Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

[abrowne]

SOCIAL ASSISTANCE

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The member for Haldimand–Norfolk has given notice of his dissatisfaction with the answer to a question yesterday by the Premier. The member has up to five minutes to debate the matter, and the Premier may respond for up to five minutes as well.

Mr. Toby Barrett: Thank you, Speaker; as you’ve noted, I did request a late-show debate because of

my dissatisfaction with the answer given by the Premier—I’m very pleased to see the Premier here this evening—dissatisfaction concerning her commitment, her priority, for social service reform that I would notice on a nightly basis on television just after your success in the leadership.

I note from the outset that my dissatisfaction results from the fact that the Premier, while making reference to the details that she said the minister would provide, failed to provide any details whatsoever. We were left with a number of old saws, “discussions,” talking with the assurance that we’re “moving forward”—we do hear that a lot—“preparing” and “committed to beginning to implement.” “Committed to beginning to implement”—that’s what you said, Premier, and again, what does that mean? The bottom line of my question is, when it comes to consolidation—the integration of Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program to help get recipients jobs—people would like to know: Are you in or are you out on that one?

If you’re in, how will that work, given that ODSP is currently funded 100% provincially and OW is at 86%. Where will the incentive be for municipal staff to find efficiencies with respect to the disability program within a consolidated system if they’re not the ones footing the bill? If you’re in, will there be public consultation? If you’re in, will there be distinctions based on disability needs? Has that been thought out?

In my original question yesterday, I mentioned that our official opposition published a white paper, a paper to cut duplication and to cut the bureaucracy, again with a focus on helping to better enable people on disability to secure employment. I made mention of the all-party support at second reading for a private member’s bill to foster employment and to permit disabled people to keep more of their own money—that was three years ago. I made mention of a private member’s bill I introduced a month or so ago to cut waste through consolidation, while—ever-important—protecting the distinct needs of people with disabilities.

That’s what we’ve done. We want to know what you’ve done and what you’re going to do. The question remains: What happened? What’s happening here? What happened to your priority to reform social assistance? Again, are you in, or are you out? I have a feeling that in a few minutes we may get an answer to that.

What of fostering employment through allowing recipients to keep more of their earned money? We described this in our white paper. It was in our private member’s bill. We read that in the report by Lankin and Sheikh. Again, are you in or are you out when it comes to encouraging recipients to attain the dignity that accompanies a job? Will this be your priority?

At last count, the ODSP program caseload had increased by 49%—that’s since 2003—approximately 400,000 people, while 475,000 children, women and men are on welfare. My question is, are these numbers current? Perhaps you could update the House on that trend—and it’s obviously a trend in the wrong direction. We’re looking at approaching something like a million people on social assistance in the province of Ontario.

I think of the 800 rules and regulations that force many case workers to spend 70% of their time dealing with these kinds of issues rather than helping out.

Social impact bonds—again, to encourage innovation in service delivery.

The concept of pay for success: Drummond talked about that one. Are you in on that one specifically, or are you out?

What’s the holdup? We’d like to find out this evening just where we stand in the province of Ontario.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): The Premier has up to five minutes.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: I want to thank the member opposite, because I think it bespeaks a level of common ground between us on this issue that I haven’t heard before. I’m encouraged to hear the question. I’m encouraged to hear the remarks today about the concern around making our social assistance system more rational.

I would just say to the member opposite that, having been in this office for about nine weeks, my commitment to implementing the recommendations of the report has not diminished in any way. I’ll go into some detail about that, but I am pleased that the question has been raised by the party opposite because I think that it suggests that perhaps the party opposite is getting ready to read the budget, look at what’s in it and possibly support it, because it’s obvious that there could be some common ground there.

The answer to the question is simple: I remain absolutely committed to reforming social assistance in Ontario, building on the advice of the Lankin-Sheikh report. That is my position; it has been my position. As I say, I have been in this office for a very short time. We are going to move ahead on that. As the member opposite knows, the report outlined 108 recommendations across six key themes that our government is looking at as we continue to build a stronger, healthier and fairer society by reducing poverty and increasing opportunities for the people of Ontario.

I just want to remark that this is the government that put in place legislation that requires us to report on poverty reduction. It’s the first government that has had a Poverty Reduction Strategy. To even put poverty and the reduction of poverty on the legislative radar screen and to put in place a policy and legislation that hold the government accountable for reduction on indicators that are so important in people’s lives is a huge step forward, I think, and it was our government that took that.

We know that social assistance as it exists today is not helping our most vulnerable people as it could be. That’s how we know that there’s more work to be done and that’s why we undertook the first major review of social assistance in the province in over 20 years. It hadn’t been done for 20 years, so we identified that as an issue and we acted on it by putting this review in place. We support the objectives described in the report. We’re committed to the end goal of reducing poverty and increasing opportunities, and that’s why the review remains a priority for the government. That’s why I directed, pretty much immediately when I came into the office, the secretary of cabinet to put together an implementation plan for the recommendations in the report, and that is the work that has been ongoing since I was in this position.

The Minister of Finance has said, in the runup to the budget, that we’re preparing to implement recommendations from the report. That’s why the Minister of Community and Social Services is talking to folks on the front line, because it’s not a straightforward issue. Unravelling the tangle of rules and the jurisdictional issues is not straightforward. It’s not simple. We need to make sure everyone can take part in that process, because we want everyone to take part in the economy. We want the systems that the government sets up not to get in the way of people taking part in the economy but in fact to support people having a job, getting a job and keeping that job.

That’s what we’re going to be working on. I hope the party opposite will work with us on that and support us on that front.

1820

Social assistance has been and will continue to be a priority for our government. In 2012, in our budget, we confirmed that the government remains committed to protecting the gains we’ve made in education, health care and social programs. We raised social assistance rates by 1% again last fall. That means that we’ve raised rates by a cumulative 14.9% since we took office in 2003. What that means is that this initiative will provide about $55 million annually in additional benefits to families and individuals receiving social assistance. We’re ensuring that the social assistance system is there for the people who need it.

Our social assistance programs, as you know, Madam Speaker, provide so much more than a cheque. They provide employment supports and skills training to people in order to help them reconnect with the labour force. They provide child care supports so people can work and earn their way back to a better life for their families. They provide job placements—

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Julia Munro): Thank you.

Hon. Kathleen O. Wynne: It goes so fast.

[Andy Thompson]

I am very please to see these comments posted here... For those who prefer to bury your heads in the sand and deny that social assistance is on the verge of serious reform, please know you do so at your own peril.

Big changes are coming...

Andy. 
 
 

[ROBERT ALDRED]

I think all Tories in office should be arrested for crimes against humanity.   Elect me.  Ill do it.

Robert



On Fri 19/04/13 8:47 PM , andrea hatala aha...@yahoo.com sent:

Asside from the fact that wynn is saying nothing, that other guy is a conservative and is really preasuring the liberal party.

 

Andrea

 

website: http://thepiercingobsidian.tripod.com
http://www.myspace.com/thepiercingobsidianmusic

From: abrowne
To: odsp-ac-membership ; "odspfi...@googlegroups.com" ; "firesi...@yahoogroups.com" ; "OntarioAcc...@yahoogroups.com"
Sent: Thursday, April 18, 2013 6:03:48 PM
Subject: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "ODSP AC Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
odsp-ac-members...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/odsp-ac-membership?hl=en
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ODSP AC Membership" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to odsp-ac-members...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "ODSP AC Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
odsp-ac-members...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/odsp-ac-membership?hl=en
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ODSP AC Membership" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to odsp-ac-members...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

[Judy Bowen]

Booooo thx for putting me in a foul mood!

Sent from my iPhone

On 2013-04-20, at 3:01 PM, Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com> wrote:

are they really going to cut 460 dollers for every one on odsp? ill lose my home and my pets.

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 2:13:45 PM UTC-4, SW wrote:

End poverty by putting ODSP recipients on $460 less??? I know I'm bad at math, but there is a serious flaw with this logic.....

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 10:44:49 AM UTC-4, Olli wrote:

what does it take to get elected where we could make some real changes.

like bringin back the dietary allowance. i know some people that really needed that mony to eat healthy.
the community start up was cut as well ant that was the only way somone could move if they were on disability. i needed it wonce too.

do you think people whould elect someone like us though? ive tried volunteering at shelters and food banks a few times and was turned down because i used there services to.

it would be the same getting elected i think. they'd just think we were trying to get elected to get more money for us.

odsp-ac-membership+unsub...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/odsp-ac-membership?hl=en
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ODSP AC Membership" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to odsp-ac-membership+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "ODSP AC Discussion" group.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

odsp-ac-membership+unsub...@googlegroups.com

For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/odsp-ac-membership?hl=en
 
---
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ODSP AC Membership" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to odsp-ac-membership+unsub...@googlegroups.com.

For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
 
 

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ODSP Fireside" group.
To change email delivery, nickname or unsubscribe from this group visit:
 
Http://groups.google.ca/group/odspfireside/subscribe?hl=en
 
To post to this group via email, send email to odspfi...@googlegroups.com
 
 

[Bill Higgs]

for someone who has been watching this board for several months, its hard to fathom that you havent picked up or absorbed any of the proposed cuts that have discussed on this board  in excruciating detail!!!!!!-

apparently you werent paying very good attention

 

Bill

 

 

---- Original Message -----

From: Olli

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Saturday, April 20, 2013 3:01 PM

Subject: [odspfireside: 49890 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

are they really going to cut 460 dollers for every one on odsp? ill lose my home and my pets.

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 2:13:45 PM UTC-4, SW wrote:

End poverty by putting ODSP recipients on $460 less??? I know I'm bad at math, but there is a serious flaw with this logic.....

On Saturday, April 20, 2013 10:44:49 AM UTC-4, Olli wrote:

what does it take to get elected where we could make some real changes.

like bringin back the dietary allowance. i know some people that really needed that mony to eat healthy.
the community start up was cut as well ant that was the only way somone could move if they were on disability. i needed it wonce too.

do you think people whould elect someone like us though? ive tried volunteering at shelters and food banks a few times and was turned down because i used there services to.

it would be the same getting elected i think. they'd just think we were trying to get elected to get more money for us.

On Friday, April 19, 2013 9:12:24 PM UTC-4, Glenn wrote:

[Bill Higgs]

it has been proposed by the Liberals, so whether the cut does in fact happen has yet to be seen BUT the prosed cuts and amalgamation ofd ODSP and OW must be opposed NOW, because after its put into law, it will be too late to stop them

Contact your MPP or anyone else who will listen and complain long and loud with your opposition to these proposals

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Olli

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, April 21, 2013 8:20 PM

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 49926 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

SW said in thepost before me their cutting us on odsp 460 dollers. so thats not true?

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 7:26:39 PM UTC-4, jbkeh wrote:

And you still don't know.

Quit listening to the rumor-mongers.

A report is one thing; government legislation is something else and often quite different. Nothing is yet decided.

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 3:26:06 PM UTC-4, Olli wrote:

i didnt know they were going to put everyone on odsp back at what people on ow make.

 

[Bill Higgs]

sorry I tend to disagree, the governement would not be proposing a base amount plus supplements  (of note here is the fact that no figures have been mentioned ) unless the intention is to see benefits reduced for ODSP recipients.

 

so be very afraid

 

the governemnt had every intention of not even giving the 1*% increase in the fall if the NDP hadnt demanded it.

seems to me the fact they wanted to weasel out of the standard 1% incrrease PROVES their intention is to cut us back

 

 

Bill

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Olli

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Monday, April 22, 2013 11:07 AM

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 49932 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

thanks for explaining. so its not such a big deal. well get the same amount but just in a different way.

i dont see it such a big deal then. thanks again.

On Monday, April 22, 2013 7:55:10 AM UTC-4, Goldielover wrote:

No, that's not true.  At this time it is just a report that is under consideration.  I know the SAR report makes fairly lengthy reading, but many of us actually did plow through it when it first came out.  Their proposal is to merge the two programs, and to have the same base amount for everyone.  (That's where the confusion is coming in, as some didn't bother to read past this point.)  To the base amount they then add a disability supplement, and supplements for dependents, which would likely bring us up fairly close to what the base amount for ODSP is now.  What IS at risk are things like the Special Diet allowance, which has specifically been targeted for elimination, and possibly other benefits like the Medical Transportation allowance, and the $100.00 In Work benefit.

What we do have to remember, though, is THAT NONE OF THIS IS DEFINITE YET.  Change WILL come , there is no doubt about that, but there have been no announcements as exactly what recommendations from the SAR report will be implemented.  They could implement all of them, or they could choose to only implement some of them.  We just do not know at this time.  There is also the possibility that the current Liberal government will not survive, and an election will be called.    If that happens, and another party gets in, then any changes could be quite different altogether.  Changes will still come - I believe both the Tories and the NDP have mentioned that - but we don't know anything much about what their proposals would be.

[Ron Payne]

Like I have said before jbkeh, complaining after the gallows door has opened, will not stop the hanging.

Ron

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 7:26 PM, jbkeh <j...@teksavvy.com> wrote:

And you still don't know.

Quit listening to the rumor-mongers.

A report is one thing; government legislation is something else and often quite different. Nothing is yet decided.

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 3:26:06 PM UTC-4, Olli wrote:

i didnt know they were going to put everyone on odsp back at what people on ow make.

--
--

[Ron Payne]

This was done extremely fast.

It takes longer to get a Social Benefits Tribunal hearing!       

Ron

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 4:09 PM, Ron Payne <welfarel...@gmail.com> wrote:

Quit listening to the rumor-mongers.?????

Bill 27, Social Assistance Programs Consolidation Act, 2013

Bill 27                                                          2013

An Act to require the introduction of legislation for a consolidated program of disability support and employment and other financial assistance

http://www.ontla.on.ca/web/bills/bills_detail.do?locale=en&Intranet&BillID=2744

Ron

On Sun, Apr 21, 2013 at 7:26 PM, jbkeh <j...@teksavvy.com> wrote:

And you still don't know.

Quit listening to the rumor-mongers.

A report is one thing; government legislation is something else and often quite different. Nothing is yet decided.

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 3:26:06 PM UTC-4, Olli wrote:

i didnt know they were going to put everyone on odsp back at what people on ow make.

--
--

[abrowne]

Goldie, it doesn't say which body in that bill, but in their own discussion paper, they

want the municipalities to take over all of the programs.  If that happens, we will see

cuts that will make Mike Harris look like a pinko.

Angela

From: Goldielover <fio...@hotmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Tuesday, April 23, 2013 6:47:50 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 49955 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

Interesting.  One thing I noted - they do not specify which body will administer a consolidated program.  So, will it be the province, or the local municipality? 

[Ron Payne]

The point of my post was to show things are moving along and not just rumors.

But as you say don't worry be happy.

Ron

On Tue, Apr 23, 2013 at 9:46 PM, jbkeh <j...@teksavvy.com> wrote:

Oh, wow!

A bill which, if and when passed, requires the government to table another bill within 4 months of the original bill receiving royal assent that, in turn, will consolidate OW and ODSP (structure and rates undefined) and will, if and when passed, require the consolidated program to be operational within six months of the second bill receiving royal assent.

Should be good to keep things at bay for a couple of years (assuming it doesn't die because of a prorogue or election).

On Tuesday, April 23, 2013 4:28:08 PM UTC-4, Ron Payne wrote:

This was done extremely fast.

[Andy Thompson]

At what point should one become concerned? After "something" is decided? The report was released last year. And, of course, the government knows it's intention already. Clearly, we are well beyond the point of "nothing..."

---

Date: Sun, 21 Apr 2013 16:26:39 -0700
From: j...@teksavvy.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 49925 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

And you still don't know.

Quit listening to the rumor-mongers.

A report is one thing; government legislation is something else and often quite different. Nothing is yet decided.

On Sunday, April 21, 2013 3:26:06 PM UTC-4, Olli wrote:

i didnt know they were going to put everyone on odsp back at what people on ow make.

--
--

[Andy Thompson]

If the NDP has endorsed the consolidation of OW and ODSP into a single provision, then it is a near certainty that the two programs will be combined. Anyone denying this fact is either foolish or insincere. Would such a consolidation occur overnight? Certainly, it would not. However, the effects would begin to be felt immediately... The dietary supplement is now gone, as is the CSUMB. These were the initial shock waves of austerity. The worst is still to come... Now is the time to contact your local MPP. Now is the time to organize.

---

Date: Tue, 23 Apr 2013 16:28:08 -0400
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 49954 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance
From: welfarel...@gmail.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

[Bill Higgs]

also of note in the past we have had "benefits" such as CSUMB and the speiacl diet "allowance"

 

benefit and allowance have in the past been almost synonamous with money.

of note the special diet allowance is going to be replaced by a dietary supplement 

Of note is the word supplement , a case of boost or a bottle of vitamins can be a supplement.

 

 

if special diet does survive  you can be guarateed it wont be in the form of spendable money,  heaven forbid someone on ODSP  should buy theselves a bottle of beer or a donut, it will be in the form of a debit card or food stamps that can opnly be used at certain stores

 

Bill

[Ron Payne]

One thing is clear Billy, as soon as people learn about, and apply for a benefit, that benefit gets cancelled.

ODSP is next in line.

Ron

*****************

--

[abrowne]

  I personally don't care if people choose to spend

their money on booze.  If they do, they take the consequences, losing their apartment, not having food, whatever.

We are not everybody's babysitter, but if this debit card thing ever comes to pass, all I can see is thousands of

people losing their housing because almost all of us spend more than $477 a month for housing.  How does

a debit card pay your landlord your REAL rent instead of some deflated figure from 4BC?  I will immediately

go to court if this is imposed on anybody here in Ontario, because this is a form of discrimination ... perhaps,

if this has to do with public monies, then put all politicians on debit cards, make sure they don't spend our 

money on foolishness like moving gas plants, eHealh, ORNGE and other scandals.  Or others who are employed,

maybe force their employers to give employees debit cards ... that will certainly keep their staff off the sauce,

because statistically FAR HIGHER percentage of people who are substance abusers, etc. are working.

Angela

---

From: Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 4:07:13 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 49994 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

i agree with food debit cards instead of cash. where i live i see to many people spending all there mony at the beginning of the month on booze or they smoke to much. then they have to use the food bank and churches the rest of the month to get by because they have nothing levt. at my church thats just taking and not right.

[Bill Higgs]

Indeed it appears are created to shut the do gooders up and make the government look like they care.

In other words as you suggest a benefit is never meant to be collected just to look good on paper

[Bloggy.Deb]

I find that I am in agreement with Angela, I am an advocate for personal responsibility and taking ownership for ones actions.  If I, Angela or anyone chooses to purchase whatever, it’s that persons choice to make, and subsequently the repercussions are theirs also; I will never vote for any government that will distribute food debit cards.

 

Deb

 

From: odspfi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:odspfi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of abrowne

Sent: April-24-13 4:29 PM
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 49995 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

 

So, Susan are you two years old?  Mentally incompetent?  I personally don't care if people choose to spend

their money on booze.  If they do, they take the consequences, losing their apartment, not having food, whatever.

We are not everybody's babysitter, but if this debit card thing ever comes to pass, all I can see is thousands of

people losing their housing because almost all of us spend more than $477 a month for housing.  How does

a debit card pay your landlord your REAL rent instead of some deflated figure from 4BC?  I will immediately

go to court if this is imposed on anybody here in Ontario, because this is a form of discrimination ... perhaps,

if this has to do with public monies, then put all politicians on debit cards, make sure they don't spend our 

money on foolishness like moving gas plants, eHealh, ORNGE and other scandals.  Or others who are employed,

maybe force their employers to give employees debit cards ... that will certainly keep their staff off the sauce,

because statistically FAR HIGHER percentage of people who are substance abusers, etc. are working.

Angela

 

From: Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 4:07:13 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 49994 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

 

i agree with food debit cards instead of cash. where i live i see to many people spending all there mony at the beginning of the month on booze or they smoke to much. then they have to use the food bank and churches the rest of the month to get by because they have nothing levt. at my church thats just taking and not right.

--

[Ron Payne]

And I will never vote for any government that will cut benefits.

Ron

On Wed, Apr 24, 2013 at 8:25 PM, Bloggy.Deb <blogg...@gmail.com> wrote:

I find that I am in agreement with Angela, I am an advocate for personal responsibility and taking ownership for ones actions.  If I, Angela or anyone chooses to purchase whatever, it’s that persons choice to make, and subsequently the repercussions are theirs also; I will never vote for any government that will distribute food debit cards.

 

Deb

 

From: odspfi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:odspfi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of abrowne
Sent: April-24-13 4:29 PM
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 49995 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

 

 I personally don't care if people choose to spend

[Bill Higgs]

strike the liberals and conservatives off your  voting list, they have both considered it

and hwat do you think "dietary supplements" is about, its simply a way for the government to unsure special diet money is not used to pay rent  or utitlies or any other bill that may take priority

like I have said having a bunch of nutritious food doesnt sdo any good if you havent got electricty to run the fridge because our hydro was cut off

 

 

Bill

[eythe bickmore]

on a different note has anyone received the disability tax credit  and if so was it hard to get ,was it painful and miserable to obtain.

I have a brain tumor ticks because of that and bad diabetes.I fall down often and have short term memory loss .I am wondering if that is enough to get the disability tax credit

 

 

 
 

[eythe bickmore]

bravo I agree-- they already have their foot on our necks and that is quite enough

 

From: abrowne

Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 12:28 PM

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 49995 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

 

So, Susan are you two years old?  Mentally incompetent?  I personally don't care if people choose to spend

their money on booze.  If they do, they take the consequences, losing their apartment, not having food, whatever.

We are not everybody's babysitter, but if this debit card thing ever comes to pass, all I can see is thousands of

people losing their housing because almost all of us spend more than $477 a month for housing.  How does

a debit card pay your landlord your REAL rent instead of some deflated figure from 4BC?  I will immediately

go to court if this is imposed on anybody here in Ontario, because this is a form of discrimination ... perhaps,

if this has to do with public monies, then put all politicians on debit cards, make sure they don't spend our

money on foolishness like moving gas plants, eHealh, ORNGE and other scandals.  Or others who are employed,

maybe force their employers to give employees debit cards ... that will certainly keep their staff off the sauce,

because statistically FAR HIGHER percentage of people who are substance abusers, etc. are working.

Angela

 

---

From: Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 4:07:13 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 49994 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

 

i agree with food debit cards instead of cash. where i live i see to many people spending all there mony at the beginning of the month on booze or they smoke to much. then they have to use the food bank and churches the rest of the month to get by because they have nothing levt. at my church thats just taking and not right.

[abrowne]

The Disability Tax Credit is issued for seven specific areas of restriction that are clearly enumerated

on the application form: walking, talking, seeing, hearing, eliminating, life sustaining therapy ( taking at

least fourteen hours a week, e.g. dialysis), and performing the necessary mental functions to carry

on daily activities of living, e.g. banking, maintaining your household to standard, keeping appointments,

and so forth.  This restriction has to be "marked" and be present 90-100% of the time, so episodic

disabilities for the large part are declined, e.g. bipolar, MS, epilepsy, etc. unless the residual effects

of these disabilities when not in an episode leave you restricted in one of the areas anyways.  Given

information from the PALS survey on disability type, HRDC statistics, and statistics from my own

caseload, I would estimate that less than 20% of people on ODSP would get it, as ODSP's 

definition of disability is more broad and oversees functional capacity in the workplace, at home

and/or in personal care.  Most people on ODSP are in the first category, and among all ODSP

recipients, more than half are psychologically or learning disabled.  Yes, some people with

mental illness get it, but your mental health has to be pretty severe, where there are key areas

of functioning that you are unable to do 90-100% of time without help.  For example, some

people need a trustee to help them manage their money, or they require long term supportive

housing and are unable to live completely independently.  By a stretch, this is a minority of

people with mental health issues.  These definitions are strictly applied, whereas if you take

medication and it helps most of your symptoms, you don't qualify.

I've handled appeals in this program for years and my appellants that are successful are

those that any one of us in this group would wonder why they were not approved on the

first shot, as there is no ambiguity about their conditions and their pervasiveness.

In my opinion, it is not a fair tax credit, as many people with other non-qualifying disabilities

have direct and indirect costs due to their disability and are instead forced to swallow them.

The ones I have the most success with are those with back problems, where walking is

very difficult, or who have had long term heart conditions where any meaningful activity

is limited and stressful.  I am unsure if you'd be eligible just on the face of what you wrote,

but it definitely has to be something that is unambiguous and pervasive and in spite of any

treatments or medications, etc.

Angela

---

From: eythe bickmore <ebic...@shaw.ca>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 1:22:46 AM
Subject: [odspfireside: 50004 ] Re: [odspfireside:

on a different note has anyone received the disability tax credit  and if so was it hard to get ,was it painful and miserable to obtain.

I have a brain tumor ticks because of that and bad diabetes.I fall down often and have short term memory loss .I am wondering if that is enough to get the disability tax credit

 

 

 
 

[Bill Higgs]

because the municipalties get transfers from teh province to administer and pay for OW at present and possibly ODSP in the future

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Olli

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:39 AM

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 49969 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

 i dont see how a city or region can take over all of the funding for odsp when they had ow dumped on them a year or so ago.

where is the money going to come from? they dont have enoug right now just for regular stuff.

whos going to pay?

i think wer just going to have to learn to live with a lot less and use whatevr is out there to help.

my church does a lot for the poor. maybe theyl be taking on some of the things the govrnment does now.

[Bloggy.Deb]

Angela (or whomever)

I have the Disabled Parking Permit (Permanent one) does that mean I can apply for the Disability Tax Credit, bearing in mind, I am one of the fortunate [very]  few capable of actually working in competitive/meaningful employment. I doubt that I am, but your post got me to wondering…

D

 

From: odspfi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:odspfi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of abrowne

Sent: April-24-13 10:51 PM
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

[abrowne]

And think how easy it is to cut this funding to municipalities and then we will see cuts that will

make Mike Harris' efforts make him look like a "pinko".  Municipalities cannot go into debt,

other than for capital expenses.  Pick which interests local ratepayers would rather pay for

if it ever came to a crunch, e.g. roads, policing, etc. or social services.  I don't even have to guess.

Angela

---

From: Bill Higgs <bill...@xplornet.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 10:51:58 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50007 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

[abrowne]

Deb, it depends, the "walking issue" has to be where you cannot walk at all or when you do

walk, it is exceptionally slow and with massive difficulty.  It is difficult for me to assess just on

this basis, but disability tax credit does not depend on one being unable to work, you can be

a CEO of a multi million corporation and still be eligible if your disability fits.

Angela

---

From: Bloggy.Deb <blogg...@gmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, April 24, 2013 11:20:25 PM
Subject: RE: [odspfireside: 50009 ] Re: [odspfireside:

[Bloggy.Deb]

Thanks Ang:

In that case I suspect I am not eligible, additionally, there are more deserving and needy people than myself; not for one moment do I ever take the fact that I am one of the lucky few, I CAN work, and AM working. As there was a long period that I was on Disability….

Thanks again

D

 

From: odspfi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:odspfi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of abrowne

Sent: April-25-13 12:13 AM
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

--

[abrowne]

Can you find ONE example where somebody was even charged with fraud in

connection to the special diet, Ollie?  I have it on good grounds that there hasn't been.

I take you would rather have a Nanny state determine how everybody would spend

their money.  I assume you believe all people who are employed can manage their money

and don't need their employers to issue debit cards to them, but it is okay to discriminate

and force all people who are unable to be employed to be subjected to the Nanny state?

Is this a bit of a double standard?

I don't believe we should have a need for food banks.  Scandinavian countries do not

have food banks or a need for them, nor do they put the people there who are poor

on debit cards either.  Over there, people are treated with respect and like adults.

Angela

---

From: Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 6:03:57 AM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50020 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

i think i understand. they set the dietary supplement up so people could use the money for things other than food. then they yelled fraud and that gave them an excuse to cancel it. i know a few people who really needed that mony for better food because they were sick and now there back eating from food banks and they cant eat alot of there food and get sick.

[mark lyons]

Hudak's McCarthyistic idea of food cards is not only insulting but degrading. I myself would be ok because i live with a roommate and would make arrangements to by their part of the groceries in exchange for money. What i don't understand is why there is a push to do it, does the OPC really think by doing this our provinces debt will disappear?We are in a manufacturing depression and until the federal governments stops reducing tariffs on products we can and have in the past, made here, we will continue to be in trouble.

---

Date: Thu, 25 Apr 2013 06:33:09 -0700
From: browne...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50021 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

[abrowne]

There were no charges of fraud ever laid against Dr. Wong.  The police service reported

in that article that there were no charges of fraud laid on Dr. Wong.

 

He may be guilty of professional misconduct for completing forms of patients that

he has not examined, but that is quite a far cry from fraud, which is a criminal offence.

A doctor that is not your regular doctor and does not know your medical history completing

a form on the basis of your say so, is not legally defined as fraud but professional misconduct,

which means the doctor completing the form should be filling it in based on examination

and knowledge of the patient.

 

I am in the legal profession and I am certainly aware of what fraud is.  It is the Minister

and the A-G that went out making a claim there were over 2,000 cases of FRAUD in

the special diet unit, and when it was requested under Freedom of Information, the

number of cases referred to police, brought to court, tried and convicted were ZERO.

 

Making statement that there is "fraud" in the special diet program is false and all this

achieves is spreading abuse to people.  Politicians love to hear from people like you so they

can cut more programs and abuse more poor people.

 

That is why I tell people to be very careful about making blanket statements.  This is a

public group that is read by everybody that can do a google search.

A

From: Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 10:29:42 AM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50026 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

There was dr roland wong in toronto that had his doctors lisence revoked because he was found for fraud by the ontaro doctors associtan. i know people who got the supplemnet through him and then had it taken back later.

 

[abrowne]

Tired of being a broken record:

 

There. Is. Not. One. Single. Case. of. Fraud. from. the. Special. Diet. Program.

From: Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 6:03:57 AM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50020 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

i think i understand. they set the dietary supplement up so people could use the money for things other than food. then they yelled fraud andd that gave them an excuse to cancel it. i know a few people who really needed that mony for better food because they were sick and now there back eating from food banks and they cant eat alot of there food and get sick.

 

[doggy...@gmail.com]

Great post, Goldielover and excellent points. Also, this is a minority government and I don't see the NDP agreeing to cut ODSP, I don't even see the Tories supporting that. Even Mike the Knife Harris did not touch disability rates when he cut welfare.     DM     -------Original Message-------

From: Goldielover Date: 22/04/2013 10:31:47 AM To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 49930 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance   No, that's not true.  At this time it is just a report that is under consideration.  I know the SAR report makes fairly lengthy reading, but many of us actually did plow through it when it first came out.  Their proposal is to merge the two programs, and to have the same base amount for everyone.  (That's where the confusion is coming in, as some didn't bother to read past this point.)  To the base amount they then add a disability supplement, and supplements for dependents, which would likely bring us up fairly close to what the base amount for ODSP is now.  What IS at risk are things like the Special Diet allowance, which has specifically been targeted for elimination, and possibly other benefits like the Medical Transportation allowance, and the $100.00 In Work benefit. What we do have to remember, though, is THAT NONE OF THIS IS DEFINITE YET.  Change WILL come , there is no doubt about that, but there have been no announcements as exactly what recommendations from the SAR report will be implemented.  They could implement all of them, or they could choose to only implement some of them.  We just do not know at this time.  There is also the possibility that the current Liberal government will not survive, and an election will be called.    If that happens, and another party gets in, then any changes could be quite different altogether.  Changes will still come - I believe both the Tories and the NDP have mentioned that - but we don't know anything much about what their proposals would be.

[Andy Thompson]

Doggy Mama:

The Ontario Progressive Conservatives have already called for the integration of ODSP and OW... And the title of their plan is "Welfare to Work."

The case for integrating welfare and disability

By MPP Toby Barrett

Last week Opposition Leader Tim Hudak and I launched Paths to Prosperity: Welfare to Work. This white paper proposes to transform a system that is failing both social assistance recipients and taxpayers.

Our first policy suggestion is generating debate:

In order to get people into jobs faster, we will adopt the recommendations of Don Drummond, Frances Lankin and Munir Sheikh to transform Ontario’s social assistance system by replacing Ontario Works and the Ontario Disability Support Program with one program, focused on ability, not disability, while respecting the distinct needs of the people with disabilities.

It is important to stress this integration at the municipal/First Nations level will respect the needs of the disabled and will not negatively impact the property taxpayer.

The recommendation to integrate both programs at the municipal level was made last February in the report of Don Drummond’s Commission on the Reform of Ontario’s Public Services, and was fleshed out in Brighter Prospects: Transforming Social Assistance in Ontario, written by Frances Lankin and Munir Sheikh last October.

Don Drummond’s report is adamant we must move aggressively toward a fully-integrated benefits system that simplifies client access, and improves both client outcomes and fiscal sustainability through greater program effectiveness and reduced administrative costs – all without impacting municipalities.

Our white paper is very clear – this integration needs to be done in a way that does not negatively impact the municipal sector which is grappling with its own fiscal challenges. Integration would help reduce the current system’s 800 rules and regulations by at least half, and would lead to savings of $140 million a year.

Drummond went on to suggest, once implemented, a fully integrated benefits system could seek efficiencies by, “centralizing income testing and payment delivery; automating the processing of applications, eligibility and payments; automating income verification; consolidating program delivery; and standardizing eligibility criteria.”

Similarly, in their October report, Frances Lankin and Munir Sheikh wrote that an integrated system would provide individualized support to all social assistance recipients, including people with disabilities, and a combined program would not affect recipients’ eligibility-related income support.

The Lankin/Sheikh report argues that municipalities and First Nations have the necessary, on-the-ground understanding of their communities. Beyond knowing their communities and providing supports to jobseekers, municipalities are most closely connected to their local labour markets and the needs of employers. Municipalities are well placed to address the barriers to employment faced by those with disabilities. In addition to employment-related services, Lankin/Sheikh wrote that people who are applying for or receiving social assistance often require access to other supports like child care, housing, settlement services for newcomers, public health and addiction services – all resting at the municipal level.

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) has not adopted a formal position on the integration of Ontario Works (OW) and Ontario Disability Support Program (ODSP) but could support a system that is cost-effective, improves client outcomes and has no impact on municipalities. In an October release, AMO indicated municipalities would want to see the integration of OW and ODSP to be well-planned, adequately-resourced and flexible.

I invite all to view the Welfare to Work white paper at http://www.ontariopc.com/paths-to-prosperity/welfare-to-work/ and would value your feedback.

We need a seamless program to help as many as possible access employment. Integrating OW and ODSP at the municipal level will help us do that.

---

Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 21:47:38 -0400
From: doggy...@gmail.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50086 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

[Andy Thompson]

What Goldielover fails to realize is that although the report recommends a disability benefit, that benefit would be OUTSIDE of social assistance and only about 20% of current ODSP recipients (those totally unemployable) would receive it!

---

Date: Sat, 27 Apr 2013 21:47:38 -0400
From: doggy...@gmail.com

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50086 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

[Bill Higgs]

More like special diet was created to look good on paper,, and they never expected people to claim it, in fact they certainly didnt advertise the fact it existed.  When people claimed it and it started costing too much money, they needed an excuse to cut it back.  Hence the excuses of fraud and redirection of special diet money being used on basic needs.

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Olli

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 6:03 AM

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50020 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

i think i understand. they set the dietary supplement up so people could use the money for things other than food. then they yelled fraud andd that gave them an excuse to cancel it. i know a few people who really needed that mony for better food because they were sick and now there back eating from food banks and they cant eat alot of there food and get sick.

[Bill Higgs]

Speaking of Scandinavaian coutries,,  Have we heard about their deficit???  High uneployment???  etc etc?? NO

Thats because their socail programs etc make ours look sad by comarison

 

How on earth can this be??????  The scandinavion countries DONY have free trade, they simply trade within themselves.

A good watch is the documentary called Poor No More about social programs elsewhere.

 

I will upload it if anyone wants to watch it.

 

Bill

[abrowne]

Bill,

It has been proven through Wilkinson and Pickett's The Spirit Level that making income

more equal (not completely equal, but equal in a way that is fair, that still rewards hard

work while at the same time protects people from falling through cracks), there is less

crime, less obesity, less teenage pregnancy, less high school drop-outs, increased

longevity, etc.  This study was not conducted using the researchers' own statistics, but

the statistics kept by the many countries studied.

Deficits are a result of a combination of two things: 1. Recessions; and 2. Decreased

tax revenues.  The government's current approach to reduce and eliminate the deficit/debt

has been to decrease revenues further by speeding up tax cuts to the wealthy, and to 

impose consumption taxes (which does put a lid on spending in some sectors).  When

people are spending less, and the government cuts more because they have less revenues,

then it can start or prolong recessions, which in turn leads to further deficits.

We have to educate our MPPs and MPs that none of us recall spending splurges on the

poor in recent years, nor do we recall truckloads of employers opening up shop in our

communities begging people with disabilities to come work for them.  But we do recall

things like eHealth, OLG, Samsung, gas plant fiascos, etc. that cost money, which could

have been applied elsewhere in the economy.

We also need to keep imploring that their proposal of allowing us to keep $200 before

deductions at a rate of 57% is only going to lead to people working for exactly $200

month after month and nothing more.  To me, they need to "test" this on the province's

millionaires first, to "allow" them to keep the first $200 they earn each month, but the

province to claw back through taxes at a rate of 57% for every dollar above that, while

still leaving CRA to tax them at their marginal rates on their totals earned.  If this works

for the millionaires and they become plum enthused about it, then maybe I will accept it.

Angela

---

From: Bill Higgs <bill...@xplornet.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 3:06:48 AM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50093 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

[abrowne]

Bill,

As usual, this is Orwellian talk.

There was no fraud in the program.  Nobody was even CHARGED with fraud, let alone

convicted.  When people open their big mouths and insist that somebody has somehow

been convicted, or at least might be committing fraud, this is what lights up the cost cutters'

fancy.

Yet there is NO talk whatsoever about ending corporate welfare and other largesse that

is often abused by the business community.  The government and its supporters want us all

to believe this largesse creates jobs, when in fact there has not been a single job created as

a result of this corporate largesse and handouts.

That, my folks, is what we need to be focusing on.

Angela

---

From: Bill Higgs <bill...@xplornet.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 3:02:34 AM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50092 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

[Bill Higgs]

I am so disappointed in Toby Barrett for the last few years during Daltons majority, Barrett actually was pushing for ways we could keep more money, increasing or support etc etc.

And now his true colours have shown.  His tune has changed completely and he appears to be nothing more than a Hudaks slash and burn henchman.

 

Bill

----- Original Message -----

From: Goldielover

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 2:05 AM

Subject: [odspfireside: 50090 ] Re: PC's have already called for integrating OW and ODSP

No surprise there.  I suspect the NDP might as well.

Still, thanks for the link.  I've just spent the last hour writing a lengthy e-mail to Toby Barrett about my thoughts on his party's proposals.

[ROBERT ALDRED]

I know they are talking about suppliments.  I have pointed out that supplement history is one of constant long term cuts.   If they make supplements they are subject to cuts.   Look at the history.   Why not just two different incomes just like now?   Because over time that income would be much harder to cut because of public opinion.   You just said it.   Even Mike the Knife didnt cut disabled incomes.  If he came back in the form of Hudac the Knife Hudac or anyone that person would be able to chip away at incomes in a significant way if the changes are made.  They are counting on your long term memory being impaired.   This is a very serious attack on us.  Why not just leave the system of income they way it it.   Because it cant easily be cut.

I would point out that every year since the mid ninties social services incomes have been cut by deindexing incomes from the inflation rate.   Now incomes have been cut in half since 1993.    This process will go on by any means necessary.   The only option is to stop sleeping and start fighting.

If we occupy Queens Park we could take over the cafeteria there and eat lots of food.   Just a thought.

Robert  



On Sat 27/04/13 9:47 PM , "doggy...@gmail.com" doggy...@gmail.com sent:

[ROBERT ALDRED]

I would like to see that video.

Thankyou



On Sun 28/04/13 3:06 AM , "Bill Higgs" bill...@xplornet.com sent:

Speaking of Scandinavaian coutries,,  Have we heard about their deficit???  High uneployment???  etc etc?? NO

Thats because their socail programs etc make ours look sad by comarison

 

How on earth can this be??????  The scandinavion countries DONY have free trade, they simply trade within themselves.

A good watch is the documentary called Poor No More about social programs elsewhere.

 

I will upload it if anyone wants to watch it.

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

From: abrowne

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Thursday, April 25, 2013 9:33 AM

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50021 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

Can you find ONE example where somebody was even charged with fraud in

connection to the special diet, Ollie?  I have it on good grounds that there hasn't been.

I take you would rather have a Nanny state determine how everybody would spend

their money.  I assume you believe all people who are employed can manage their money

and don't need their employers to issue debit cards to them, but it is okay to discriminate

and force all people who are unable to be employed to be subjected to the Nanny state?

Is this a bit of a double standard?

I don't believe we should have a need for food banks.  Scandinavian countries do not

have food banks or a need for them, nor do they put the people there who are poor

on debit cards either.  Over there, people are treated with respect and like adults.

Angela

 

--

[Andy Thompson]

You're still missing the point.... The "building block" supplement  would be TEMPORARY until a universal benefit for people with disabilities is created outside of social assistance. And there's no indication how much the permanent benefit would pay. Because the benefit would eventually become universal expect it to be low. This means the primary portion of our income would come from the new general social assistance program and include all of its draconian expectations. The objective here is to REMOVE the status of disability from social assistance.

Also, the current ODSP definition of disability would be used for the SUPPLEMENT!

37. In order to avoid creating new barriers, we recommend that the Province not introduce any new benefits within the social assistance system without also making them available to all low-income Ontarians who are not receiving social assistance.

In order to fully transform the system, disability benefits, children's benefits, and extended health benefits should be removed from social assistance and be made available entirely outside the system. Providing these vital benefits to all low-income individuals and families would eliminate structural barriers for people trying to exit social assistance for work. We discuss below how each of these benefits might be provided outside social assistance.

A Package of Recommendations to Improve the Employment Prospects of People with Disabilities

The following are several areas where we have made recommendations to improve employment prospects for people with disabilities:cannot afford to leave the program. We need to remove this serious roadblock. As a priority, the Province should introduce a disability benefit outside social assistance, for all eligible low-income people with disabilities, to address the costs of living with a disability.

Much research and design work needs to be done in order to develop and introduce such a benefit. The issues to be examined include reconciling the different definitions between ODSP and disability tax benefit mechanisms. It will also be necessary to establish the value of the new benefit and determine if and when it should be withdrawn as income rises.

---

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 05:49:45 -0700
From: fio...@hotmail.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50105 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

They would like to eventually take disability out of the social assistance system, and make it into something similar to what the Ontario Child Benefit is now, but that is not short term.  As stated before, what is stated in the report is to have what they refer to as a building block added onto the regular rate for people for disabilities.  Here's two paragraphs lifted directly from the Lankin/Sheikh report outlining that:

"The second building block would be a disability supplement that you would receive on top of the standard rate if you are a person with a disability.  Initially, the supplement would bring your income up to the current ODSP rate.  This recognizes the higher living costs associated with living with a disability and the barriers to employment that people with disabilities face.  The current ODSP definition of "disability" would be used to determine your eligibility for the supplement."

"The disability supplement is an example of a transition step that we need to take within social assistance to achieve our longer -term vision.  In a fully transformed system all people with disabilities who have low incomes would receive a disability benefit, whether they are working or receiving social assistance". 

Nowhere in the report does it state anything about the future disability benefit being payable only to persons who are completely unemployable.  Neither does it mention anything about the future disability benefit being subject to a more stringent definition than is currently used,  although that could change, as this part of their plan is far from mature.

There is a lot of misinformation spreading around the net as to what the plans are, especially in the short term.  Many seem to be convinced that they will be cut back by large amounts almost immediately.  I think we should keep vigilant, keep reading, and be prepared to use our voices once we know what we are facing.  It does us no good at all to go off the deep end before we know exactly what the plans are.  We still have not heard exactly what the government is planning on introducing from this report.  That will likely come soon, and some details will likely be in the upcoming provincial budget, which is slated to be released on May. 2. 

For anyone who is interested in reading the Lankin/Sheikh report, and has not already got a copy of it, here's a link:

http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/documents/en/mcss/social/publications/social_assistance_review_final_report.pdf

[ROBERT ALDRED]

My comments are political.   I dont trust the long term results coming from this.   As you have said the Liberals are interpreting the report in a certain way and will proceed in their perception of the best way forward.   What if the Tories are elected.  They say they will conform their position to the report and yet they are preparing to do many different things.    I have never been convinced that the Liberals will cut incomes in a fast and furious way.  I am convinced the Tories would.   They would of course use the report as their template interpreted to conform to their political positions.   The report has no value at all in the real world and should be scraped.

The only way to stop the cuts to ODSP is to stop the report from being implemented.   Keep the whole amount of income for ODSP recipients as a right and not subject to the whims of who is in power.    Again.


On Sun 28/04/13 8:49 AM , Goldielover fio...@hotmail.com sent:

[Ugly Sean]

Fine and dandy. Welfare to Work. That may well apply to those who can hold a job.

I’d love to be employed again. But can I hold a job? With my low concentration level? My poor memory?  My low level of balance?  Such a job would have to allow me to stand for short periods with a cane and/or sitting on my walker or a nearby chair.  I didn’t read your accompanying article though, so I know virtually no details.

[Ugly Sean]

Ø  I invite all to view the Welfare to Work white paper at http://www.ontariopc.com/paths-to-prosperity/welfare-to-work/ and would value your feedback.

 

My feedback:

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

 

[Bill Higgs]

So does this say that dental benefits should be available for all low income Ontarians????

If Lankin and Sheik think that one will fly they are dreaming.. Dentists would NOT ever go along with that.

So what Lankin is saying is "if you cant offer dental to all low income Ontarians then no one should get it!!!!!"

And the governement will claim thay cant afford dental for all, so there is the excuse to remove our dental benefit.

And what about drug benefit,  there is a snowballs hope for drug benefit to be available to all Ontarians.

get my point.

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Andy Thompson

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

[Andy Thompson]

According to the logic of the reform dental benefits are a barrier to employment!

Get it? Anything that makes life the least bit tolerable for people with disabilities on ODSP is in fact a "barrier" to the endless "prosperity" that awaits us in the labour market.

According to that logic, my shelter, bed, and clothing are also "barriers" to my endless prosperity. 

---

From: bill...@xplornet.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50120 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance
Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 15:34:27 -0400

[Ugly Sean]

 

 

From: odspfi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:odspfi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Goldielover

Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 14:41
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50117 ] PC's have already called for integrating OW and ODSP

 

>When you go to that link, click on Policy, and then click on Welfare to Work.  It is there - I read it through last night.

Ah OK but you didn’t mention that part.

 

[Andy Thompson]

Nope! Apparently, you haven't read the report yet. Teeth are barriers to prosperity. You should also read the PC's "Pathways to Prosperity." Of course, because once the barriers are gone, prosperity awaits us all. Like for the more than 4000 workers in Cornwall who began lining at 6AM for 400 jobs. The company didn't start interviews till noon and 400 jobs is the long-term hiring plan. Only a few hundred will be hired anytime soon. Now, that's prosperity!

---

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 13:59:13 -0700
From: sus...@rocketmail.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50126 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

it would be good if they kept dental benifits. i know people who have teeth missing and its a lot harder to find a job with bad teeth.

theres real discimination for that.

On Sunday, April 28, 2013 3:55:15 PM UTC-4, andy_th...@outlook.com wrote:

According to the logic of the reform dental benefits are a barrier to employment!

 

[doggy...@gmail.com]

Please cite the part of the report that states this, notably your claim that only 20% of current recipients would get it.   DM          -------Original Message-------

[doggy...@gmail.com]

I don't see anything in there about slashing ODSP rates, which is what my comment was about.   As long as rates stay the same, it does not concern me who administers the program.   DM       -------Original Message-------

From: Andy Thompson Date: 27/04/2013 11:46:13 PM To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: [odspfireside: 50089 ] PC's have already called for integrating OW and ODSP

[Bill Higgs]

think of it this way, since amalgamating the two and passing off to the municipalities is supposed to find "efficiencies"  ie reduced costs, since we know that no workers were be shed by almalgamation and add to to that the fact miunicpal workers get paid MORE than provincial workers

so far I see no reduced costs?????

 

so where are these savings going to be coming from??? 

reduced benefits would be my guess , much like csumb  and dentures etc, as soon as odsp is handed off many benefits can just be declared discretionary and are then easy to cancel

of course the Ombudsman will no longer be able to intervene not will the SBT be of any recourse

and it will be easy for municipalites to reduce support, 

and the provincial legislators  will just throw their hands up in the air,, and say "dont blame us we didnt do it""

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

[Andy Thompson]

Step 1: Unify the two programs and create a temporary disability benefit 
"A building block in a simplified system: an initial disability supplement inside social assistance"

Understand that combining the two programs would split income support into two benefits: the primary (larger) social assistance income benefit and the secondary (smaller) disability benefit. 

"Initially, the disability supplement would be valued so that a recipient‘s combined income from the standard rate and the disability supplement is equivalent to the maximum rate, at the time of implementation"

Notice the word, "initially"

Step 2:
The temporary benefit would be eliminated and another benefit would be created outside of social assistance.

38. As a priority, we recommend that the Province introduce a new disability benefit, outside social assistance, for all low-income working Ontarians with disabilities.

Until there is a disability benefit outside the social assistance system, we are recommending a disability supplement, on top of the standard rate, for social assistance recipients with disabilities. This is one of the building blocks in the simplified system we envisage on the way toward a fully transformed system.

Read the report:
http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/documents/en/mcss/social/publications/social_assistance_review_final_report.pdf

---

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 18:45:30 -0400
From: doggy...@gmail.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [odspfireside: 50129 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

[Andy Thompson]

The new social assistance program would have only a single rate. The disability benefit would be temporary until a replacement could be created outside the program. Creating a single program would mean a single set of participant expectations. In fact, the report says the new program would not stigmatize people with disabilities by exempting them from the same expectations as non disable participates.

---

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 18:43:50 -0400
From: doggy...@gmail.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50130 ] PC's have already called for integrating OW and ODSP

[abrowne]

The taking disability benefits OUT OF SOCIAL ASSISTANCE is not a goal I disagree with.  It can be a

good thing, but I don't want the transition to be dealing with the municipality, sorry - but I have had enough

abuse to last a lifetime and I don't need to worry about missing mortgage payments as well, due to my

own region's apparently policy of how they hold, suspend, etc. regularly people on OW.  I watched people

actually lose their housing over this kind of thing, which to me, is heinous and unnecessary in respect to

the reason why they were on hold.

Angela

---

From: Andy Thompson <andy_th...@outlook.com>
To: "odspfi...@googlegroups.com" <odspfi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 11:15:55 PM
Subject: RE: [odspfireside: 50133 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

[Bloggy.Deb]

Angela…I couldn’t agree more, the potential for chaos is beyond thinking.  That being said I think you made a very salient point when you stated :- due to my own region's apparently policy of how they hold, suspend, etc. regularly people on OW

IMHO the issue is each Region applies policy differently, were it applied consistently from Region to Region, Office to Office, Worker to Worker, I would be OK with the present policy. But I am not!

Deb

 

From: odspfi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:odspfi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of abrowne

Sent: April-28-13 11:23 PM
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50135 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

 

The taking disability benefits OUT OF SOCIAL ASSISTANCE is not a goal I disagree with.  It can be a

good thing, but I don't want the transition to be dealing with the municipality, sorry - but I have had enough

abuse to last a lifetime and I don't need to worry about missing mortgage payments as well, due to my

own region's apparently policy of how they hold, suspend, etc. regularly people on OW.  I watched people

actually lose their housing over this kind of thing, which to me, is heinous and unnecessary in respect to

the reason why they were on hold.

Angela

<SNIP> 

[Sylvie Duggan]

boy that was a lot of reading, I dont know if I would agree with the food card.  I need to get organic foods, are they going to give me enough money for that. I dont think so. I think that they should do pay direct to landlord for the rent, love it as I dont have to worry about the rent. Now the food I dont know how to figure that one out. But some people have different forms of food to get so I think that wouldnt work out. Anyway the going to OW from ODSP is so stupid. They should make people on OW go to OW courses if they dont go all week to the courses they dont receive a cheque at the end of the month. They also have to prove they have done job hunting. As for ODSP people if you are able to work they should do the same thing, but a lot of us, cant do work because of our conditions. They cant force ODSP people to go out and look for a job, cause most people look at us and say how long are they going to last here, not long, so they go looking at people that will last there long time.

---

From: Goldielover <fio...@hotmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 2:40:56 PM

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50117 ] PC's have already called for integrating OW and ODSP

When you go to that link, click on Policy, and then click on Welfare to Work.  It is there - I read it through last night.

On Sunday, April 28, 2013 12:19:27 PM UTC-4, Ugly wrote:

Ø  I invite all to view the Welfare to Work white paper at http://www.ontariopc.com/ paths-to-prosperity/welfare- to-work/ and would value your feedback.

 

My feedback:

Not Found

Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here.

 

--

[Sylvie Duggan]

went to that link but it is saying there is nothing there

---

From: Ugly Sean <sc...@rogers.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Sunday, April 28, 2013 12:19:27 PM
Subject: RE: [odspfireside: 50116 ] PC's have already called for integrating OW and ODSP

[abrowne]

I want to be treated like a responsible adult.  I do not want or need a food card, nor do I want or need a

pay direct system.  If I was in a landlord and tenant situation, to me it is none of the landlord's business

where I get my money from.  I don't want differential treatment from other people, unless it is ordered by

a court for justifiable reasons. I can understand why some people might WANT pay direct, but that should

be a CHOICE, not something that is imposed on you.  I think it is wrong to assume people are irresponsible

just because they are receiving a disability benefit.  If they force everybody on this, I would rather live

in the streets.

A

---

From: Sylvie Duggan <duggan...@yahoo.com>
To: "odspfi...@googlegroups.com" <odspfi...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 8:32:22 AM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50138 ] PC's have already called for integrating OW and ODSP

[Andy Thompson]

Please, explain why you believe it would be a good thing. I have my own opinions, but I'm interested to hear yours.

"The taking disability benefits OUT OF SOCIAL ASSISTANCE is not a goal I disagree with."

---

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:23:08 -0700
From: browne...@yahoo.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50135 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

[Andy Thompson]

Also, I cannot foresee a circumstance where two disability benefits co-exist (i.e., the DTC and the new benefit).

Would the two be combined? Which definition of disability would be used?

---

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 20:23:08 -0700
From: browne...@yahoo.com

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50135 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

[Andy Thompson]

How would rank-and-file government workers have a say over the design and function of a new program? Many have concerns about the implications cost-efficiencies would have on their employment.

Don't politicians and government workers get government money? Isn't that how they're paid?

I think you've touch on a salient point unwittingly.

---

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 02:19:12 -0700
From: sus...@rocketmail.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50141 ] PC's have already called for integrating OW and ODSP

im with you amanda.
its all the same to me.

from what i read here the real problem people hear are having with a new system is that their not in control of the change and wont have a say with how its run.
goverment workers and politicans are.

but puting the people who are getting goverment money in charge of that mony is what causes so much goverment waste and to much spending already.

i say dont make that mistake again.
 
 

[abrowne]

Of course, removing ODSP from welfare and making it into a GAI will require some

federal cooperation.  The DTC and a revised form of ODSP are two different things.

Less than 20% of people on ODSP qualify for the DTC, as they use very different

criteria.  You don't have to be disabled for work purposes to qualify for the DTC, for

example.  You can be the CEO of a large company and still get it.  It is based on having

one of seven enumerated areas of "marked restrictions" 90 - 100% of the time, while ODSP

is more for a general disability benefit.

Angela

From: Andy Thompson <andy_th...@outlook.com>
To: "odspfi...@googlegroups.com" <odspfi...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 12:25:31 PM
Subject: RE: [odspfireside: 50153 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

[abrowne]

Right now, ODSP is operated like welfare, with similar rules to welfare.

 

I want to see all those rules scrapped and replaced with a DISABILITY GAI, where clawbacks don't

amount to higher marginal taxation rates than people receiving/earning the same amount of money

outside of ODSP.  The government seems to think if they don't claw ODSP back that people will

somehow be making thousands of dollars and still get ODSP ... most people on ODSP can only work

part time, so they will still be contributing and will only be taxed to the effect of their total income

like other people are, including their total receipt of ODSP (minus any personal and disability exemptions

and so forth, which will make the base amount non-taxable).

 

Also, taking it out of social assistance will allow people with disabilities to get married without

punishing the spouse or expecting the spouse to work three or four jobs to support the family

and never be home.  The damage this has caused my health and my marriage is immeasurable

at this point,  My husband and I don't have much of a relationship anymore and I am just too tired

to even communicate with anybody.  (It is routine for other members of my family simply just to

get up and go places together without me, as they know I am never home).

 

This idea of course is different than that being proposed by the Coalition, although the Coalition has

some similar ideas, e.g. individual benefit unit, increased exemptions to equal that of what can be

received as gifts without penalty, etc.

 

At the present time, ODSP is glorified welfare, where it is somehow expected that people will

go off the system, when in fact, very few people ever do (less than 2% leave due to working).  I can

see disability income being treated differently than welfare because it IS different and the people

who are in receipt of it have different needs.

 

Angela

From: Andy Thompson <andy_th...@outlook.com>
To: "odspfi...@googlegroups.com" <odspfi...@googlegroups.com>

Sent: Monday, April 29, 2013 12:23:56 PM
Subject: RE: [odspfireside: 50151 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

Please, explain why you believe it would be a good thing. I have my own opinions, but I'm interested to hear yours.

"The taking disability benefits OUT OF SOCIAL ASSISTANCE is not a goal I disagree with."

[doggy...@gmail.com]

I agree about the food card. That would remove our privacy, as then anyone seeing you pay with it would know we are on ODSP and it's none of their business. It would not stop people from buying other things either because they would just sell it to someone for cash to get what they want. That is what is happening in the stages.   I have pay direct for rent, heat and hydro. It's great as I don't have to worry about any of that and there's no temptation to rob Peter to pay Paul, but it should be voluntary not mandatory.   DM          -------Original Message-------

From: abrowne Date: 29/04/2013 9:01:49 AM To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50142 ] PC's have already called for integrating OW and ODSP

[doggy...@gmail.com]

Please address what I say when replying to my posts. Thanks.   DM          -------Original Message-------

From: Andy Thompson Date: 28/04/2013 11:20:17 PM To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: RE: [odspfireside: 50134 ] PC's have already called for integrating OW and ODSP

[doggy...@gmail.com]

I asked for you to cite where it says that only 20% of current ODSP recipients would get the disability benefit. You did not do so.     DM

-------Original Message-------   From: Andy Thompson Date: 28/04/2013 11:16:55 PM To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [odspfireside: 50133 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

Step 1: Unify the two programs and create a temporary disability benefit  "A building block in a simplified system: an initial disability supplement inside social assistance" Understand that combining the two programs would split income support into two benefits: the primary (larger) social assistance income benefit and the secondary (smaller) disability benefit.  "Initially, the disability supplement would be valued so that a recipient‘s combined income from the standard rate and the disability supplement is equivalent to the maximum rate, at the time of implementation" Notice the word, "initially" Step 2: The temporary benefit would be eliminated and another benefit would be created outside of social assistance. 38. As a priority, we recommend that the Province introduce a new disability benefit, outside social assistance, for all low-income working Ontarians with disabilities. Until there is a disability benefit outside the social assistance system, we are recommending a disability supplement, on top of the standard rate, for social assistance recipients with disabilities. This is one of the building blocks in the simplified system we envisage on the way toward a fully transformed system. Read the report: http://www.mcss.gov.on.ca/documents/en/mcss/social/publications/social_assistance_review_final_report.pdf

Date: Sun, 28 Apr 2013 18:45:30 -0400 From: doggy...@gmail.com To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com Subject: RE: [odspfireside: 50129 ] Re: Re: [ODSP AC Discussion] Toby Barrett and Wynne on Social Assistance

Please cite the part of the report that states this, notably your claim that only 20% of current recipients would get it.   DM

. .

[Andy Thompson]

Getting "government money?"

Guvment no gots mony... We gots mony... they takes it.

---

Date: Mon, 29 Apr 2013 02:19:12 -0700
From: sus...@rocketmail.com

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50141 ] PC's have already called for integrating OW and ODSP

[Bill Higgs]

I assume they will be as equally unhappy that close to a billion when all is said and done was wasted by the McGuinty government cancelling 2 power plants that they had approved themselves

it is not just social programs that  cost a lot of money, You seem to forget the mega million dollars of waste of taxpayer money on the likes of Ehealth, ORNGE   and the list goes on and on and on.

 

if this province is bankrupt  social prgrams is just the tip of the iceberg,  ODSP is but a drop in the money spent by our governemnt

 

 

Bill

 

 

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Olli

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 6:58 PM

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50179 ] PC's have already called for integrating OW and ODSP

no we have no mony either. the goverment takes it from other people and then gives it to us.

and those people are getting unhappy.

[ROBERT ALDRED]

It should not be implemented at all.   The card will not allow people to pay their rent using a large part of the Food portion.   The government is insisting that the rates for rent are adequate.   That dishonest.   I would say I support the card system if it was voluntary rents were paid directly and covered the whole amount of the rent.   Since they will never do that but once again hide their heads in the sand many people would lose their housing.    Maybe a tent program for the poor.  Put them in Northern Ontario so people cant see what this policy will mean for many.

[ROBERT ALDRED]

Maybe there should be an investigation.  Ha.   You know like the one they did about McMaRoony.

[Andy Thompson]

My replies are always to the group.

---

Date: Tue, 30 Apr 2013 16:43:05 -0400
From: doggy...@gmail.com
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: RE: [odspfireside: 50170 ] PC's have already called for integrating OW and ODSP

[abrowne]

But the cost of poverty is over $39 billion a year.  About $2,000+ per resident of Ontario.

The cost of eliminating poverty is much less than half.

 

And there is at least 7 billion in unpaid corporate taxes too.  Which do you think would be

easier to collect?

A

From: Olli <sus...@rocketmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:26:16 PM
Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50194 ] PC's have already called for integrating OW and ODSP

i found this on the internet:
             In 2009–10, total provincial expenditures on social assistance were about $6.6 billion, about 6 per cent of the provincial budget.

thats a lot bigger just than a drop.
big enough to get the intention of people who want to cut spending thats for sur.
 

[Bloggy.Deb]

Susan can you cite your sources, please and thanks?

Deb

 

From: odspfi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:odspfi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of Olli

Sent: April-30-13 9:26 PM
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50194 ] PC's have already called for integrating OW and ODSP

i found this on the internet:
             In 2009–10, total provincial expenditures on social assistance were about $6.6 billion, about 6 per cent of the provincial budget.

thats a lot bigger just than a drop.
big enough to get the intention of people who want to cut spending thats for sur.

On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:14:17 PM UTC-4, tooguyca wrote:

[abrowne]

I am noticing you cc'ing your respondent, Robert.  Please check your email going

out to see if anybody is the recipient other than the group.

A

From: ROBERT ALDRED <chrys...@primus.ca>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com; "doggy...@gmail.com" <doggy...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:27:12 PM
Subject: Re: Re: [odspfireside: 50185 ] PC's have already called for integrating OW and ODSP

 

[abrowne]

Social programs are not causing the deficit, they never did.  When there is spending on

social programs, there is MORE THAN one dollar returned to the economy for every

dollar spent on social programs.

 

For moving gas plants, however, or eHealth, or ORNGE, there is no end to government waste,

and nobody benefits but the rich.  I don't see anybody asking the beneficiaries of these projects

to repay the government, do you?

A

[Bill Higgs]

of which approximatley half was spent on ODSP staff!!!!!  so about 3.3 billion was actually spent on the disabled

 

Bill

 

----- Original Message -----

From: Olli

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 9:26 PM

Subject: Re: [odspfireside: 50194 ] PC's have already called for integrating OW and ODSP

i found this on the internet:
             In 2009–10, total provincial expenditures on social assistance were about $6.6 billion, about 6 per cent of the provincial budget.

thats a lot bigger just than a drop.
big enough to get the intention of people who want to cut spending thats for sur.

On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:14:17 PM UTC-4, tooguyca wrote:

[ROBERT ALDRED]

Ok.  Thankyou.



On Tue 30/04/13 10:30 PM , abrowne browne...@yahoo.com sent:

I am noticing you cc'ing your respondent, Robert.  Please check your email going

out to see if anybody is the recipient other than the group.

A

From: ROBERT ALDRED
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com; "doggy...@gmail.com"
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:27:12 PM

Subject: Re: Re: [odspfireside: 50185 ] PC's have already called for integrating OW and ODSP

[Bloggy.Deb]

Angela, thank you, that is what I was saying all along, he denied it, I doubt that its intentional, I suspect it’s a setting than can easily be changed, as I am not Moderator here, I didn’t want to make a fuss, its not my place.  Maybe you or someone Yahoo group –savvy can help Robert out.

Cheers

Deb

 

From: odspfi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:odspfi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of abrowne

Sent: April-30-13 10:31 PM
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

--

[Bloggy.Deb]

That is the most salient point Ang, however do remember that Disability and/or Poverty is big business.

[ROBERT ALDRED]

Get rid of the staff.   Make the rules simple.  Double the incomes of the poor.  



On Tue 30/04/13 10:28 PM , "Bill Higgs" bill...@xplornet.com sent:

--

[Bill Higgs]

LOL good idea but it will never happen, simply because its logical and common sense is something you lose when you become a politician.

[ROBERT ALDRED]

I am not saying and never have said it isn't happening.   I am saying I am not doing it purposefully.   I am actually not clear on what Is wrong. 

Robert



On Tue 30/04/13 11:04 PM , "Bloggy.Deb" blogg...@gmail.com sent:

Angela, thank you, that is what I was saying all along, he denied it, I doubt that its intentional, I suspect it’s a setting than can easily be changed, as I am not Moderator here, I didn’t want to make a fuss, its not my place.  Maybe you or someone Yahoo group –savvy can help Robert out.

Cheers

Deb

 

From: odspfi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:odspfi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of abrowne
Sent: April-30-13 10:31 PM
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Subject: Re: Re: [odspfireside: 50198 ] PC's have already called for integrating OW and ODSP

 

I am noticing you cc'ing your respondent, Robert.  Please check your email going

out to see if anybody is the recipient other than the group.

A

 

From: ROBERT ALDRED <chrys...@primus.ca>

To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com; "doggy...@gmail.com" < doggy...@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, April 30, 2013 7:27:12 PM

Subject: Re: Re: [odspfireside: 50185 ] PC's have already called for integrating OW and ODSP

--
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "ODSP Fireside" group.
To change email delivery, nickname or unsubscribe from this group visit:
 
Http://groups.google.ca/group/odspfireside/subscribe?hl=en
 
To post to this group via email, send email to odspfi...@googlegroups.com
 
 

[Bloggy.Deb]

Hi  Robert, let’s start off with your email application(IOW) how do you access your emails. Once we know that, we can diagnose the issue and fix it, to avoid extra messages, you are welcome to message me directly so we can resolve this together.

D

 

From: odspfi...@googlegroups.com [mailto:odspfi...@googlegroups.com] On Behalf Of ROBERT ALDRED

Sent: April-30-13 11:24 PM
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com

[Ron Payne]

Susan

What % of that 6.6 billion is wasted on worker error?

Does anyone in this group know what it costs the municipalities to respond to a Social Benefits Tribunal hearing request?

I would certainly like to know the answers to these questions.

Ron

[Bloggy.Deb]

Thanks greatly appreciated,

Deb

hi deb. sure.

its from the candian social research links page:  http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/onwelf.htm

On Tuesday, April 30, 2013 10:41:12 PM UTC-4, Bloggy Deb wrote:

Susan can you cite your sources, please and thanks?

Deb

--

[Bill Higgs]

Heres a good one, I peroanally know someone who claimed special diet  and as soon as it was granted received a letter fomr ODSP  claiming that he had a 173 dollar overpayment from 17 years prior when he had temporarily claimed OW

He did not bother to fight it since who has records from 17 years ago??

 

So the question remains how much money was spent tracking down this HUGE overpayment????

10,000 or 20,000,  who knows but you can bet it was way more than the 173 bucks they got back!!!!!!

 

Bill

[abrowne]

There has to be a great deal more research than this, ODSP is not $6 billion.  It is

$3.2 billion and the majority of it goes to support the bureaucratic infrastructure.

If you really want to get good research and statistics, this is a good site to go to, but

there is also http://www.openpolicy.com/ and other sources, like the Canada Without

Poverty, Wellesley Institute, various publications (such as peer reviewed journals, many

of which we subscribe to here), etc.  I have a business degree, as well as sociology in

addition to my legal background, and I have access to a number of sources of information,

but I think it would be too simplistic just to put a source on there to explain something

that is complex.

 

I think some people want to take a very simplistic analysis and thinking, without

understanding public finance at all and how this differs from running a business or even

your own household.  Various types of spending initiatives in the economy have varying

impacts on economic growth and stimulus.  Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives came

up with a paper one year, I will try to dig it up which compares various types of fiscal

policy and their economic impact.  The current strategy by the government, e.g. tax cuts

for the wealthy, actually showed the lowest level of economic benefit, when compared to

other fiscal measures, such as infrastructure funding, social programs, etc.

 

For example, if people who are low income got more money as an increase in benefit rates,

for example, the likelihood that these same people will spend it in the community is quite

high.  For example, if you had an extra $20 per month, you can eat at a restaurant, go to a

movie, buy a pair of pants at a local store, or spend it at the farmer's market.  Take that

$20 away, then the restaurant, the movie theatre, the independent store and the farmer's

market are not getting this money, and if this happens to enough people who are now being

forced to give up even basic needs, these businesses will soon have to lay people off.

 

Our government's policies are not currently aligned to support economic stimulus, but

instead is leading to overall weak economic growth.

Angela

From: Bloggy.Deb <blogg...@gmail.com>
To: odspfi...@googlegroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, May 1, 2013 6:42:27 PM
Subject: RE: [odspfireside: 50230 ] PC's have already called for integrating OW and ODSP

Thanks greatly appreciated,

Deb

hi deb. sure.

its from the candian social research links page:  http://www.canadiansocialresearch.net/onwelf.htmHttp://groups.google.ca/group/odspfireside/subscribe?hl=en