ELECTIONS, POLITICS AND THE INSIDE WORLD OF A VOTER

Want to know what really ticks me off? People who don't vote in elections.

I recall people going to wars and risking their lives and sometimes even paying with their lives to give us this freedom. There was a time when women and blacks did not have the vote. When this was the issue, many women engaged in violence and civil disobedience to prove their point. Later on, another woman took her fight to the Supreme Court to argue that women were "persons" for the purposes of accepting an appointment to the Senate. Other women had to dress like and pretend they were men in order to engage in a profession of their choice ... this was during a time when women were not traditionally admitted to the higher paid professions, such as medicine, dentistry and law. It was sometimes found out only after the person had died and the mortician came to take the body, when it was learned that the "he" everybody believed the person was, was actually a "she".

One thing having a higher education did for me was to make me understand the history and the struggle behind things that too many people take for granted today. In one particular course I took, we were shown films that documented the lives of people who gave so much of themselves, including their lives, to a particular cause. As I continued my education, I did some studies in the historical and social psychological relevance of key events, such as the suffragette movement, the Holocaust and the French Revolution. While historical in their nature, understanding these issues helps us learn about the importance of similar struggles today. To me, these issues are all of the same fabric, but the technology is more advanced as we age as a human species.

There are a lot of people today that are trying to protest the war in Afghanistan. They say we should withdraw and bring our troops back home. Because of my learnings about the early struggles of modern humankind, I am not entirely against war. It was war that put the Nazis to their knees and freed the many European nations that Hitler attempted to take over. It was the Civil War in the United States that started the path to freedom for African Americans who were held there as slaves. I live in a part of the world where many slaves came to after the "underground railroad" was built as a means for many of them to escape before and during that war. Today, I still think the work we are doing in Afghanistan is worth something ... I think the people who should be answering whether the war is accomplishing anything are those that are involved, the thousands of soldiers and civilians who are on the grounds protecting the citizens of that country against the ravages of the Taliban and their remainders. I am one of those people who believe that Remembrance Day should mean something and that the veterans who return from these wars should be respected and their lives celebrated.

To argue that voting is a waste of your time, or that your vote doesn't make any difference doesn't persuade me. I can only envision the veterans of the first and second world wars, the leaders of the suffragette movement and those who built the underground railroad turn over in their graves as you casually disregard your duty. If you are truly disenchanted by the array of candidates presented on your ballot, the thing to do is take your ballot, fold it and return it to the Deputy Returning Officer at your polling station without marking it. This is called "rejecting your ballot", which still means you voted and your presence is recorded - even though you did not visibly support anybody on that ballot. At one time, I served many Elections as a poll clerk or deputy returning officer and we would always encounter one or two people throughout the day that did just that - rejected their ballot. We were required to strike out the voter's name and count that ballot as "rejected".

In addition to voting, I always believed in keeping active and keeping our leaders accountable. In modern days, elections are run quite differently than they were when I was directly involved in the the elections ... during this part of my life, I did everything from canvassing for a political candidate, raising funds for a political campaign, traveling throughout the riding to deliver literature and knock on doors. During one election, I was on crutches for a broken ankle, but I still hobbled my way door to door to speak to voters about the issues and to encourage them to vote for "my" candidate. I've also been involved with enumerations, which helped create the voter's list before every federal or provincial election. We would go door to door in pairs to ascertain the names of each resident who was eligible to vote in each household. We would often have to return a second or third time if a voter was not home to provide this information. I would then go home and actually type up voter's lists and submit them to my local Returning Office for posting. At the Advanced Polls, or on the Election Day itself, I also served a number of functions, whether that be scrutineering for a political candidate or remaining "neutral" and sticking to clerking at the polls.

In other functions, I actually met personally with political candidates or sent them surveys for various community groups I was involved with during the time. I would record the candidates' replies exactly as they delivered them and publish this information for people that wanted to know the positions that different parties took on issues. I would be involved with political parties - I was a member of two different parties at two very distinct and separate periods of my life. For one of the parties, I served on its executive and attended most party functions, such as policy and leadership conventions. For this party, I also served for a time as its riding association president. Much later in my life, I worked with and became part of regular political fundraising and social events for the second political party. Today, I am non-partisan, although I will attempt to serve and provide information to whoever gets into power. I've voted at least once in my life for all the major political parties, including one time when I voted for the Green Party.

Outside of electoral politics, I have served in a lobbying capacity on behalf of community organizations or my profession(s), a protester especially when I was young at heart and idealist in my culture, as well as a consultant to whatever Ministry or government department needed the type of services and advice I can offer. In my later years, after becoming non-partisan (from the radical centre, as I always like to call it), I provide consultation and assistance for community groups with respect to their communications with government or at times, as a direct consultant on specific projects. The one thing I know that doesn't change much in government is the function and role of the permanent bureaucracy. These are the people that are charged with carrying out decisions made by the government in power and in many cases, designing programs and services in response to Cabinet directives. In my working life, I enjoyed working in jobs that have occasionally brought me in contact with Cabinet Ministers and even the Leaders of political parties or Government. Through these functions, I have learned quite a bit about how democracy works.

I can't say I ever met a Cabinet Minister of any stripe that I intensely disliked. Individuals that achieve these positions of power are usually well trained to deal with a diversity of people and organizations. Most of them have also achieved a level of respect from the people who elected them in their own ridings. In fact, there were a number of them I actually liked and enjoyed meeting with. One thing to note, however, is that meeting any of these political leaders in real life is far different than reading about them through the media or hearing about them through the perspectives of others. You do develop a type of knowledge one can never obtain from any of the courses I took in school or from dealing with issues from the "outside". Despite the political affilitations and positions of many of these people, I do know that serving in their positions regardless of whether or not I like their policies is actually very difficult work. I remember attending a function that included the full Cabinet and Premier of one of our past provincial governments and meeting several of them. To me, these are all just people ... many of which are carrying a very high level of burden and responsibility.

Not only are these people responsible and accountable for everything that comes out of their respective offices, serving in the highly public capacity that they are in often creates friction with people on the "outside". If anybody thinks these conflicts do not impact on any of these people personally, they are dreaming in technicolour. Politics is a very public, as well as a personal responsibility. One mistep can cost a person their job. A major mistep that may not affect you or me either way can cost a politician their reputation and career. Think about Brian Mulroney. Many people remember this man as the "most hated Prime Minister in the history of Canada". I even remember one time when my husband and I went to visit with one of his relatives and a young girl (his niece?) was there watching television when a news story involving then Prime Minister Brian Mulroney came on. This girl turned to the TV and told us loudly that she "hated that man".

Can you IMAGINE what it is actually like to be a man in Mulroney's position which held a great deal of responsibility and certainly a need for caution, when a lot of people - including eight-year old little girls - are all pointing their fingers at you to say how much they hate you? My husband and I met Mulroney before. In real life, he is actually shorter than I envisioned him to be when I watched him on television. What I have learned at that time and in subsequent years is that these leaders are all just people ... much like you and me. I also had the occasion to enjoy a dinner function where I sat at the same table as Bob and Arlene Perly Rae while the NDP held power in Ontario. Again, these people are far different than they have ever been portrayed by the media. One thing all of our leaders have, regardless of political stripe, is the belief that they are truly doing some good. They don't want to believe they may sometimes create harm by some of their policies ... some of them are deeply sensitive to this type of attack, even though they have been trained not to show it. When something clicks in the minds of voters and these folks are literally tossed out of office, they all feel personally attacked. In fact, both Parliament and the Legislature provides a service to politicians who are tossed out of office to aid them in their career and personal transitions as a result of being voted out.

This brings me on to my next topic, which is the best way to "do" politics. Ontario had 42 years of what was referred to as a Progressive Conservative dynasty, which ended abruptly in 1985, upon the promise of extended funding for Roman Catholic schools in Ontario. I was around at the time when folks had to pay tuition at Roman Catholic schools after the eighth grade. The promise of extended funding was controversial, for sure ... as many people, as they are thinking right now on the subject of faith-based schools ... believe that support for Catholic education to the exception of all others, is discriminatory against other faiths. This is becoming even more of a key issue today, particularly with the growing diversity of our province and the richness of our multi-faith society. What may have worked in 1985 may not necessarily work today. This is the issue that threw the Progressive Conservatives out of power after 42 years of moderate (and often "bland") leadership. Since 1985, Ontario had become a more volatile political landscape, including a single term for the NDP in 1990 - 1995.

I sense voters do want to see "change", but radical changes scare people and as proven in the past, is very risky to the political careers of those that implement change too far, too soon. In many ways, our current Premier - Dalton McGuinty - has tried to represent to the voters that his leadership was the antidote to what voters got tired of with the former administration of Mike Harris/ Ernie Eves. In some ways, McGuinty did put some brakes on the ideological push and pull involved with the so-called "MUSH sector" (municipalities, universities, schools and hospitals). When Harris was in power, many of his ideas were good - but like most politicians, he wanted to do all of this in one term of office. This is what eventually did his administration in and possibly could continue to turn some voters off the Progressive Conservative party. However, there were many hot spots where McGuinty could have taken a more cautious and consensus-oriented position, but chose not to. Like Mike Harris, McGuinty had his own ideas of how things needed to be done and given the short-term view of politics, he too needed to get some of these things done in THIS term. Need I name these "changes"? Lifting the "cap" off hydro, terminating the "employment" of highly paid Hydro employees with golden parachutes, radically altering the payment structure and rate of pay for MPPs, adding a major health tax, smart meters, banning pit bulls, cutting the special diet allowances (as well as some other less known ODSP benefits), forcing paralegals under the Law Society, etc. were in his mind decisive moves, but in the minds of many voters - maybe not good ideas. I don't think the McGuinty administration actually wanted to hurt anybody with these moves; however, many of these decisions have cost jobs, businesses and hurt the working poor.

I think what most voters want is to be left alone, to be availed of work opportunities, increased income and a reasonable social safety net in the health care and social sector. They want somebody managing the good ship Ontario with a moderate, yet consensus building role at the top. People do not want to fear the loss of their livelihood or to pay more for essential services. When politicians start pulling manoevres that put some of these things at risk, they make voters nervous. People don't like strikes, major protests, long waiting lists for services that taxes should be paying for, and so forth. The machine should be well-oiled and running smoothly, while ensuring that regardless of who you are in Ontario - there is a sense of predictability and safety. This is something that unfortunately I feel I was not getting from the McGuinty government ...

While not everything that went wrong in Ontario is McGuinty's fault, voters needed to see that some effort is being made to reduce or ameliorate the negative impacts that changes might bring. With the hike in hydro, the loss of my own government contracts and the sense that paralegals are being regulated out of business, I have lost that sense of security and safety I should be receiving from my government. I have therefore lost confidence in the leadership and direction that McGuinty's government is going. I don't want another four years of suffering the way I am right now. I want access to opportunities, access to more work ... I am well over forty years of age and this is the time of my life that I begin to worry about if I will ever be able to retire. If things keep going the way they have under the present administration, I might as well forget it.

However - what if Mr. McGuinty still made the same decisions that he did, but somehow took other steps to ameliorate the negative effects of some of these policies (so people like me can stop feeling targeted)? For example, his government could have provided "seed money" to the Law Society of Upper Canada to pay them to regulate us and reduce some of our costs ... while allowing eventual economies of scale (with more paralegals eventually becoming licensed) to be the taper-off point of this funding, so that regulatory mechanisms are at least affordable to the first set of guinea pigs going through licensing (a.k.a. "grandparented" or "transitional" candidates) can actually afford to continue and the public can continue to afford to access our services. With respect to the other contracts, if changes were made to the Employment Support program, could there have been a way to negotiate some other type of related contract with my office to ensure that: (a) clients receiving my service can continue to receive services; and (b) my office can continue to serve some type of role with ODSP clients - maybe a different role, but still a role that will pay me to continue working? Would my attitude and my feeling of predictability and safety under McGuinty's watch be different? Absolutely! If things were different in this way, I may instead be campaigning for one of their people instead of wasting my time on this blog "educating" voters about my life and attitudes toward it.

In this post, I have come full circle in expressing my concerns about people that don't vote (but still complain nevertheless), to the directness of much of my life and work experience in the political and government sphere, to my knowledge of how government actually works, to my knowledge of how governments can at times unintentionally put "outside" people in precarious or difficult situations - which can and should cost them not only votes, but possibly a majority government. I often wish the powers that be could actually read my letters and my articles and get a sense of how they went wrong for me and let me have the opportunities that they speak of so frequently, but somehow seem so elusive to me. In 2003, many of us including my husband and I did vote to "choose change", but it appears this time around, we're going to have to do it again - except this time for real.

STILL THINKING OF VOTING LIBERAL?

The election is still a few weeks away. I'm already telling people not to vote Liberal.

Many people are planning to vote Liberal, because to say the least, the Liberal leader - Dalton McGuilty - is *warning* people that a vote for the NDP is a vote for the Conservatives. He is trying to get people to vote strategically to avoid what McGuilty is referring to as another era of "Mike Harris conservatism". All he can do is remind people about Mike Harris and the cuts they made to various programs, etc. This is to avoid reminding voters of the cuts and problems that Dalton McGuilty himself either created or did not fix while he had four years to do so.

Let's put the "Mike Harris theory" to bed right now.

Mike Harris has been out of politics for many years now. Most of his key Cabinet members are also either out of politics or involved at the federal level under Stephen Harper. Ernie Eves is also out of politics. Anybody who *warns* you that a return to a Progressive Conservative government in Ontario is a vote for Mike Harris is stupid, ignorant and playing mind games with you. The new leader of the Progressive Conservative party is John Tory, who was more involved when Bill Davis and other moderate conservatives were in power, not as much with Mike Harris or his government.

Further, if this is the Liberal party's key reason for you to vote for them, they are in BIG TROUBLE. Vote for me or you will get the other guy, the worse evil. Is the Liberal Party really the lesser evil they are claiming to be?

Not really.

Since they've been in power, I noted they talked nicer than Mike Harris/Ernie Eves and company, but their actions were really no different. Disability payments under Dalton McGuilty were cut back, as well as benefits reduced. Inflation took care of the rest of it. If you asked the Liberals what they are doing for people with disabilities, they will go on about how they increased benefits by 3% in 2004, 2% in 2006 and plan to increase benefits again by 2% in November of this year. Note this 2% is after the election. One wonders if this is contingent upon voting for these people.

The reality is much more stark. Disability payments were last increased in 1993, and it is now 2007 ... which means people only received a 5% hike since 1993. Further, many people on disability benefits also received special diet and other benefits. These were cut back substantially in 2005, which forced many recipients into the hospital or into ill health as a result. One man in my practise went blind in one eye as a result of being forced to cut back on his eating if he wanted to keep a roof over his head. Another one is now on dialysis. It's time to let McGuilty know how happy you are that he's spending much more on health care, although the wait lists haven't gone down one iota.

Both the NDP and Progressive Conservatives have been pointing out problems with the economy in Ontario. McGuilty replaces one lie with another by saying that 340,000 jobs were created since he took office, 80% of which are full-time and 95% of them pay $19.50 per hour or more (Toronto Star, September 12, 2007). If there were so many jobs like this, perhaps McGuilty and his boys may want to tell us where to find them, because all I see around here are big box stores and telemarketing jobs that pay $8 - $10 per hour. This is far from what is needed to feed and shelter a family in this region.

McGuilty and his boys did a lot to destroy jobs and job opportunities. In my mind's eye and personal experience, I lost between $60,000 - $80,000 in funding to operate my employment supports practice when his government decided to end my contract for no good reason (or any reason given). His government further ruined my economic integrity by ramming through Bill 14, Access to Justice Act, which is described in further detail below ... making the legal side of my business more expensive to practice, as well as less accessible because many clients can no longer afford my services. I am advised to pay to Caesar to what is Caesar's until the time comes, I suppose. I still don't blame the Law Society, as they were legislated by law to do this and were originally in agreement, believing they would be receiving "seed money" to set up our regulatory processes. One year later, regulation is in effect, but still no seed money ... but the Law Society is still expected to fund our regulation. For this reason, I place all the blame for this at the feet of the Dalton McGuilty government. If you cannot access the justice system because even paralegal services are too expensive, or if the kind of services you want or need can now only be provided by a lawyer, blame the McGuilty government for this.

In addition to the contraption that McGuilty and the boys (and girls) have set up for people with disabilities, Ontario is becoming a society where there is workfare for those that cannot work - by stealth. The Liberals don't even have to pass legislation to impose workfare on people with disabilities. They have already done so, by leaving them thousands and thousands of dollars below any given poverty line - making many so desperate to both feed themselves AND keep a roof over their head in the same month - that they HAVE TO go to work and do ANY job ...

Yes, the Liberals have made it easier to work and keep more benefits. However, the Liberals did very little to ensure that the disabled poor do not simply become part of the new working poor. Their new employment supports program for persons with disabilities almost ensures that people will be forced into taking any job, if they want a job at all. The Ministry officials tell us they are not making people take specific jobs, which may well be true, but are the service providers adequately compensated to assist somebody with a disability to attain a job that is more suitable and better paying, particularly if they have post-secondary education and at least "mid-level" work experience? Further, what have the Liberals done to ensure the "new" jobs are ones that carry with them labour board protection and job security? It is said that at least one third or more of the jobs coming onstream are "self-employment", "dependent contractor" and "independent contractor" positions that lack any legal protection. One can find this out for themselves by contacting the Worker's Action Centre in Toronto. It is no different in Niagara than it is in Toronto. Being pushed out the door by stealth because otherwise there is not enough money in ODSP to pay the rent and feed the kids is one thing; having no real job protection in the job you do eventually go to is also another thing.

The Ministry of Community & Social Services is actively encouraging and directly or indirectly subsidizing low wage employers to take on persons with disabilities or who are otherwise in receipt of social assistance. For example, in Niagara, we have the Job Bus. This is a program that the Region received $200,000 for from MCSS in order to partner with low-wage employers throughout Niagara to provide transportation for workers to the jobs these employers offer. There is no requirement on the part of these employers to provide full-time work, or even sustainable wages. The employers can pay people $8.00 an hour if they wish, with no benefits ... I particularly noted that when Canada Border Services Agency was hiring several cross-border guards at at salary of at least $55,000, the Job Bus administrators did not even attempt to engage with this employer to connect them to potentially qualified workers. The Job Bus, unfortunately, is like anything else that is band-aid ... another excuse for Niagara Region not to set up inter-municipal transit for the rest of us that want to select our own jobs, thank you very much ...

How about other things that peeve me off about the Liberals? When they were campaigning in the 2003 election, they promised voters they would not increase taxes or lower them. Almost as soon as they were sworn in, McGuilty and the boys immediately passed a health tax on almost all working people. Anybody who makes over $20,000 a year in wages, which is not a whole lot, considering that housing costs almost that much in itself for many people, starts paying $300 in health tax. Those earning over $60,000 a year pay the maximum of $900 - so whether you are earning $60,000 a year or $300,000 a year - you still pay $900. Another promise of McGuilty's to make the poor pay once again for their misuse of taxpayer's dollars. If they wanted a health tax at all, only those making over $60,000 should pay and it should start off low and get progressively higher as one's income increases.

Another issue that burns me is before Christmas last year, the Liberals held the Legislative session on overtime to ram through a 25% wage increase for themselves, while they could not do the same for people on disability or minimum wages. The Liberals have repetitively claimed the cupboard was bare when people with little or nothing asked for their right to survive, but when people approached them for comparatively frivolous things like a cricket tournament, they are not only glad to provide, but to give them even more ... remember the cricket players only asked for $150,000, but instead received a cheque for $1 million. There was at least another $32 million from this pot that was given to Liberal-affiliated organizations, many of which did not even apply for this money. While the Auditor did not seem to think that partisan politics played a role in this, he did agree that adequate controls were not in place. I suppose some people don't have to tighten their belts, while others do? One wonders how many other pots of money like this existed, but I presume steps were taken to hide this information when the election was called ... so nobody will ever know.

I presume a new government coming in will only learn that the Liberals left an unclaimed deficit of a few billion dollars, so they can't hike disability rates either. Too many cricket tournaments, I presume ... while my clients go blind or are forced on dialysis or into nursing homes, etc. I should have thought about this. I follow the wrong sport.

I've read the Liberal election platform. There is really nothing there for people with disabilities. There is no mention of continuous increased payments to ODSP/ OW recipients or better programs to improve job opportunities and outcomes for those disadvantaged in today's labour market. There is not even anything said about the work that has been started with Bill 118, Accessibility for Ontarians with Disabilities Act. Many voters who will vote blindly for the Liberal Party will only assume these things will continue, but I do not. The reason being is that McGuilty is on the hot seat for being a "promise breaker", so he is certainly not going to do anything he doesn't promise in his platform.

If the Liberals are re-elected to a majority, I suspect the following will happen:

1. A 2% increase for ODSP/ OW in November 2007, but nothing after that;
2. Implementation of workfare lite for people with disabilities by 2008;
3. More uncontrolled spending of millions or even billions on special interest groups that don't need any help; and
4. No more assistance than is already given to create GOOD PAYING JOBS.

I cynically worry that people who are doing well will vote blindly for the Liberals, almost believing everything they say - particularly about how these so called 340,000 jobs paying at least $19.50 an hour were created. The unfortunate thing with politics is that people who are doing well are usually shielded from those who are not, and if they encounter anybody in the latter category - it is too easy to assume these people are few and far between.

All I can say is that I practised as a disability issues and administrative law paralegal, starting early under the term of the Mike Harris government and it is only the past few years (Dalton McGuilty years) that I've noticed large increases in the number of my clients awaiting appeals for various benefits falling into spells of homelessness, suicide, family breakup and other signs of commiseration. It is not that this did not happen under the Harris government, as it certainly did, but under the Harris government - if I had this type of concern, my local MPP was empowered to deal with it and they actually did something about these issues most of the time.

Nowadays, it is getting harder to do my job, as my clients appear to be more desperate and experiencing a lot greater degree of financial hardship imposed, because Ontario Works - under the present Liberal government is now the resource of first resort, as opposed to last resort. Injured workers, disabled persons, recently separated spouses, recently laid off persons, EI exhaustees, etc. are all now referred to Ontario Works, as opposed to getting what used to be "interim assistance" during any appeal process. Readers of my posts, as well as others who are familiar with Ontario's lack of social safety know, that when Ontario Works becomes the resource of first resort, that means more people lose their homes, end up at the doors of food banks and more families split up.

Is this the kind of Ontario you want to have? If you don't mind the widening gap between the rich and the poor, escalating costs of health care (which are not driven by the ageing population but by poverty) and increased taxes, then vote Liberal. If you sincerely want to choose change for the better, vote strategically on October 10th, 2007, to help bring about a minority government of any stripe that will need to work with other MPPs for once to pass any new legislation. Maybe and only then will we stop having majority governments ram any legislation that want down people's throats ... legislation that is having major and negative consequences on the people it affects, as well as increased costs.

I invite you to join my ABL (anybody but Liberal) campaign. Thoughts?

WRITS ARE DROPPED, THE GLOVES ARE OFF!

You would have to be hiding in a cave if you live in Ontario and were unaware of an election taking place right now. Officially, Premier Dalton McGuinty kept one of the many promises he made during his 2003 election bid - he promised fixed dates for elections and the next one is coming October 10, 2007. Today, he paid a visit to our newly minted Lieutenant Governor, the Honorable David Onley, to "officially" call this election.

Alright! The gloves are off! Political junkies like me are back in the ring to observe this circus and urge every one of you to buy a ticket! This is going to be the best show on Earth. Dalton McGuilty apparently shorn the size of his election promises from over 250 down to about 140 this time. The chances of him keeping most of them are relatively slim, although I am glad he kept the ONE promise about the upcoming vote ... if he reneged on that one, he surely would have known there would be a BIG price to pay. (To be honest, I was waiting for the apologies and a *sad* excuse of an announcement from Dalton McGuilty about why we weren't going to have a vote this October ... polls, perhaps?).

I don't stick to any particular political party, although my politics best fits in as a RED Tory. The so-called "red Tories" in Ontario don't really have a party, but John Tory - ironically embraced as the Leader of the Tories in Ontario - has hinted that he is attempting to steer the direction of his party back to the moderate 'blah' days of Bill Davis, which fits RED Tories just fine, which means there is more room in the Tent of a political party that has been traditionally moderate in Ontario. That doesn't mean I always vote the same. I've voted for all three major political parties and I believe I even supported the Greens at one time. This time, my loyalties tend to be personal, not political. I am voting for Peter Kormos, the rabble-rousing once fully-clothed Sunshine Boy, who posed for the Toronto Sun during his party's only and last reign in Ontario and doing this not only got his hands slapped, but he got thrown out of Cabinet over the "ordeal". People who reside where Peter does wonder what the big deal was, but anyways ... Peter is getting my vote this time around!

Yes, I like Peter Kormos. He supported my concerns on a large number of personal issues I had about the Liberals this time around. He is also the first MPP and is part of the ONLY political party that did not support this 25% raise the Legislative Assembly voted for themselves last Christmas. It is only too bad that the Liberals didn't stop playing grinch and grant ODSP and OW recipients a similar raise and as quickly. This raise was really the moment of arrogance I am using when I actually felt like taking off my gloves and putting up my dukes to fight this ... which is exactly WHY many people don't vote and WHY many people do not get politically involved. The Liberals create an open and shut case for arrogance as a result of that stupid raise they rammed through last year, particularly when at the same time, a Private Members' Bill by one Andrea Horvath (sp?), a relatively new NDP MPP, was on the table to raise the minimum wage to $10 an hour. The Liberals gave the working poor the finger last Christmas while they voted themselves a raise that in all cases in itself equals more than double what people earning Minimum Wages earn in Ontario in a year or even more .... I heard Dalton McGuilty took an extra $40,000 home himself.

The reason the Liberals started this stupid raise was because they appointed a committee to look at Legislative salaries and how poorly they fared against what federal Members of Parliament were earning. My response to that? Too bad! Maybe the federal MPs are earning too much, as opposed to our own politicos making too little. So, one of the groups I work with - the ODSP Action Coalition - which includes legal clinics, community organizations, disability groups, advocates like me that can't be classified anywhere, as well as people who are the victims of ODSP - turned around and is now demanding a similar "independent" body to study and establish what social assistance and ODSP rates should be, as we all know - the current rates are not based on any rational criteria. Somebody just went eeny-meeny miney mo and reached into a hat and ta-da ... that's how the present rates were set. Anybody with any modicum of intelligence knows that shelter costs alone (let alone taxes, utilities and all the other junk most of us also have to pay to keep a roof over our heads) FAR exceed what people actually receive for this expense by hundreds of dollars, even in the cheapest community in Ontario! So, we assume that if the Liberal-appointed independent committee that recommended their raise was looking at things objectively and these poor politicos were truly overworked and underpaid, maybe a similar committee can study what ACTUAL shelter costs, utilities, food, transportation, clothing, etc. actually costs for people who rely on ODSP, for example, and may otherwise be unable to work .... maybe such an independent committee might recommend a raise of 25% or even more!

However, the Liberals - knowing the Big E-Day was coming, passed a so-called anti-poverty budget last March, giving people on ODSP another freaking 2% (which they must theoretically wait for until AFTER the current ship of fools, er ... government is hypothetically re-elected), while just three months earlier they rammed through their own raises ... and tried to give the public yet another snow job. One of these "initiatives" is the Ontario Child Benefit. The government made it sound so good by giving it a BIG number ... how does $2.1 BILLION sound? ... spread over five freaking years! They supposedly gave low-income families a "down-payment" of up to $250 per child this past July. I spoke to many of the low income families I know, including many of whom are only getting ODSP. Guess what? Many of them got ZERO! That's right! Others got perhaps $41 for one child; another got $100 for a grand total of four kids ... wow, does this make you wanna vote Liberal now? The thing is the Liberals have counted all income, including any ODSP, special needs money, medical travel, etc. as INCOME for the purposes of setting the Ontario Child Benefit rates. The losers in this ordeal are, as follows: ODSP families with more than one child (as the clock starts ticking and docking 8 cents for every dollar after total income is calculated past $20,000 annually), families that pay market rents, families that have as one or more of their members who are medically disabled or who have special needs, such as dietary, diabetic, travel and so forth ... The winners in this ordeal are: single parents with one child on Ontario Works, particularly if they live in subsidized housing ... theoretically, people who are able to work. I smell a discrimination suit here! Any takers? Get in line!

The next thing the Liberals did is blow more money on subsidized housing. I differ significantly from many anti-poverty activists where I do not support subsidized housing, while most anti-poverty activists do. Ironically, the most outspoken, most vocal and most visible "spokespeople" for so-called subsidized housing are people that do not have to live there, but I didn't say that ;-). But even if I was a believer in this, the amount they put into this system will barely make a dent in the alleged 122,000 families on the so-called wait list. The other 118,000 families must still continue to wait ... and wait .... and wait. And the illusion, of course, if that people are moving up the waiting list, so therefore, some who have given up even being there in the past will now join the rest of them at the back of the line, thus netting no less people on this hypothetical waiting list. If the Liberals (or anybody else, for that matter) ensured that people always had enough money to cover what they need, I suspect the "demand" for subsidized housing would otherwise drop to a trickle. 'Nuff said.

Again, the Liberals promised another 2% raise for ODSP and OW. I agree with my detractors in that party that it is better than nothing, but it certainly is not better than inflation ... it is not even as much as inflation. With our so-called "growing economy", which I fail to see in this Region, with plant after plant shedding its workers onto low-paid service industry jobs, the economy can only promise galloping inflation! In general, people on Ontario Works are lucky if they can snag a room for their $536 a month. Those on ODSP may be able to do better than that, but as I said in this tome before, eating is another story. This is exactly why our health care dollars are going up and up and up! The Liberals are going to tell us they are spending more on health care. That is true in a twisted sense ... but let me show you why they are spending more on health care.

One woman, Gina, inherited a particularly virulent form of diabetes from her paternal side of the family. By the time she turned 30, she was on 4 needles a day. Her father and a paternal aunt suffered through amputations and others on that side died of heart failure. For the want of a freaking insulin pump, which the government of THAT day, could well afford, Gina ended up now a double amputee, a sufferer of two major heart attacks and she is slowly losing her kidney function. Dialysis doesn't come cheap. Another person, Annette, who had about $100 left on her ODSP after her housing costs were paid was also insulin-dependent diabetic and supposedly receiving maximum assistance. Nevertheless, Annette lost control over her diabetes because she couldn't afford the proper food and lose weight. She had severe heart attack and is now living in one of our finer nursing homes at $2,500-$3,000 a month ... yes, the government is spending more on health care. Finally, Jim, yet another diabetic in his 40's, once managed a one-bedroom apartment that was finally his after we found him an extra $250 on his ODSP cheque for 'special diet'. This new apartment did not come with pets, like his last one did -- roaches, fleas, bedbugs, lice, the whole gambit. Moving was good for him. Nevertheless, the Liberals, then under the stewardship of Sandra "let them eat cake" Pupatello, swiftly and deftly cut the 'special diet subsidy' to a mere trickle of what it was ... and now, Jim is paying 90% of his ODSP cheque towards his apartment, plus hydro. His diabetes got worse and now he's going blind. Yes, the Liberals are spending lots more on health care! These are mere examples of the total I am aware of ...

The Liberals are promising to spend even more on health care. Concurrently, I see absolutely nothing in their platform that would indicate that ODSP rates will increase more than the promised 2% in November 2007. To me, more health care spending + little or no increases to ODSP = more sickness, misery and disease. We need to be frank about this political party before any of us believe any of them when they say they were a friendlier replacement for Mike Harris, or Mike the Knife, as they called him. They just stab you in a different way and smile at you while they do it - that's all.

Finally, most of the polls I am reading appear to show a Liberal minority government. After this particular government has given short shrift to the NDP when they refused to lower the 'official party' status funding for them when they came up one seat short last election of this particular threshhold, and only after enormous public pressure, the governing Liberals relented a little bit - I don't think the NDP should be propping these boys (and whatever girls are left of this party after so many women resigned en masse this time around) should there actually be a Liberal minority. I think a good way for the NDP and anybody else that wants to vote anybody-but-Liberal this time around would be to witness the greatest shift of events of all time -- let thy trapeze artiste swing to the right and allow the NDP to prop John Tory and a minority Progressive Conservative government for a few years in exchange for a centre-based, trustworthy party and bigger tent for everybody. Maybe David Onley might suggest this arrangement given what happened when Frank Miller's PC government self-destructed in 1985 over Catholic school funding and the NDP chose to dance with the then Peterson Liberals for two years. We need a government that for once listens to the voters - a government that may need to be a minority in order to prevent it from even wanting to ram anything down our throats anymore like 25% raises while pretending and not actually doing anything about poverty.

So folks, off to the races! I will see you October 10th or perhaps, before that, with more rough and tumble reports of the radical centre! I may talk about the referendum the next entry, another very important piece of this election puzzle.

ACCESS TO JUSTICE IN ONTARIO?

In Ontario, there are about 2,000 of us that practice as Independent Paralegals. In Ontario, Independent Paralegals, who are not Lawyers, but provide services in a number of less complex legal areas, are permitted to practice independently.

Over the past thirty or more years, such Independent Paralegals provided services directly to the public in the following areas: small claims court, worker's compensation, no-fault accident benefits, immigration, uncontested divorce, simple incorporations, basic wills/powers of attorney, traffic tickets, minor criminal charges, among many others. However, over recent years, a number of Lawyers - primarily those in small or solo practices - began to complain about Independent Paralegals taking over certain aspects of their businesses and offering it to the public for cheaper. Instead of telling the public the truth about their motives (money), these particular Lawyers argued that Independent Paralegals are not regulated, not insured, not educated and therefore, not accountable to anybody.

Yes, that's true. For a very long time, Independent Paralegals were not regulated in a FORMAL way, although for the past twenty years, associations of Paralegals lobbied the government to enact some form of self-regulation for this profession. Members of these associations were required to carry insurance, adhere to a certain code of conduct and have a minimum level of education or relevant hands-on experience. So, to state that all Paralegals were uninsured, uneducated and unaccountable was not truly accurate. However, the government never made it mandatory for any Paralegal to join any of these associations - people were still able to practice as a Paralegal without any insurance or standards because they choose not to belong. Most Paralegals didn't like this either.

The then Liberal government of the day in 1989 appointed Professor Ron Ianni, then President of the University of Western University, to review what it called the "paralegal problem" and for the Task Force to come up with ideas on how Independent Paralegals can be regulated, if at all. The Report, later affectionately known as the Ianni Report upon its 1990 release, consulted broadly with stakeholders on the issue, including Lawyers, Paralegals, schools, clients of Paralegals, etc. and concluded that Independent Paralegals do need some regulation, but did emphasize that over-regulation was an inappropriate balance. At that time, the Law Society of Upper Canada, Ontario's body that presently regulates Lawyers, did not express an interest in regulating Paralegals, as they felt it would be a conflict of interest. Ianni recommended against it anyways, citing that some type of government regulation might be appropriate, which would include licensure, training and certification.

The Ianni Report disappeared like a puff in the wind and nobody mentioned it anymore, except to make repetitive references to the "problem" over time. Under the succeeding NDP government, a Private Members' Bill, the Legal Agents Act (or Bill 42), was introduced in an attempt to license and regulate traffic court agents. This initiative sprung in response to the famed Lawrie/POINTTS decision, in which the Ontario Court of Appeal issued an interpretation of the word 'agent' in the Criminal Code to include paid agents and that wherever permissable by legislation, paid agents would be allowed to appear in a judicial forum on behalf of clients. This court fight started when the Law Society attempted to charge Brian Lawrie, founder and then President of POINTTS, with the unauthorized practice of law. Lawrie eventually won when his practice was legalized, but the "paralegal problem" continued to remain.

The Law Society continued to prosecute several Independent Paralegals who were practising in other areas of law, such as uncontested divorces, wills and other "solicitor" type work. Maureen Boldt and her business, Boldt Paralegal and Mediation Services, was particularly a *hot* target in the 1990's and continues to be today. Unfortunately, Boldt signed an undertaking to agree not to practice law in certain areas, but continued. The Law Society used this to successfully prosecute her in the end. Others have also been targeted for doing similar work. I am aware of entire practices that have had to close down, with their principals ending up having to accept low paid work or nothing at all after they shut down their business ... as anybody who is self-employed knows, you can't get Employment Insurance from the closure of your business. Others quietly moved to other areas of law where Independent Paralegals are permitted to practice or worked as an employee in a legal firm.

I am in no way defending or not defending the targets in these cases, but I am illustrating historically what has become a long-entrenched symptom of poor and declining access to justice in this province. These entrepreneurs stepped in when Lawyers either would not or could not provide certain services at a reasonable fee to the general public. In fact, there were many Lawyers before that regularly referred prospects to Independent Paralegals because they knew that their own office either did not get involved in certain uncomplicated matters or could not afford to provide the service at a rate consumers can pay. Many of these Lawyers did have personal contacts in the community as well to refer these clients to - Independent Paralegals they knew and trusted. However, detractors of Independent Paralegals continued to squawk ... they complained they were losing income as a result of being a sole practitioner or involved in a small firm with Independent Paralegals being part of the cause ... (which to date, nobody could really prove, but this is how Paralegals get scapegoated).

Under the Progressive Conservative government of Mike Harris, several attempts were made to find a balance between access to justice and regulation of the providers. Then Attorney-General James Flaherty appointed esteemed former Supreme Court Justice Peter Cory to conduct a review on the regulation of Independent Paralegals, then affectionately known as the Cory Report. He held a series of consultations in Toronto inviting all stakeholders to participate in discussions and roundtable style hearings. He also accepted written presentations and research by presenters, as well as external consultants. After the release of the Cory Report, there were some major recommendations that if implemented would have led to a rational form of regulation for Independent Paralegals, including a recognition that Independent Paralegals had an important role to play in many areas of law where a substantial number of people are representing themselves, such as family law. Cory, like Ianni, rejected Law Society governance on the basis that it was a conflict of interest. Cory instead recommended some type of public body at arm's length, designed in a similar manner to Legal Aid Ontario, to oversee Independent Paralegals. Again, this Report disappeared like a cloud of dust in the night.

The Progressive Conservatives did not stop trying, however. They asked the Independent Paralegals to form a single umbrella organization through which continued discussions can take place with other stakeholders, like the Law Society of Upper Canada and Ontario Bar Association. The Professional Paralegal Association of Ontario (PPAO) was born. Originally mandated to equally represent all six paralegal interests on its Board, the PPAO was going to be the spokesperson for the regulation of Independent Paralegals. This organization originally included two members from the Institute of Law Clerks of Ontario (ILCO), Paralegal Society of Ontario (PSO), Institute of Agents at Court (IAC), POINTTS, Ontario Association of Professional Searchers of Records (OAPSRS) and the Ontario Prosecutors Association (OPA). With the downloading of provincial offences courts to respective municipalities, an increase in the number of non-Lawyer agents working for municipalities opened the door to the OPA. For awhile, this worked well.

However, as "talks" continued between the PPAO and the Lawyer associations, a certain silence was in the air with regards to general knowledge of what was being discussed from the standpoint of Independent Paralegals and possibly even individual Lawyers. A so-called Framework for Regulation was approved and released to the public in 2002, which was the start of proposed regulation by the Law Society of Upper Canada and defined restrictions as to what Independent Paralegals can offer, as well as a new style of "partnership" between Lawyers and Paralegals with regards to completion of so-called "solicitor work" by Independent Paralegals. Neither the Lawyer associations or Paralegal groups liked this Framework, even though it was continuously pushed by each side of the discussion to their respective constituencies.

In 2002 - 2004, there were numerous developments in the work of the Professional Paralegal Association of Ontario (PPAO), and presumably the work of various Lawyer associations. During this period of time, something happened and the voice of the Independent Paralegal got lost. Town Hall meetings were organized by PPAO to introduce and presumably receive feedback on the various phases of these discussions. As somebody who had been in attendance at all but one of these Town Hall meetings, I can't remember a single Independent Paralegal in attendance actually agreeing to the Framework or any watered down version of the same, or even the basic idea of regulation of Paralegals by the Law Society of Upper Canada. Nevertheless, the Progressive Conservative government was tossed out and replaced by the current Liberal administration in October 2003, which in my view made things even worse.

The whole issue here is not that Independent Paralegals hate Lawyers. Many of us work closely with Lawyers and have no trouble working with them. I personally regard many Lawyers to be within my own professional community and networks. It is that Independent Paralegals are naturally afraid of losing what little they actually have left of their businesses. Many are too educated to work as legal secretaries or even legal assistants, although they may not quite have the law degree of a Lawyer. Where else could they work, if they cannot offer basic services independently? With increased technology, there is less need for legal secretaries in law firms and other types of legal support staff tend to be overworked and underpaid. None of these "discussions" were ever intended to put Independent Paralegals only under the supervision of Lawyers, as two contrasting events also took place while all these "discussions" were happening.
First, Humber College was the first educational facility to offer a four-year degree program in Paralegal Studies. This program, if you looked at the brochure, is very comprehensive and broad-based in terms of the knowledge imparted on the Law. Students graduating from such a program would not join a law firm to earn only $25,000 - $30,000 a year ... particularly with the way student loans have skyrocketed in the past ten years, but somebody is going to want to employ these people. Second, legal publishers, insurance companies, conference organizers and other businesses that used to only cater to Lawyers now cater to Independent Paralegals ... software companies are coming out that actually assist people in researching legal precedents, search firms are registering Independent Paralegals on the web to enable them to search information on corporations or locate runaway defendents, etc. These firms would not be marketing their offerings in this way if they did not see potential.

As time went on, the associations that made up the Professional Paralegal Association of Ontario began to question how decisions were being made and how much Independent Paralegals were truly being consulted before the PPAO took on any kind of position. At the same time, the executive committee of the PPAO began to feel it was useless fighting and that the Law Society was inevitably going to be our regulator - period. For awhile, the PPAO was taken to task by members of the associations and forced to take a more independent approach, which is why this organization developed a 'war chest' and used the money to hire a lobbyist to help sell self-regulation to the government of the day. However, despite the surface claims by the PPAO of their push for self-regulation, many Independent Paralegals felt they were still complicit in creating the end result, which was Bill 14, Access to Justice Act.

I can't personally attest to whether or not the PPAO itself actually pushed for Law Society regulation or just simply tried to find a compromise from among a set of very bad choices forced on them by the powers that be. During the period between 2004 - 2005, there were many attempts to "take over" the PPAO by the other associations, which by this point have become invisible in their landscape. The PPAO had long since opted to include individual members who were not members of any of the other associations and no longer required that two members of each serve on its Board of Directors. Instead of being an umbrella association or spokesperson for all the associations, the PPAO essentially became just another Paralegal association.

This unfortunately was not what the government saw. They continued to treat the PPAO as THE spokesperson for all Independent Paralegals, even though its membership was fast declining from among the associations. When other associations attempted to have an audience with Attorney-General Michael Bryant or his Parliamentary Assistant, David Zimmer, they were given the brush-off and told to work through the PPAO. In addition to this brush-off, representatives from the associations were basically told it was going to be the Law Society regulating them, whether they liked it or not. Democracy in this present government suddenly turned on its head and our elected representatives were now telling us what to do.

In the fall of 2005, it became clear that with the introduction of Bill 14, Access to Justice Act, change wasn't going to take place either in the PPAO or the Attorney-General's office. The other Paralegal associations began to petition and members therein exercised their votes and proxies and on January 14th, 2006, the Professional Paralegal Association of Ontario, was officially dissolved by a near unanimous vote by its members. Only one member voted against the resolution. With the dissolution of the PPAO, the other associations took their own stance against Bill 14 but were primarily ignored. If you read the minutes of provincial Hansard, the word for word proceedings of the Ontario Legislature, particularly during the second reading debate of Bill 14, one can see that even in April 2006, several months after PPAO's dissolution, the Liberal supporters of Bill 14 continued to meet with "representatives" of this group and refer to them favourably in their comments. This is despite the fact that members of the Paralegal Society of Ontario, Paralegal Society of Canada (loosely, a federal counterpart to PSO) and other groups attended the Legislative Assembly and sat in the Visitors' Gallery and even wrote and met with various representatives to ask them to reconsider Bill 14.

After its second reading was passed, the Bill soon went to Public Hearings through the Standing Committee on Justice Policy. One can access a transcript of those Hearings by visiting the Ontario Legislative Assembly's website and double clicking on Committees and scrolling down to the Standing Committee on Justice Policy. The way the Legislative Assembly's website was redesigned allows people to scroll through the daily transcripts of each Committee to find the particular Bill they are looking for. Look for Access to Justice Act, Bill 14. There were some Hearings in the spring of 2006, while other days were booked in August and September 2006. I personally watched and reviewed the transcripts of every single day these Hearings took place.

Presenters were divided into three camps. The first camp included Lawyers and Lawyers' associations that basically supported the intent of Bill 14, but many had smaller issues within the Bill itself. Some of these issues included the need to clearly differentiate between Independent Paralegals and Lawyers when the Law Society Act is redrafted, as well as to specifically state IN LEGISLATION what an Independent Paralegal can do and cannot do. A few commented on other aspects of Bill 14, which included issues around the appointment of Justices of Peace, changes in the Limitation Act, changes to settlement provisions in medical malpractice cases, etc. The second camp of presenters on the "Paralegal issue" included organizations of other professionals that did not want to get swept up in the definition of "practice of law" and end up having to be regulated twice. These groups included bankers, real estate agents, appraisers, unions, etc. who all think they do legal work, but they don't really. My final feedback on that question was only to make sure these professionals act only within their professional boundaries and not try to act outside of them ... yes, I've seen social workers and property managers appear on behalf of "clients" in court and that certainly needs to stop. The third camp included Independent Paralegals and their supporters (such as clients or organizations that work with Independent Paralegals). Out of dozens of presentations from this camp, there was a grand total of three presentations made by Paralegals, two of which included presenters appearing in pairs ... that were in favour of Bill 14. The grand total of five presenters that supported Bill 14 included Michelle Hague, Stephen Parker, Paul Dray, Margaret Louter and Brian Lawrie.

Even among these five Paralegal presenters that generally did not have problems with Law Society regulation, they still wanted to ensure that 'Paralegals' were equal to 'Lawyers' in the new Act and wanted to ensure we were not treated as second class. The rest of us had a running bet about who the Attorney-General would pick to sit as Paralegal representatives on the Standing Committee on Paralegal Services, which is the part of the Law Society that was created by this Act that would ultimately regulate us. This Standing Committee would include the five Paralegals appointed by the Attorney-General, five Lawyers appointed by the Law Society and three persons who were neither Paralegals or Lawyers appointed by the Law Society. I bet successfully that the five above named persons would be appointed ... it didn't come as much of a surprise to me, because governments generally want people in these types of positions to support the intent behind the roles and responsibilities of these positions. While I have no personal issues against any of the five individuals selected, I did have a concern that one of the members is not an Independent Paralegal but works as a Law Clerk. If this person were to be appointed, I would argue they should have been one of the three persons who were not Independent Paralegals or Lawyers, but unfortunately for our government, they didn't do that.

There were dozens of other Independent Paralegals, as well as supporters, who spoke clearly against Bill 14. Henceforth, regardless of what was said about exemptions, concerns over conflict of interest, perceived restrictions on practice and so forth, the government charged right ahead and did what it wanted regardless. What really told me this was on one of the Hearing dates, despite many people being turned away on the basis of there being "no more room", an unscheduled guest appeared on one of the September 2006 slots. This guest was Dylan McGuinty, none other than our Premier Dalton McGuinty's brother who also happens to be a Lawyer and in his time slot, most certainly went on to rip Independent Paralegals up and down. Dylan McGuinty, as well as many of the other Lawyer guests that appeared, claimed they spent some of their time "correcting" mistakes made by Independent Paralegals. Henceforth, I can also attest to many times that I, as well as many of my Independent Paralegal colleagues and other Lawyers, have corrected work done by Lawyers! So, Dylan, what was your point again?

The Bill got passed in a hurry during its third reading in the Legislature. Both the NDP and Progressive Conservatives voted against Bill 14, while the Liberal majority rammed it through. While just about everybody, including Independent Paralegals, believe Paralegals should be regulated -- 99.99% of them think the Law Society is not be the appropriate body. Oh well, Michael Bryant got his way and the Bill was proclaimed and in effect as of May 1, 2007. On April 24th, 2007, the Law Society of Upper Canada organized its own province-wide teleconference to answer questions of Paralegals about the pending regulation under its auspices, what they needed to do, if they qualified under grandparenting provisions and what were "transitional" provisions, and so on. This was hardly one week before the May 1, 2007, start date, upon which if ANY Independent Paralegal wanted to continue to practice, would have to: (a) carry sufficient Errors & Omissions Insurance; (b) adhere to the Paralegal Code of Conduct; and (c) practice only in the permissible areas of Law outlined on the Law Society's website. Further, all Independent Paralegals or prospective Independents under the 'grandfathering' or 'transitional' categories have to apply to the Law Society for a screening (e.g. good character, experience, etc.) and then write an exam, scheduled to be sitting on January 17, 2008, in Toronto.

I have no problems with any of this. In fact, I am one of those Independent Paralegals that have been wanting regulation for a long time. No, I don't think the Law Society was the right choice, but given that Michael Bryant forced the issue - we have to try to make it work for us. However, I have many concerns about the way this regulation was pushed through. About half the Independent Paralegals practiced the wrong kind of law and will therefore not qualify for grandparenting. I know at least three at this given moment that have had to close their doors and because they had no other employment or income options, turned to Ontario Works. They disappeared off the radar. I anticipate many more may end up there before May 1, 2008, when the first set of Independent Paralegals get licensed. A few others, including many high profile Independent Paralegals got jobs outside the legal field altogether. A couple of the lucky ones were able to find suitable work for an employer in the legal field.

Many Independent Paralegals remain. I am one of them. Some of us have already got their applications turned in to the Law Society of Upper Canada and others, including myself, are in process of getting this done. Again, this is not the issue here. When we're licensed, we will still be able to do what we've always done, at least for those of us practising in permissible areas. What gets me about this whole thing is the costs ... the fees the Law Society is charging for each step of our licensing process are very steep for many people. Many Independent Paralegals may not be able to complete this process due to the fees alone. The average income of an Independent Paralegal is between $24,000 to $30,000 a year. Is it really fair to impose approximately $3,000 in additional direct costs, plus another $5,000 in indirect costs on each of these people, whose incomes are at best, modest? Further, with regards to permissible areas of practice, some regions fare better than others. In the Toronto area, there are many head offices and large companies that do their dealings through the Greater Toronto Area. Independent Paralegals have much more opportunities within the GTA region to develop contacts with high volume clients than they do, say, in Timmins or Sault Ste. Marie. Niagara Region is not much better. So, Independent Paralegals are punished for where they live and work, even though their clients need them just as much in Timmins, Sault Ste Marie, North Bay and Niagara Falls, as they do in Toronto.

While I cannot definitively make predictions based on what is currently in place, as the full impact of regulation has not been felt yet, I do have many concerns about restricted areas of practice, regions of practice and licensing/regulation costs. The least that Michael Bryant could have done is use his head when he put this Act together to make sure there will be Independent Paralegals available throughout the province, instead of just in high volume areas like Toronto and Mississauga. In other words, he could have issued different levels of licenses, so Paralegals that don't have a lot of Landlord and Tenant work in their regions (like I get called on one of these cases once or twice a month at best, because 75% of people in Niagara own their own homes) can practice in another area, like family law duty counsel, filing uncontested divorces, setting up a search house (which can be done anywhere), doing incorporations, etc. Small Claims Court also needs to increase its jurisdiction from $10,000 to perhaps, $25,000, and yes - the Judges that serve this Court should be paid a lot more too!

There should also be access to telephone hearings for certain Tribunals, so that I can represent anybody across Ontario, for example, on disability claims. At present, I do travel for some of these cases, but teleconferencing access would make it possible for me to pick up more clients and do more for them. There should also be access to salaried positions to do the type of work I do, because much of what I do falls in the gap between Legal Aid and "regular" cases. For example, I should be able to do a certain number of cases under a specific amount of money paid to my firm by the government (and I can report on the number of cases opened, progress and closures, etc. without disclosing confidentiality so they know people are getting served). I can then do other cases that are not on behalf of low income, but the client can pay on a private basis. This way, not only will there be competent Paralegal services available to people, but there will be a reduction in fees or no fees for those that cannot afford this type of service, but cannot access Legal Aid. Legal Aid is very limited and restricted in the types of services they fund and most Lawyers do not take Legal Aid cases anyways.

Finally, the Attorney-General should provide the Law Society of Upper Canada with money for "start up costs" for its task in regulating us. Although the Law Society accepted this task, they are not getting paid for it by the government. That is very foolish, as now the Law Society is forced into a position where it had to hire a number of additional staff, re-jig its administrative systems, upgrade its computers and phone lines, as well as its website, in order to accommodate incoming Paralegal members. Lawyers certainly shouldn't be billed extra so that the Law Society can regulate us. They pay enough. Independent Paralegals cannot afford the full freight, as we do not on average earn as much as Lawyers do. Doesn't the Attorney-General even read the reports about the troubles faced by sole practitioners and Lawyers in small firms? These people feel they are not making enough money to cover their own regulatory costs ... why would the Attorney-General think WE can afford it, when we make even less?

So, guess what? Those of us who intend to continue to practice had to re-assess our fees. I cancelled most of my subscriptions and non-mandatory memberships and cut back other expenses, and increased my hourly rate and most of my flat rates. This cost me about 15% of my clients, but the other ones will pay the increase. I think this has to do with being Canadian, how we all can be taxed to death and we never complain. However, I think this is a very serious wrong that is being imposed on us by the government. If the Attorney-General wants us to continue to provide accessible, affordable legal services, why is he forcing us to pay through the nose just to keep our doors open? How about all those businesses, such as software companies, reporting services, etc. that used to make a good profit off of us? Now, they are making less money because I know I am not the only one who had to cancel a number of subscriptions. I will re-think it next year when regulation is firmly in place and I know where I stand, but right now, it just seems that no matter how much money comes in, it goes out just as fast and I am still not making any money. This simply sounds like another Liberal job creation project to me and another way to put more people on welfare.

But then again, who am I to know? Isn't it the Attorney-General's mandate to work with us, as well as the Lawyers, to make sure there is access to justice in this province? After all the experience I had working with Paralegals, serving on boards and lobbying the government over this issue, I am really having my niggling doubts that access to justice was truly the goal of Bill 14 and the regulation of Independent Paralegals.

Until then, I have to do what is required to keep my doors open. However, as I told all of my clients, I am not finished with this topic yet. I've only just begun.

Working for People with Disabilities?

For a long time, people with disabilities have been crying the mantra of inclusion. In fact, one federal coalition has set up a website called End Exclusion. This website was at first set up as an interactive website where people with disabilities, as well as their friends and family, can comment on issues faced by them in real life. One area of exclusion is the area of Employment and to a lesser extent, Self-Employment.

There are thousands of people, as well as for-profit and not-for-profit agencies that profit from the hopes and dreams of people with disabilities by promising or offering assistance to them by way of preparing them for, or actually finding them, work. People with disabilities flock over to these agencies because they want to work, just like anybody else without a disability. However, just how effective are these agencies in finding people work? If they do find people work, what are the quality of jobs offered when compared to the candidate's personal work history, education and career aspirations?

I personally don't know the "success rate" as one can call it of these agencies, or whether certain agencies have a better "success rate" than others. However, a few years ago, I ran a for-profit agency that assisted persons with disabilities in obtaining self-employment and occasionally, assisted them in finding traditional employment opportunities. My own "success rate" was fairly good, if "success" was actually measured against what the person or client came to our office looking for. Many of these folks were unable to work full-time or work in a traditional workplace due to a myriad of disability and environmental reasons. However, many were able to succeed in developing and continuing to operate their own small businesses for a year or more - even if the income from the business did not take them totally off income supports. Some never came to us to get off ODSP. They just wanted to earn some extra money through a small business. Others did start a business and get off the system and a couple moved on to hire others. I have also worked with people who have moved off ODSP through their businesses, but have incurred substantial overpayments. Our office would negotiate with the originating agency to reduce the overpayments, review actual business earnings, etc.

Besides myself, there are many other agencies that have once provided or currently provide supports of some type to persons with disabilities to enter employment or start their own business. I personally found few of them to be helpful. Unfortunately, it is hard to figure out what is making these agencies unhelpful. However, we need to understand that some of these reasons are borne with government funding requirements, employer biases, as well as limited community infrastructure, in addition to any skills or contacts that may be lacking by the agency itself. While I held my Employment Supports contract, I worked with other individuals and agencies also working under the same umbrella and to some extent, I can understand that not all of this is the fault of the agency in question. However, I DO believe that agencies themselves need to become stronger advocates for change in many ways to improve many of the factors they cannot control.

Some of these factors will be outlined here:

1. FUNDING REQUIREMENTS

In Ontario, the Employment Supports component of the Ontario Disability Support Program has substantially changed in April 2006. As a result of this, many agencies, including my own, were terminated for no good reason. For those left wanting to continue to provide services, the funding arrangements were changed to a performance only based model. That means, the agency in question will not get paid a dime until they are able to place a client for a period of at least thirteen weeks in a job!

With this formula, many agencies will be unable to earn enough to pay their bills unless they contract with a number of large, (usually) low-waged employers with a high staff turnover, promising them to fill a certain number of positions with their clients and provide a range of coaching supports to them. A successful agency under this formula will contract with Wal-Mart, Starbucks, Tim Horton's and various call centres and send their clients there to work. While some clients will quit or get fired, enough of them will be able to stay at least thirteen weeks so the agency in question will get $6,000 a head, plus a certain amount of money per month for every additional month the client stays on that job.

However, what if you are a person with a disability that by education, training or work experience, you have *no* interest in taking one of these low-waged jobs? Then, you get no help. The argument or theory here is that if you have that kind of education, you don't need any supports - period. How about somebody who may have significant disabilities that apart from special equipment needs, may need a lot more time on the part of the provider to support them and assist them with daily working skills, such as facial interactions, social skills, memory tips, using public transportion, etc.? No additional funds are provided for this. Both types of people will not likely be served.

What is the problem with that, you ask? At least some people who never had jobs before or who just want to start fresh will now be able to work, when they may not have had this opportunity in the past. There IS a problem with this. It puts people with disabilities on a certain plane that guarantees they will never exceed a certain earnings limit. One article I read totally miffed me. You can read it yourself too, which is located here. In this article, ask yourself how much this man made as a plumber or plumbing contractor, then ask yourself how much he likely makes at Home Depot selling plumbing supplies. I doubt he makes more than $8 - $9 an hour now. Is this a success? Another "success" that was pointed out to me was a person with a disability getting a job stuffing envelopes for eight hours a week, when what she really wanted was to go back to school and train as a personal support worker. These agencies got their $6,000, but where are the clients? Are they really any better off than they were?

http://www.cwd-o.org/cwdo/activities/employment_committee.php?activities-employment=158

2. ATTITUDES

There is a prevailing attitude that people with disabilities cannot do work that has any degree of responsibility or authority in it. This attitude prevailed during the same period of time that people were placed in sheltered workshops and paid pennies a day for boring, repetitive work that nobody else will do. Unfortunately, many people carry this same attitude today, despite the fact that sheltered workshops are out of vogue and people want real jobs with real pay. The example given above for the individual given a job stuffing envelopes for eight hours a week is only one example of what I've seen. This individual was told the reason for this was because she never held a job before. So? Do young high school students vying for their first position have to engage in boring, repetitive labour such as stuffing envelopes or putting nuts and bolts together in a warehouse, before they can join McDonald's or Burger King or even have a paper route? Of course not! What about the woman in my example who wants to go back to school to become a personal support worker? There's no support for that, unless she went the OSAP route I hear.

How about those people with disabilities that are already educated? While statistics show it is better for people to be educated than less educated when looking for work, it is less effective for people with disabilities. There is a glass ceiling that holds people back; again, this is because many employers, including those that work with people with disabilities, feel that people with disabilities cannot do work beyond a minimal level. Many of these same agencies have tried to prevent people from disabilities from applying by throwing barriers in the way of the job, such as requiring candidates to have a valid driver's license and own a vehicle, requiring candidates to type at a certain speed, requiring mandatory shift work, etc. For those people with disabilities that apply anyways, they are screened out using quieter methods.

This attitude is slowly changing for people with visible and physical disabilities. However, those with less visible disabilities, the attitudes are still in the dark ages. Everyday I hear about people with mental health conditions, for example, as people either to be pitied or locked away, or thrown in jail (because they're all violent). I met a woman who told me there are so many people with mental illnesses that are allowed out in the community, but refuse to take their medications. I then say, "So what? There are people with cancer, people with diabetes, people with heart conditions, etc. that also don't want to listen to their doctors.". The point of her argument was that "people with mental illnesses" (and this I assume would mean almost all of them with few exceptions) don't know they need medication, etc. to function. If people like this believe folks with invisible disabilities like mental illness cannot even function outside of an institution, they certainly are not going to believe they can hold a job!

However, these same people are shocked when I refer them to the National Empowerment Centre that is operated by well-educated and respected professionals, including psychiatrists, psychologists, researchers and advocates, almost all of whom had been diagnosed with severe mental health problems, including schizophrenia and manic-depression. There are others who have made their careers in politics (e.g. Winston Churchill), the arts (e.g. Ernest Hemingway, Margot Kidder, Margaret Trudeau), science (e.g. Buzz Aldrin, Kay Redfield Jamieson), etc. There are others that may not be famous, but who have made careers for themselves in the field of law, medicine, psychology, teaching, research, etc. The movie A Beautiful Mind about mathematician and college professor John Nash was a hit a few years ago. People with mental health problems that can function are NOT an anomolie. There was a study a few years ago into what people with mental health problems who work in professional, executive and managerial positions need for support, the abstract for which can be found here.

However, when you are a person with a disability, have an education and/or substantially high level experience, you are told you don't need any help and are once again, left to your own devices. You are expected to follow the bootstrap theory and simply wave your magic wand to obtain the resources you need to fit in. This issue is not unknown to people. A new organization called the Canadian Association for Professionals with Disabilities is trying to educate employers, government, regulatory bodies and agencies that we want and need more than what is offered. What is often hurtful are comments that are made by well-meaning people that think people like this should just work in a low-wage job for the sake of re-developing work skills and connecting to people, etc. and then go that way back up the ladder. For professionals with disabilities that have worked in managerial, executive and professional positions, having a low-wage entry level job on your resume will only hurt, not help one's job search. To me, the words "damaged goods" will come up if I were a hiring manager receiving a resume of this type ... I will wonder why this apparently multi-talented person is not already working in a job like the one I am offering, as opposed to choosing a low-wage "survival job" (which for too many turns out to be a dead-end job).

3. FINANCES

For agencies and government, they actually believe people with disabilities ALL want to stay on ODSP for the rest of their lives. They fixed the ODSP program to make it easier to find work and keep more income. These are good measures in themselves, but when job development programs and agencies are set up to help people find these jobs, their assumptions need to change. For example, people get told they can take an $8 - $10 hour job and they can keep $4 - $5 of what they earn and keep most of their ODSP benefits. This idea is fine for some people - particularly people whose disability will likely not allow them to work more than a few hours a week, for example. What about people who want to join the normal world of work, where there are maternity benefits, health care benefits, retirement funds and other benefits besides a livable wage to work for? People on ODSP are not allowed to save or put money towards a retirement income, as stated in my last entry. People want to get OUT OF POVERTY. Unless the government plans on immediately issuing a 40-50% raise in ODSP rates, then people who work and keep some ODSP income will NEVER escape poverty. Many people with disabilities want an employment service that will help them find jobs that will pay them enough to get off ODSP and remain off it for life.

The desire to own, as oppose to rent a home, is no less among people on ODSP than among the general public. The desire to have disposable income to use for travel, hobbies, family and to purchase a motor vehicle is no less among people on ODSP than the general public. The desire to be seen as a "normal, contributing citizen" is no less among people on ODSP than the general public. People with disabilities that have higher-level skills need opportunities that will help them move off ODSP and out of poverty entirely.

4. AGENCY ISSUES

Agencies that work with people with disabilities for the large part live in an "us" and "them" dichotomy. The "us" include themselves and people from other agencies working in the same field. To some extent, some include employers and government as well among the "us" - because this is the middle class thing to do. The "them" part of this dichotomy includes the people with disabilities that they serve. It is an unconscious thing on the part of agencies that serve this group, but there is a prevailing belief among staff of these agencies that they all have qualifications and deserve to make the amount of money they are earning (or more, in some cases), while the people they work with should be happy with a minimum wage job. They don't perceive their clients as being equally or even more qualified than they are. The prevailing issue here is that if the client was more qualified, they'd be working!

After many years of seeing both sides of the system and working as an advocate, I feel I am entitled to my opinion and to voice them. At one conference that was held here in Niagara last year, a variety of employment support providers presented their programs and criteria to attendees, so they knew what options were out there if they wanted to choose. ODSP Employment Supports presented their program, but they were unable to answer the question as to how a person seeking higher level employment can obtain help under their new guidelines, which seem to restrict people to a "jobs first" mentality similar to that of Ontario Works. Another group I had a little fun with was the BUILT Network. BUILT Network is a network of agencies across Canada that provide training in computers, customer service and basic job skills for ten (10) weeks. I believe they only serve people with mental health problems, but I may be wrong on that. However, I did ask if the person presenting the program agreed that the average wage of a successful graduate from that program would likely be $8 - $10 an hour. The woman presenting agreed with this. However, she didn't know what to say when I asked if SHE was making $8 - $10 an hour to run and manage this program. If it is good enough for somebody like this program leader to make approx. $40,000 a year, why is it not good enough to expect the same for participants that join this program? I guess some consumers are better than others, as George Orwell implied in his book, Animal Farm.

5. SYSTEMIC ISSUES

People with disabilities face a substantial number of systemic issues when it comes to taking a job. I explored some of them in earlier posts, such as the strong disincentives to re-enter the workforce at all for those that live in subsidized housing as well as receive social income. I have never been a fan of social housing and no matter what people tell me about the wonder of social housing, I am never going to believe them ... particularly if the housing is meant for anybody who at some point may return to the paid labour force. For people who are retired or who have a disability that stops them from doing ANY paid work, it may be an option. However, I tend to not see it as viable for others, particularly if they want to avoid not only the clawbacks from ODSP or OW, but also the clawbacks that show up in the way of substantial and varied rent hikes over the course of several months. I also discussed barriers to work that are based on transportation issues. To me, municipalities greater than a certain size have not only a right to provide transit service, but should have a legal responsibility to do so. If there is a region that encompasses several municipalities, then there must also be transportation between the stated municipalities. If the personal automobile is relied upon by more than 70 -80% of the people living within a region, then the region has a problem.

Social agencies have for years attempted to set up volunteer driver programs for Niagara, but they have not been effective because they are essentially run by volunteers who can choose to work or choose not to. Reliability of service is not intact. Taxi services are available at great cost to people who choose to use them. It is available to some for medical travel, but not for employment purposes. Again, this goes back to attitudes - a belief that people with disabilities are sick and use greater medical resources than others, which is not necessarily true. Most people with disabilities apart from their impairment are as healthy as others in their respective age group. Further, many people without so-called disabilities or who may not identify themselves as being "disabled" do utilize a high level of health care resources, even if they may be working, have a family and function in the community. I am referring to your cancer patients, people with diabetes that need to bring their condition under control, obese people, etc - all of whom may not see themselves as disabled per se, but do have chronic conditions requiring the ongoing care of a doctor. People with disabilities are no more likely to be in this position than anybody else ...

Other external realities relate to the labour market at large. In Ontario, over 500,000 manufacturing jobs were lost within the past several years. Over time, these jobs are being replaced by lower paid light manufacturing, service and retail jobs that are not even nearly enough to support oneself, let alone a family. Work needs to be done to increase the number of higher paid positions for skilled workers and professionals. At the same time, agencies that work with people with disabilities need to work with those providing the higher paid positions, particularly those that have better benefits and security, to sell their qualified clients to them ... if an employer is stupid enough to require candidates to have their own vehicle when the job has no bona fide occupational requirements that require the same, employment agencies (not the candidate) should be advocating with these employers to either remove this restriction or find a way to accommodate a client that would otherwise qualify, but doesn't drive. After all, these people are PAID to do a certain job; they should do their job.

Other factors include training and skills development. As I stated above, somebody wanted to go for training as a Personal Support Worker, but was instead referred to stuff envelopes for a staffing agency for eight hours a week. Why are there no programs, or at least programs that will present themselves, that will PAY the costs of retraining for those that need it in order to become employable? Many people on ODSP cannot get OSAP. One out of six ODSP recipients are university graduates; others have college or some post-secondary training ... which means a great deal of them have unpaid student loans. When you have an unpaid student loan, you cannot go back unless it is paid off. If you get ODSP, you are lucky to be able to shelter and feed yourself, let alone repay a student loan. Further, most of those requiring retraining do not have enough recent attachment to the labour force to qualify for EI funding. Technically, the Opportunities Fund is supposed to help with some retraining costs, but I have encountered a number of people with disabilities facing more obstacles when they approach this program ... depending on which agency is funded to administer the fund, I have heard people who received comments made to them that (the worker) did not feel the person with the disability was able to handle the course, the course was too expensive (with accommodations built in, as needed) or the person would not be able to do a job in the field once they graduate. These again are assumptions made by agency workers about the alleged abilities or disabilities of the person they are working with, as opposed to any real assessments.

SOLUTIONS?

I am not sure what can be done, but whatever does get done needs to be done fast and in a much more aggressive way. Perhaps, lawsuits need to be filed against those who discriminate against people with disabilities. If an employer cannot show a bona fide reason for requiring a candidate to have a driver's license and a car, the employment agency worker needs to push the issue ... if they are not successful and the person would otherwise be eligible, a lawsuit may need to be filed, perhaps with attendant publicity. If the employer is publicly funded, a report to the funder as well should be made. Media reports of obvious acts of discrimination need to be made, such as one where I publicized a long running case against a transit service that tried to charge a blind passenger for her guide dog.

Employment and economic development agencies need to work with funders and investors to develop businesses that are marketable and productive that will hire people with disabilities. I am not referring to programs like OCAB, where permanent government funding is given to run the business (because it unfairly subsidizes the businesses of some but not others). I am referring to start-ups and working with individuals that may have the professional skills needed to run, market, do accounting or legal work for, the business, as well as others that have the skills to provide the services the business offers. This would eventually work like any other business works, e.g. funded by customers, contracts and fees w/occasional loans as the business grows and develops. However, support is needed at the start-up phase and in the consulting area (which is another area where professionals with disabilities can contribute). Such businesses may or may not want to refer to themselves as "disability-run" - let that be their choice, but let it be their policy to hire QUALIFIED persons with disabilities.

Further, jobs always come up in the public and non-profit sector. Employers in these sectors should provide leadership in hiring QUALIFIED persons with disabilities. The mistake many affirmative action policies often make is hiring less qualified persons with disabilities that may have some experience, for example. There are dozens of examples of people working in the government or non-profit sector (and likely the private sector too - but private sector is less of a concern because the owners of these companies absorb all the risk) ... that are poorly educated and have few qualifications. Executive director positions, for example, should require at least a relevant university degree ... yet, I know more than a few people who occupy these types of jobs who have less than high school and this is definitely reflected in the quality of service provided. With no standards to adhere to or aspire to, nobody can truly assess if these agencies are actually doing a professional job. As a professional in my own field, I have to pay a truckload of fees for exams, licencing, membership dues, conferences and continued education fees, etc. and account to a professional oversight body and I don't even make one quarter of what many of these drop-outs working in these agencies that account to nobody earn!

Because there are no market forces or personal risk at stake with government and non-profit agencies, stringent accountability processes and standards need to be in place to ensure that quality services are delivered and staff hired in these positions are qualified and accountable. At the present time, the only body these above referred to rogue managers account to is their boards and like many people, we are all aware of boards that do nothing or are simply hand-picked by the executive directors. This *has* to change ... maybe it's time for agency and staff licensing and/or the creation of a body that actually oversees the operation of these agencies. People need a place to complain to and be heard without getting the brush off from boards and even funders that somehow feel personally connected to the people they work with. Whatever body is put in place must be separate from the boards and the funders to avoid potential conflicts of interest.

I am all too aware of various publicly funded agencies that provide a myriad of services to individuals with disabilities that keep unqualified staff to deliver these services ... it is almost like people with disabilities don't deserve qualified, accountable services. This takes place all the while many qualified, educated people with disabilities are sitting on ODSP!

I want people's thoughts on this. Comments?