corporate tax cuts do not lead to more jobs. This professor was an economist, specializing in behavioural economics and fiscal policy. He taught me both micro-economics and macro-economics, as well as a course in how economics impacts on public policy.

I also don't believe anything the fundamentalists try to shove down our throats either, where they want to mix their own personal religious and moral beliefs with the policies of those governing us. We seen what happened when the Women's Christian Temperance Union pushed for and successfully passed prohibition during the 20's and 30's. All this did was create a very large underground and mob-financed network of booze cans and other illicit gathering places for alcohol consumption. One can argue that the main reasons for its success was because they also supported the women's suffragette movement, also supported by other groups.

To me, these people are the same individuals who believe that somehow testing applicants for welfare for drug use is an effective tool to prevent fraud. While many places have implemented this policy, it was found to be an expensive, cumbersome program that yielded few positive results. These people are stingy when it comes to giving people enough to live on and remain healthy, but will spend unknown millions on tests that might result in the denial of benefits to less than 2% of those tested, while at the same time feeding into more misguided public hysteria that the amount of welfare fraud is actually much more than it really is. My suggestion is to test the politicians first, then test everybody else. In fact that was a proposed amendment to another state's provisions to do just that, and bingo, the bill was withdrawn.

Many of these politicians, many of them with limited critical thinking skills, and many born and raised with a silver spoon in their mouth, understand very little about how their laws will impact people on the ground. They talk so much about getting "government" out of the face of the population, yet this right seems to exclude a portion of it: the poor. I tend to be a follower of the categorical imperative, in place by theorists like John Rawls and Immanuel Kant. The categorical imperative, in short, means that if you are going to make a rule, it must have universal application upon both the ruled and those making the rules. Rawls would argue that one making the rules should, in preference, not be aware of their social position or level of power, once the rule was made and passed. The person would not know if they were a king, a peasant, a merchant or a working class person, and as such, would ensure that such a rule would be fair, as it could very well apply to them too. It was the universality of a rule that would place lawmakers at a vulnerable position they only wished to impose on "outsiders", that caused them to withdraw that legislation. The issue here is most social conservative rulers tend to believe these issues do not count for themselves, as they see themselves as being morally superior to others.

At the same time, persons such as myself, neither a ruler or a naive person, can get very irritated and despise getting lied to. During the election campaign, I pretty well let one of the representatives of one of the mainstream parties "have it" when they parroted a clause in their campaign book that if their party got elected to power, they would allow the higher earner of a family to write off up to $50,000 of their income to the lower earning partner, to reduce the total family tax bill. Not only is this an expensive proposition, but it also assumes those that will listen even HAVE $50,000 or more in annual income. I discussed this with people on a Tim Horton trek, which is defined as meeting people at coffee shops, cafes and other low budget eateries to ask them what they thought of this concept. Almost all of them said they did not even earn a total HOUSEHOLD income of $50,000 and they questioned who will actually benefit from a measure like this? According to economist, David McDonald, those individuals earning $100,000 a year or more would benefit the most. My questions upon reading reports on this particular proposal was, where are the $100,000 jobs? Most of the jobs around here pay next to nothing.

The same people proposing this income splitting exercise also push the idea of one parent, usually the women with this particular Christian sect, to stay home and raise the kids, while the man works and brings home the money. Even in situations where a husband actually earns that much, it still isn't right for the woman, as her marriage to him is not guaranteed, his health and his future employment may not be guaranteed and who is to say what will happen if he got hit by a Mack truck the next day? How will she continue to financially keep her family together? Not only is that type of set up scarce as hen's teeth, but it is certainly bad for the female half of the family, should disaster strike. One might argue against divorce, that it is against Biblical principals and so forth, but to me, so what? How does that decrease the divorce rate? How does that decrease spousal and domestic abuse? How does that decrease the chances that the sole earner becomes disabled or absent from the family due to reasons outside of his control?

The problem with Christian fundamentalism is that it is not practical, not realistic and if it were policy, it would be very expensive, if not difficult to enforce. Those espousing these philosophies do not see any difficulty enforcing it, or even want to consider the costs of the same, even as they might consider themselves "fiscal conservatives" as well. To me, this is just hypocrisy at its best, and its precepts only benefit the most powerful people of society.

This is the same about the question of abortion. Many people reading this are horrified by the idea of abortion. They listen to the "right to life" and evangelical types carry on about how women should not be permitted to have an abortion, yet their own precepts if you believe Thomas Aquinas that stated that a fetus was not a "person" until it was ensouled, which meant that life in Aquinas' vision started at some point well after conception. Certainly, the Catholics and other fundamentalist Christians felt abortion was always wrong and sinful, but they certainly disagreed fundamentally as to when life actually began. On a practical basis, the pro-lifers do not have an answer as to how they will physically prevent women from acquiring abortions they feel they need anyways. One wonders if these same people, who believe so highly in the right to life, and for the welfare of the women involved, would recommend we return to the days of back street abortionists that ply their trade with coat hangers and Coca cola douches.

I once had a discussion with my mother who is devoutly religious in the Jehovah's Witness faith. She complained about the increasing numbers of people in our country who came from abroad and have learned different customs, practices and ideas, and want to continue to practice them here. She is one of those people who think if you come to Canada, you do everything the rest of us do. Unfortunately, if this was taken literally, we would not allow Muslims to practice their faith, wear their head coverings, or take part in their Friday prayers. Doing this is "not Canadian". So, is it okay for somebody like my own family members to tell somebody else who feels and believes as much in their own religion and culture as she does hers, that they should not be able to practice it once they cross our borders? The shoe can easily be on the other foot, and she as a Jehovah's Witness is familiar with the history of persecution against her own religion. These acts took place in Canada, and in other countries, they were even more extreme, and sometimes people of this faith were put to death. In the Holocaust, they were also a group of people targeted for round up for the death camps. Of course, this is NOT okay ... so why is it okay to attack people of OTHER religious faiths? As we speak, there is a growing animus in North America and Great Britain against Muslims, both within and outside their faith. This is no more right than the prior attacks on persons of Jehovah's Witness faith.

As a non religious person, I sometimes feel under attack because some religious people, particularly those of more fundamental sects, believe it is wrong not to be a believer. I would not call myself an Atheist either, but I just don't have the strong "black and white" narrow integrative concepts of right and wrong. Atheists and other non believers are seen somehow as morally inept, approving of all sorts of sins and iniquities. This is certainly far from true, as most non believers are very highly moral and ethical. We just don't get fed our moral and ethical concepts at church, only to do the opposite at home.

There are other people who push for "freedom of speech" which is just a disguise for a push for their right to express, provoke and promote hateful and discriminatory behaviour towards others. They want to remove the right of human rights commissions to find certain persons guilty of promoting hateful speech, or printing it. While there are some issues with how hateful speech and expression is defined in the Canadian Human Rights Act, it needs to be revised, not repealed. Freedom of speech is a fine thing, but there are limits. One cannot print or say something damaging about another person the writer or speaker knows to be untrue. One cannot cry "fire" at the back of a crowded movie theatre. One cannot also willfully promote the hatred against any particular group. However, these people try to argue they are only saying things, not doing anything. The evidence shows that hate speech hurts.

There were a few nut bars in the 1980s, for example, that went around telling everybody, including teaching children at schools, that the Holocaust during the second world war did not happen. Along with these statements were very disparaging statements about the Jewish community itself. Does free speech include something like this, which would certainly spark very negative behaviour by some persons against members of the targeted group? Evidence of this is well known in Great Britain since persons with disabilities were removed from society's idea of being a protected class, and the number of hate crimes against persons with disabilities has been growing, along with policy makers more willing to deny benefits for them and force them into deeper poverty and deprivation. Writer Katharine Quarmby has tracked the history of hate crimes, how they evolved from words, attitudes and prejudices and then into actions against individuals with disabilities. Almost 300,000 persons with disabilities were exterminated in Nazi Germany as being "life unworthy of life", and well before Hitler's campaign against the Jews began. The public attitude towards doing this was softened through a massive propaganda campaign, not unlike what we hear about today, about how persons with disabilities aren't "contributing" to society, and how wasteful it was to allow them to have and raise children. In Great Britain, these spiteful attitudes have made it to policy makers and disability allowances have been largely discontinued for a significant portion of the population of persons with disabilities. Very few of them are moving into jobs, as policy makers had hoped, but instead are committing suicide, getting involved with other crimes and losing their housing. Many advocates in Ontario are fearing the same attitudes might be imported here.

Personally I do not like most of the conservative candidates of today, because most like to outdo one another as to how much they want to trash the poor, attack racial and religious minorities, and so forth with proposed policies. In the United States, a good watch of the Republican primaries and the debates between each of the candidates to lead the next election against the current President Barack Obama should be instructive for people who are concerned about our future. Many want creationism to be replace teaching about evolution in our schools. They want to run the country on "Christian principles" (or more accurately, THEIR own Christian principles). They want to continuously lower taxes on the wealthy and on profitable corporations, thinking somehow this will spur an economic recovery. (Newsflash - corporate and personal taxes have been declining for the past twenty years, and it doesn't look like the US is in any kind of recovery yet). Listen to their arguments with an open mind. While you may believe some of their moral principles, ask yourself whether forcing the same on a diverse population is really the best thing to do. If I were in the US, I would probably have to vote for Obama, not because I necessarily like his record, but because I want to keep something more horrible out of my life.

Unfortunately, much of the Republican type dogma has come to Canada and into Ontario, where corporate taxes have been cut without consideration of their impact on the increase of the size of our deficit over the years. Only recently we got a report that states that corporations are not using their gains to hire new people or increase investments. It's not that they ever did, as my economics professor taught me when I first started my business courses in the 80's. In fact, many of them, including Electro Motive Diesel Company, or EMD (now under Caterpillar) have locked out their workers and are taking the companies back to their headquarters. In the case of EMD, this is Indiana. EMD took a billion dollar tax cut before all of this happened, now it just wants to shed its 500 workers and move on.

There are lots of connections between prejudices, low education and a lack of forethought. I do believe if EVERYBODY sought to educate themselves about these issues, and questioned their political representatives about them, and make them answer these questions truthfully, we might just start to see more accountability and less lies being fed to us.

Your thoughts?

OCCUPYING THE OCCUPY MOVEMENT ... and a growing fight over inequality between the rich and poor!

As we hear more about cross-continental evictions of occupy sites in the hundreds of cities and towns across North America, the Occupy Movement is shifting into Occupy 2.0. There are reasons they evicted the occupiers from their sites, and it had little to do with neighbours and others being uncomfortable with tent cities and people wandering in the parks after midnight. If this was the case, this by-law would be enforced year round, even when homeless people obviously sleep in these parks, particularly the summer time. Think about the synchronicity in which the various sites were being evicted; nobody denied being in conference at the same time to plan to stop the camp sites. But in many ways, by doing the evictions, the powers that be did the Occupy Movement a favour.

Like Niagara, we moved into Occupy 2.0 ... The occupiers haven't gone away; they just went underground. They are reaching more and more people. Tonight, I attended the monthly Philosophy Cafe that gets held in a downtown coffee shop. About ten to twelve of us at any given time talked about the significance of Occupy Movements across the continent, and whether we felt this was in for the long term or short term. Only two of us present have actually participated in an Occupy Movement; the fellow next to me was involved in the camp at St. James Park in Toronto, and I am sort of involved here. Of course I invited all the people there if they can come, to come to our next general assembly to see what Occupy Niagara is about. Occupy Niagara is on Facebook and anybody can keep track of it to learn when our meetings are, and who is involved with what ....

The people involved in the Occupy Movement are not ragtag hippies, drug addicts and homeless persons, although a few in some sites have been homeless. However, the key here is that even the homeless persons contributed to the sites in a meaningful way. They taught the rest of the folks how to live outside. Others like myself were not in a position to do so, but many people were eager to do so, but as other Occupy Movements have shifted to the next phase, we did too. Most people involved in these communities are working people, a lot of them young, but many are very old or middle aged as well. Many are students, and others are seeking jobs despite a hefty student loan and a poor job market. At the last general assembly, I spoke to a man who had two university degrees, and a college diploma, but was stuck on ODSP. He was recently terminated from a job that he enjoyed and excelled in.

Others I spoke to are business people or working people, many of whom had financial resources of their own to contribute to the cause. Others are like me, who can stand on the hilltops and tell people where the Emperor is walking, and what he is not wearing. In the meantime, the mainstream media is trying to track what the Occupy Movement is doing. We have had mixed coverage in our own region, but the Toronto Sun, both the print and broadcast version, painted those involved as being over-entitled and looking for handouts. Well, I had once written here that about many wealthy persons before, because many of them are over-entitled and seek handouts, but we don't hear about too many of them in the Sun Media, do we?

The Sun Media, as well as some other networks, try to make unionized workers into the demons that caused this recession, when in fact, they fail to recognize that there is a top 1% of the population, which likely includes the ownership of the same media they work for, that earn millions of dollars per year and likely work less hours than most of you do. In my view, nobody is worth millions of dollars per year. I don't care what they do. The government, who acts as their puppet, continues to dish out corporate welfare and tax cuts to this bunch under the delusion that somehow this wealth will trickle down to the rest of us. As someone once said, the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, and expecting different results. If it worked in the U.S., their economy would be booming, and there would be such a shortage of workers, that they'd be taking way more immigrants than they are and among its own citizens, anybody that wants a job would have one.

Our politicians say that the Occupy Movement makes sense in the U.S. because of their over-entitled bankers that crashed the economy, and then rewarded themselves with multi-million dollar bonuses after they were bailed out. While Canada might not have the SAME problems, it is as somebody else once said, "Same shit, different country". This video tells the truth about Canada's banking systems, and how the producer claims that part of our deficit is also attributed to high interest rates from the PRIVATE banks that the government borrows from to pay its bills ... What? Did you actually think the Bank of Canada did this? Of course not! Take a look!

While all of this is happening, people living in Ontario who care about poverty and disenfranchisement should note that a commission headed by Don Drummond, an economist, formerly of the federal Minister of Finance, and the TD Canada Trust, has been set up to help the provincial government implement its own range of austerity measures. These cuts and costs will most certainly hit the poor the hardest, as once again, the Premier has promised that only the Health and Education ministries will be spared cuts, but not social services, housing or transportation, etc. that help protect the poor. Given this alone, it is easier to know that the death by a thousand cuts McGuinty government has set deliberate policy decisions to hurt the poor, hoping that maybe they will all die off sooner to save their corporate friends a few bucks. They cannibalized the special diet program, and have kept both OW and ODSP rates well below the real rate of inflation. People receiving these benefits are moving into less and less safe housing, if they can find any at all, and many eat so poorly as to suffer the strangling effects of long term malnutrition. All this, whilst, Don Drummond gets his $1,500 a day consulting fees, and advises his comfortable friends in the government, most of whom just quietly received raises of tens of thousands of dollars each (by appointing almost every non-minister a parliamentary assistant or committee chair). Sneaky, sneaky.

At the same time, we watch sign posts from other countries, such as Great Britain, where they are radically culling their rolls of the Incapacity Benefit (similar to the disability benefit here), which would cut their monthly living allowances and expect them to find non-existent jobs. They did the same thing in British Columbia a few years back only to see at least one suicide a day of persons being reviewed for disability benefits eligibility. It makes me wonder where people get their intelligence from, or more particularly their math skills, when it comes to dousing people like this with a substantially lower income (as costs continue to skyrocket) and then to push them out the door to look for jobs that no employer has any obligation to hire any of them for.

Unfortunately, this ideology may become closer to Ontario than we would like to believe. Last year, Frances Lankin, former head of Toronto's United Way, and Munir Sheikh, former Head Statistician who resigned when Harper made his bone-headed decision to cut the mandatory long form census in 2010, were appointed to head Ontario's Social Assistance Reform Commission. Ontario's largest civil service union, Ontario Public Service Employees' Union, recently published their concerns that Lankin had hinted that one of their recommendations would be to allow municipalities to administer BOTH OW and ODSP, which would spell disaster. This would be a way to help cull the rolls of ODSP, and force many more on the lower paid and more punitive system of Ontario Works, which is certainly not going to serve the majority of people who have major barriers to employment. One wonders when our lovely government who thinks there are so many jobs out there will begin to force employers at gun point to start hiring qualified persons with disabilities, particularly when so many able bodied people are out of work.

Henceforth, it does not take a rocket scientist to figure out now that by doing this, the two programs will now be closer integrated, and persons with disabilities won't have a hope in hell of escaping many of the punitive rules that now impact Ontario Works recipients, such as asset stripping, family as a benefit unit (when this should have been set to individual a long time ago), unreliable delivery of cheques to guarantee one's homelessness, etc. Somebody out there ought to occupy the offices of Frances Lankin and Munir Sheikh if indeed they are planning to recommend this bone-headed idea, which will only set us back by decades.

Your thoughts?

AMONG THE INVISIBLE ...

One day on the bus heading downtown, I met a man who appeared to be in his forties, and clean shaven. He was carrying a small briefcase and a local newspaper. We started to talk, and he was able to intelligently discuss the news, the politics of the day, and issues of tomorrow. When I asked the man what he did for a living, he told me he was on the Ontario Disability Support Program. One would not know this, unless he told you. I can only assume his disability is invisible and probably creates barriers that nobody can see, and are usually unaddressed by legislation like the Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. He may or may not be able to work, but one would guess that he would not dare venture to explain his disability to an employer, fearing instant judgment even if he could benefit from some type of accommodation.

I also know people in the region who have disabilities that people can see. They use wheelchairs to get around, work with seeing eye dogs or wear hearing aids. They can acquire 'disability' aids from the Assistive Devices Program (ADP), and if they are on ODSP, they can get the 25% balance paid by them. That is a good thing, and there is no argument or reasoning to put a stop to this, as people need what they need to function and to participate in society, regardless of their disability. This is the same with respect to the Disability Tax Credit. At one point, of no value to people that earned little or no taxable income, the Disability Tax Credit is now the gateway to the Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP). This Plan is set up primarily for children and young adults that have family able and willing to contribute, and whose disability qualifies them for the Disability Tax Credit. Unfortunately, those with invisible disabilities cannot qualify for the Disability Tax Credit without almost pleading themselves incapable of living independently and making their own decisions. This applies to some people with invisible disabilities, but people with visible disabilities who could live independently, are mentally competent and even hold high level jobs, can qualify for the Disability Tax Credit.

More than 80% of the people on the Ontario Disability Support Program, or ODSP, have disabilities that are invisible, whether that be mental health issues, learning disabilities, epilepsy, intellectual disabilities, brain injuries, among many more. Most of these people, particularly if their disability is episodic, do not qualify for the Disability Tax Credit. Therefore, even if they had supportive family and a good environment around them, they cannot save for their own retirement, which is doomed unless the person wins a lottery after they turn sixty five. These people will be forced to rely solely on public pensions, or "seniors' welfare", which does not equal the poverty line anymore than ODSP makes it to the poverty line. Henceforth, after sixty-five, an ODSP recipient loses many benefits, such as dental benefits, eyeglasses, full ADP coverage, among other assorted health needs that one can argue people might need even more AFTER they turn sixty five.

At the present time, the only ODSP recipients that will be able to enjoy any kind of retirement at all are those that qualify for the Disability Tax Credit due to a largely visible disability, have family or others that are able and willing to contribute to the RDSP pot, and were young enough to receive the benefit for enough years to make it worthwhile when it started. Others applying for ODSP, including spouses, have to drain all of their retirement savings, as well as any other "rainy day" funds down to a bare minimum, and forget about ever retiring out of poverty. I can't say what percentage this would be, but I would estimate about twenty percent at the outset would benefit from the Disability Tax Credit. It is no small wonder many financial writers say that this tax credit is "under-subscribed" - it is not under-subscribed, but its eligibility criteria is so restrictive that only a minority of people with disabilities are eligible.

Even for people who are not on ODSP, but would like tax relief of this type. After all, you don't have to have only the stated restrictions to have added costs due to your disabilities. If you were a teacher, for example, with bipolar disorder, or a registered nurse with a mild form of schizophrenia, you might not even WANT to try to make yourself eligible, as your professional body might begin to investigate your competence to practice in your area, because in order to declare the tax relief for a mental disability, you have to be incapable or only able to do with help or very slowly, a number of mental functions, even if you can competently handle other functions. For example, if you are unable to balance your cheque book, you can forget about your career as an accountant, or if you have difficulties making decisions, you can forget about your career as a nurse. Yet, if your disability left you in a wheelchair or visually impaired, while these limits are definitely difficult to live with, you can still be a lawyer, a company CEO, a nurse, an accountant, or whatever, given specific software and other accommodations available to you, and get your tax credit and an RDSP. This makes many persons with disabilities reluctant to apply, which means that this benefit becomes under-subscribed, as visible disabilities are probably only about 10% of all disabilities that are possible.

In various groups I worked with, it is difficult to work with a lot of the individuals involved. When one of the groups I met with discussed the social assistance review, those with highly visible disabilities felt that only they should receive the higher amount of income support, because after all, they have "higher disability costs" than say, somebody who has a mental health issue. I dispute that, but this is an impression that many people have. I also met people who have various invisible disabilities, such as multiple chemical sensitivity, chronic fatigue syndrome, narcolepsy, migraine syndrome, post-stroke recovery, certain types of brain injury, and related disabilities, that may leave one not markedly restricted from any of the activities on the disability tax credit list, but they certainly do have major disability related costs. Persons with multiple chemical sensitivities often cannot do their own shopping or yard work because of the smells, the released fragrances of various products in the store, that even if they are not buying the products, they are nevertheless exposed. Chronic fatigue sufferers vary in their needs, but living alone, they may not be able to prepare their own meals, keep their homes clean, or even drive. If one lives where there is poor transit, they can spend hundreds even thousands of dollars on taxis or paying others to drive them, or do work for them. They cannot recover most of these costs, and therefore, many do not expend it if they cannot afford the upfront costs.

Living with an invisible disability has many effects on a person. Because the disability cannot be seen by others, unless the other person is either also disabled in a similar way, or a loved one is, they feel misunderstood and their problems and issues minimized by their community. In the past, when I employed staff for projects I was involved in, I tried to understand invisible disabilities, as well as the more obvious ones. This is something that is difficult to do, even for somebody like myself, as the person needs to disclose to me first. In one case, the person was frequently late for work, appeared sluggish sometimes during the day, and at times, rushed to complete projects at the last minute. He did good work, but these limits concerned me. Instead of applying disciplinary measures, which I had every right to, as the lateness was almost everyday, I asked him to tell me what he needs to help him do his job better. I told him I didn't want to see him rushing everything at the last minute; was there something I can do for him? He disclosed a number of issues, including narcolepsy, migraine syndrome, and other similar health issues. I asked him to tell me what makes him feel better. I learned that a half hour rest during the day, and flexible hours to meet deadlines would work. Once I applied that, his work was excellent and high quality.

Unfortunately, most other employers during that time frame in my life would only take the hard line about the lateness and the sluggish performance, and wonder if there were other problems, usually of a social nature and not disability-related. Over time, as I became more experienced in managing people, I accommodated persons who had care giving responsibilities, daycare needs, as well as those with other kinds of problems, such as English not being their first language. All of these people turned out to be excellent employees, and performed well when accommodated and understood. The accommodations were provided privately, and in a flexible manner, so that the person's privacy was respected, while at the same time, results were still expected. In one program I ran, there was a large outreach component to it, when it was funded. One of my staff was visually impaired, while I had others that were able to drive. Prior to the outreach role, the visually impaired person spoke to people on the phone, used the computer to type reports and simple correspondence, as well as counseled people in the office. She wanted to do outreach work. Given that Niagara has poor public transit, especially between communities, I had the two other staff persons do outreach outside of the head office's city, and I allowed the visually impaired person to conduct outreach within my city, using public transit to set up meetings, and organize sessions with stakeholders. She did well, and I was able to increase her work hours as well, which she wanted.

When a person with an invisible disability is not accommodated, it impacts on them psychologically. They begin to notice their disability more, and how it makes them different and less than, as opposed to just needing another work around. They can become very discouraged and become less motivated to try new things. Many will not even apply for jobs that appear to be not open to them. Employers need to learn about what is actually required in a job, not just what is nice or how a job is typically carried out. An outreach worker for my earlier project would typically drive to the various locations of the meetings we set up, and meet with people in their homes, or in public places, such as a Tim Horton's. In my mind, all I needed was an outreach worker that knew how to use public transit, and was fairly mobile in terms of using it, and can handle the "people aspects" of this job. For the person with narcolepsy and migraines, he would not have been able to carry out a full work day, if I had not found a quiet place he could lay down for about a half hour a day. Given that rest period, he was as productive as everybody else.

Most jobs can be restructured or accommodated if an employer knew how to think outside of the box. These accommodations did not cost my company very much, nor did others actually notice any impact on their own workloads as a result of my ability and willingness to accommodate the needs of these very capable people. If employers continue to not think outside the box, more and more people will be unable to work for them, or won't even bother applying for the job. I live in a region where almost every job, even office jobs, require candidates to have their own driver's license and vehicle. Why? If I was the employer, there would actually be very few jobs that would require these qualifications, even in a region like my own. If a person needed to travel sometimes outside of the office, I would instead put, "job involves some travel throughout the region for meetings and presentations". Whether the person conducted themselves to these meetings by personal vehicle, by bike, by bus or even by chauffeur, that is not my concern ... my concern is can they function at these meetings and carry out these presentations? The only jobs I would require a driver's license and personal vehicle are for jobs in which they are required to drive, such as bus drivers, taxi drivers, couriers, delivery people, limo drivers, etc.

The same would apply to many other "qualifications", such as ability to type. What if the person was unable to type, but were quadriplegic? There are computer programs that would allow that person to do exactly what I am doing now. My question would not be, "Can you type?", but "Can you use any kind of computer or other device to produce documents, reports or letters, etc.?" (if that was part of their job). If these things are so common sense to me, how come other people in charge of human resources and employment haven't caught up yet?

We have to move forward and away from "old school thinking". We have to see jobs in terms of what you need as a result or required outcome, not a process or typical means of completing the job. I hear all the time from people with disabilities, both visible and invisible, about how they wish they can work, or wish they can even volunteer for somebody, but employers and agencies don't even think beyond first base; that is, they don't consider that people need different ways of coming into their building, as well as accessing all the necessary amenities within it. Just as I would never dream of leasing an office in a multi-story building without an elevator and doors wide enough to admit even powerchairs, employers should be thinking the same way. If a visually impaired person applied for a job at my office, and they seemed to be the best candidate, I would certainly endeavour to learn how my computers can work with that person, such as what software, what website design styles, etc. would work the best for them. I would even think of how a phone can be designed for that person's use as well. These things are not that expensive, and if all employers, all facility managers, all service providers and others, considered the importance of these things, there would be less of a need for ODSP and more of a meaningful and rich life for millions of people with disabilities of all kinds.

And back onto the topic of the Disability Tax Credit, wouldn't it be wonderful if the tax credit actually related to YOUR true costs of your disability, and not just some imagined or conjured set of restrictions that appear to leave many people out, and as a result, substantially disadvantaged when other programs become tied to it?

Your thoughts?