Spring, Annual Budgets and False Hope for the Poor

At this time of the year, both the federal and provincial governments hand down their budgets. Last year in particular, both of these budgets were politically motivated and designed to fool the casual observer that the poor and socially disadvantaged are being cared for. With most of you aware, we all know the general population has somewhat increased its concern for the needy among us. We read upon the New Year that the growing gap between the very wealthy among us and those barely getting by has grown exponentially, despite reported economic growth in this country, Newfoundland and Labrador is left with an aging and poor population. How much surplus dollars government has is irrelevant if people are cold and hungry.

Imagine yourself as somebody who is not benefiting from all of this hoopla around growing prosperity and economic growth. Imagine that you are too ill to work and being one of the growing unfortunate numbers who do not have a private disability plan to look after you, or you have been forced to retire early due to circumstances of your plant closure and your age is a major strike against you getting new employment. Imagine that you are a single parent, through divorce or death of a spouse, that you find yourself thrown into the unbound world of economic competition and cannot obtain affordable childcare in order for you to go back to work or to upgrade your skills. You and a growing number of people are now turning to the government's minimalist plan of support and learning now that all of these years you enjoyed substantial tax cuts are now coming back to bite you. We no longer have the social safety net many anticipated at one time would be there. We no longer have job security that at one time lasted from the time you left school until the day you collected your gold watch and a retirement pension. Employers reject the older, long-term unemployed, injured or disabled worker, in favour of younger people they can pay less and expect more from.

When this happens to you, where do you go? Some people are lucky enough to have a skill to sell or family members to fall back on to assist them in times of need. However, many people find self-employment and entrepreneurship not suited to their lifestyle, needs and budget, nor do they have family members that can or will help. You end up with what the government has left: a tattered social safety net, designed less to serve you than to serve a growing number of low-wage, rule-breaking employers that will use and abuse whatever powers they may have. As a person with a disability, it is no longer viable to remain on benefits, as the value of your benefits have eroded to such a point that it is impossible to survive on so little. Injured workers are more likely to find themselves in trouble with the new Workplace Safety and Insurance Board, which all but guarantees adequate compensation for injured workers and wherever possible, attempts to force you back to work before you are ready. Workmans Comp... I need not say much more about that.

It is the Spring of 2007, which is usually supposed to represent hope for hundreds of thousands of Newfoundland and Labrador families. The federal government, in hopes of getting re-elected, presented a budget that on its surface appears to be something for everyone, including the working poor. The provincial PC's released their own budget a few short days later, attempting to outdo the Conservatives' attempt at becoming Liberals, by trying to make themselves appear to be New Democrats. However, all of this is flash in the pan upon further inspection.

The vast majority of the federal government's budget is geared towards increased transfer payments to the provinces, as well as additional tax cuts that benefit particular sectors of the middle class. For those who work, but do not earn enough to pay income taxes, these tax cuts are of no use to you. For those of you unfortunate enough to rely on assistance, they are even of less use to you. If you are a person with a disability, the only mention in the federal budget is a Registered Disability Savings Plan; that is, a financial instrument that is designed similarly to the Registered Education Savings Plan, but is set up for persons with disabilities, friends and relatives to deposit money into it up to a total amount of $200,000 per person. This RDSP, as they call it, again depends on having the kinds of friends and relatives that have the financial means and willingness to contribute to such an instrument on behalf of a person with a disability, which is usually somebody who is younger and anticipates a number of future financial needs with respect to his or her disability. People who are older, living on HCS and lack such family support will not benefit from such an instrument.

If you are a member of the "working poor"; that is, if you are a single person and earning more than about $4,500 per year, but less than $12,899 per year, you will be entitled to the new Working Income Tax Benefit (WITB). At $4,500, the benefit is at its highest peak of $500, and as your income moves towards $12,899, it decreases substantially until it hits zero. For families, the figures are about $8,500, at its peak and ending at zero at approximately $21,000 per year.

An article in the Toronto Star, Thomas Walkom in his wisdom advised this benefit made good press, but will not help the majority of the working poor, as most year-round minimum wage earners earn more than $12,899, and an estimated 89% of such earners are part of families, where it is likely there is another earner or other sources of income. With regards to families, if both partners earned a minimum wage year round salary, they'd still earn more than the requisite $21,000 per year. To say that this benefit will lift hundreds of thousands of families out of poverty is a lie. It is a way to impress the public that "something is being done" without having to do anything at all, while at the same time, saving $1 billion of this initiative that is obviously not going to be used to be spent on something else. However, the Conservatives did not promise an anti-poverty budget, so they can be forgiven for being a tad slovenly in that direction.

Provincially, the picture is much more cynical, especially given their pre-budget hype about this budget was about it being an "anti-poverty" budget. When you promise so much, but not deliver, this makes the picture much more cynical and brazen to many voters. Their major anti-poverty initiative is an investment over a five-year period on a new Child Benefit. They also promised an investment in affordable housing, as well throwing big numbers at some voters may "wow" some, but upon closer examination, one finds that these numbers do not add up at all.

A little background here. In 1998, the federal government designed the National Child benefit Supplement as a means to reduce child poverty in the provinces, but leaving the provinces with the right to clawback 100% of the dollars from this Benefit from families who were in receipt of any kind of welfare or disability benefits. Some provinces, including Newfoundland Labrador, chose this direction, though not all provinces did. Over time, a movement gained some momentum when it was learned that the poorest of the poor will not benefit from this federal initiative and these same people would only get this money "back" if they took on a low-waged job and left the benefit rolls. It did not matter that many of the parents in this picture were persons with disabilities, who had substantial barriers to employment, or parents who had no access to subsidized or low-cost childcare. They were to receive this benefit on one hand, and have the provincial government claw it back from the other.

After the mathematical shell game is completed, how much money does this mean for families on HRLE and HCS Disability Support Program benefits? I have been promised by various authorities I spoke to, that the net result will be positive for all families, but it appears to me that these families will be getting substantially less benefit from this prorgram than would families that receive all of their income from wages would.

With the general direction and philosophy of this government's budget, I am becoming increasingly concerned that while this government may not REQUIRE people with disabilities to find work in exchange for continued eligibility for benefits, as with the case of Ontario Works, this is being done by stealth. That means that when somebody is finding they can no longer afford to pay for the basics of their survival, they may find themselves forced to take any job -- often at their own detriment and at really no help to their prospective employer. Does the government really want to do this to its vulnerable citizens? I think as a general public, we need to ask these questions and try to find out why this is happening. Because less and less jobs offer pensions and disability plans of their own, anybody ... and I mean anybody ... can be just one paycheque away from this kind of tragedy. By then, it will only be too late when you discover that in exchange for all the tax cuts you received while working, you gave up most of your rights to social protection in the event of job loss, disability, ill health, divorce, etc. It is about time that we STAND UP and do something about this before more people get hurt.

Brudder

Poverty and Access are Intertwined ...

There seems to be a bilateral movement within the disability community when it comes to most issues. Many Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans with Disabilities had joined hand with coalitions across Canada and pushed for broad-based universal access over the years. They were the primary motivators behind Bill 118, which was passed by the Liberals in May 2005.

Many groups have now moved onto other issues, particularly with reform of the Human Rights Code, and I have no disagreement with these groups and in fact, their organization has been influential with respect to bringing some of the issues people with disabilities face on a regular basis to the forefront. In some ways, they made important changes. I feel though the other side of the movement which demands "accessibility" in a broader sense of the term is universal access to transportation.

However, with Bill 118, there is emphasis is on "access", while not understanding what "accessibility" truly is. As part of Bill 118, all municipalities with a population of 10,000 or more people have to set up an Accessibility Advisory Committees or (AAC). There is nothing wrong with consulting with people with disabilities, but many times - members of such AACs become pre-occupied or "experts within their own realm" without understanding the broader realm of accessibility. They advise the municipalities on things like ensuring there are ramps on new municipal buildings or they are built on a ground level to ease entry for anybody using a wheelchair, how to ensure that people with mobility limitations can be notified and assisted in the event of an emergency, as well as making sure municipal websites are set up in a way that visually impaired and persons with certain neurological conditions can access them. This is good -- this prevents seriously embarrassing omissions’ that will likely be made if the typical politicians and civic staff are left to deal with these issues on their own, but does not bring a single person with a disability out of poverty.

However, my argument always was and continues to be that accessibility is a very broad issue. I can't do a job if I am unable to get there. I am unable to get there if the buses are not set up to transport people to the location of this job. I am unable to get there if politicians continue to believe that the only people that count in this region are people who drive. Many people don't. Some do not drive for financial reasons. They may have had to give up their vehicles because they lost their jobs and in order to qualify for social assistance, had to sell that asset, or perhaps, they could no longer afford to maintain it. Some simply do not earn enough money to own and maintain their own vehicles. Some people -- regardless of financial status -- cannot drive for legal or medical reasons; maybe their license was suspended as a result of a violation or unpaid fines, or perhaps they cannot drive for reasons of their disability - either medically reported or recommended. Others may choose not to drive because of environmental or other personal reasons.

The AACs are there to advise politicians about the "accessible" transit service; that is, primarily the Para-transport service and to some extent, private bus lines in our city that run ramp ready buses. There should be no need for people to have to pre-plan their trips two weeks ahead all the time, when things can always happen in between. A life that lacks spontaneity is no life at all, it seems. However, very little has been said where there are no buses or the service of such buses is infrequent or not useful for the people that need to use them. It would be nice to have all city buses low floor ramp-ready buses, but if none of them come near my house and take me to a job to an office ten miles out of town, I see no benefit. Who speaks for me around that AAC table?

Further, the AACs have not said much about the issues of employment. Employers breach the Human Rights Code with abandon and they get away with it for many reasons:

(a) Some people do not know their rights under the Code or how to enforce them;
(b) Some people who do know their rights know the Commission is very slow and cumbersome and is a difficult process to use to get anything done; and
(c) People who know other ways to enforce their rights may not have the money or legal knowledge to access the judicial venue required to push for them.

Employers know this too, that is why they don't care if they are in violation or not. As a result, many people with disabilities are not getting the jobs they would normally be able to get. Other employers may fear the Code, but find all kinds of ways around it by requiring attributes of candidates that are not necessary for the bona fide elements of the position. For example, they may require somebody to have an MSW to coordinate a program in a social service agency, when perhaps a related degree with relevant training would also do. They may require a candidate to own and maintain a "reliable vehicle". The CAA reported that it costs approximately $7,900 a year to own and maintain a vehicle. Therefore, the candidate must be free of most types of disabilities and be at least middle class (and as I would argue, equally ignorant about what people with disabilities really need). There are other issues too, such as requiring shift work for candidates - many of whom have disabilities that may not allow a person to do shift work. Do we hear anything from the AACs about these things, or even from the provincial governments own Accessibility Directorate? Of course not.

People who make up these committees are usually picked from people who have physical or sensory disabilities, and are not necessarily those with other kinds of disabilities that are hidden but still can severely impact on that person's financial circumstances, e.g. heart condition, diabetes, epilepsy, certain kinds of mental health conditions, chronic fatigue, sleep disorders, learning disabilities, attention deficit disorders, etc. If somebody from the latter category is picked, I can assure you they probably never heard of Newfoundland Disability Support Programs or lived in poverty themselves. All of these other people have accommodation needs as well as people who have the usual kinds of disabilities, yet the accommodation issues faced by the latter group are pushed aside. These people are invisible. This is probably why our own region's politicians think the only people who have "real" disabilities are those that use wheelchairs, scooters, walkers and so forth, and then again - they also think these people are “SICK” and only need to travel for medical appointments and for no other reason.

I have worked with a variety of people with many different disabilities over the years. I can count the fingers on both of my hands to come up with the number of people who have the types of disabilities that our city and region's fathers (and mothers) believe to have these "real" disabilities. The other 65% of people I dealt with have other types of disabling issues, which to them are just as "real". This same 95% of people I deal with are not considered eligible for the region's only answer to inter-city transit that is set up for other disabled persons. Even for medical appointments, these same 65% of people continue to have to call and pay for taxis which for a single trip can cost anywhere from $15 to nearly $40, depending on where one is coming from and where they are going to.

Should I ask our politicians if these people must be put in a position to choose between a week's groceries, the hydro bill or transportation to an important appointment? Approximately 75% of people with disabilities rely on HCS Disability Support Program or HRLE as their main income source. Some of the others receive Long Term Disability Benefits from federal or work insurance, which more closely reflects what they previously earned and resembles the cost of living. However, those receiving HCS Disability Support Program Benefits and HRLE are in severely straightened circumstances. Our politicians want people to believe people are there because:

(a) they have no work skills;
(b) they are illiterate;
(c) they don't have English as their first language;
(d) they have or had addiction issues; and
(e) they lack a high school diploma.

What about those who are quite literate, thank you very much -- and can read more than one newspaper cover to cover in a day, a novel a week, and even write for other publications? What about those who worked in positions in the past that were considered managerial, executive or professional in nature and earning a salary at least 10 to 20 times what HSC, Or HRLE provides in a month?

Just like the Editor of the small town newspaper wrote to a little girl named Virginia in the 1800's about there being a Santa Claus ... yes, there ARE such people. In fact, there are MANY such people. These people are just not getting hired because employers are putting unnecessary barriers against them being hired, as well as in some cases, rules of seniority keep anybody new from EVER getting hired to the firm or government department. Those laid off last get first dibs on these jobs. The question I once asked about how I get laid off from such a job so I have access to "recall” was never answered. This means unions also have to give a little to ensure that these people have a fighting chance to have employment that is sufficient for them to build a pension when they are 65, as opposed to what is inevitable today: those who are poor will retire even poorer.

It is time that politicians stopped lying to people about who is not employed and who is actually getting the jobs ... as well as who they are getting their advice from. They must also stop pushing for more minimum wage or low-paying jobs to give to people with disabilities assuming they are all under categories a, b, c, d and/or e as described above. People with disabilities have the same range of job experience, intelligence, education and skills as the general population; in fact, perhaps in the past few years more people with disabilities have been acquiring post-secondary credentials, but still continue to fall short in the job market. The next time politicians start talking about the skilled labor shortage in trades, professional and service sector, they need to look where much of this potential continues to lie ... untapped. Comments?


Brudder

Cancer error proves need for full review of N.L. health system

A Labrador woman who was diagnosed with cancer last July, but wasn't informed of it until last month, wants more than just an apology over what went wrong.

Colleen Whitehorne's test was shipped to a B.C. lab last summer for analysis.

Although the diagnosis was made in July, the results were not returned until October to Eastern Health, the St. John's-based authority that provides many provincewide tertiary care services and oversees much of the cancer care in the province.

Eastern Health said it relayed the results to Labrador-Grenfell Health officials, but they in turn did not inform Whitehorne until January that she has non-Hodgkin's lymphoma.

However, in a statement on Wednesday, Labrador-Grenfell Health said a physician with the authority only received a verbal report on Whitehorne's condition on Jan. 19, or about three months after Eastern Health got it.

"Mrs. Whitehorne was immediately informed that same day," communications director Alison Dower said in a statement. She added the authority received a faxed copy of the report on Jan. 20. More.....

I am bewildered by how easily Eastern Health and for the most part most of the Health Authorities can get away with these kinds of events. It seems there are no blames or accountability here, it must stop!

The most recent episode with regard to Colleen Whitehorne. not being informed of her test results serves to highlight the fact that ineptness and dysfunctionality continue to be the norm at the Department of Health.

It seems the government has been sitting on it's hands waiting for the Cameron Report before addressing any of the concerns raised at the inquiry. Issues like communication, or the lack thereof, could have, and should have, been addressed immediately. There is no valid reason why this issue should be the cause of yet another life threatening debacle.

I have little confidence that this situation will improve anytime soon. I'm not sure wether Minister Wiseman's head is in the sand or up his ass, but he needs to pull in out and put a little effort into doing his job. To expect any sort of accountability from this government is, I think, an exercise in optimism of the most exuberant type.


Brudder

To Budget or Not To Budget!

Next month, or the one after is going to be an historic event for NL, as it brings down the first budget ever as a have province, much like February was for the installation of the forty-forth U.S. President Barack Obama. However, how historic this event becomes is the choice of the provincial Conservatives.

The doors to the provincial cabinet are being unlocked after the dust had settled for the better part of six weeks. I suspect somebody will be in there during the weekend prior to dust the shelves, the oak wood and other parts of the building to lift that abandoned building smell before the chickens come home to roost.

To remind Newfoundlander and Labradoreans who have been hiding under logs or staying away from the television or newspapers or even the Internet for the past six weeks or more, Premier Danny Williams, won't need to worry about any risk of losing a confidence vote over a particularly partisan economic statement, sought to hide behind the skirts of the Governor General to prorogue Parliament until budget time, unlike federal counterparts.

The government, as well as both Opposition Parties, have hit the road over the past several weeks to consult with Newfoundlanders, business, unions and others, to determine what should go in this oh-so-important budget that's coming up. I sent my written remarks to the government, NDP and the Liberals as well on how I felt we should spend our money.

My remarks would not surprise anybody here, but would involve careful infrastructure investments including new accessible transit systems (using Canadian companies to manufacture buses), more help for persons with disabilities for whom there is "always a recession" and to aid in the development of a diversified economy that would meet the needs for more
Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans, and not just those losing jobs in factories and oil fields.

People are worried about housing, health care, increased child and general poverty, the rights of persons with disabilities and aboriginal Newfoundlanders, as well as transportation issues. These things are all impacts of huge job losses, accompanied by the failure of governments to turn things around in a careful manner.

Unfortunately, the way things are with politicians and policy makers who have no clue about what goes on at the ground level is that things sway to either extreme. Governments can invest billions and billions of dollars into job training, infrastructure and other programs, only to put us all into a major deficit without any real economic gains. Or governments can focus on tax cuts for upper middle classes and wealthy classes, actually believing these folks will spend more money locally if they kept more of their own. Even billionaires won't buy more local necessities than they have to ... and why would somebody buy yet one more expensive car, when they already have five in their garage?

Job training dollars can be useful if targeted correctly and if they are done inclusively and in concert with improving the employment environment for disadvantaged workers, so that they can actually get hired in jobs that respect their abilities, education and career aspirations instead of spinning them on to one call centre or another, or to train them to be Wal-Mart greeters. Even among those jobs, there are only so many people required and yes, these jobs should be for those that are less skilled and educated. However, that is NOT what is happening ... as I can point to endless examples of people placed in policy positions that have no clue what they are doing, or well educated people referred to low-paying, low-aspirational work.

One example of poor policy advice that was given was a few years ago, a group of disability organizations wanted to review the federal disability tax credit and make recommendations about how to make that credit more accessible to persons with certain types of disabilities, such as mental health problems.

I write on the administrative and management quirks of our current system, and I can tell you, I have read their recommendations and final report, including their lack of impact on any changes whatsoever for mental health issues, that people with mental health issues will be struggling for years to come, unless their disabilities are so severe, they cannot function independently. That is why you don't have poorly educated "consumers" representing consumer interests in these policy discussions.

Up until now, I suppose this didn't matter anyways for the majority of consumers with mental health issues, as most were on disability allowances and did not have much taxable income to benefit from anyways. However, the concept of making this credit into a refundable one, or tying this into eligibility for the Registered Disability Savings Program, especially with the bonds and grants part of it (as most of these people don't have family to contribute to this type of account either), makes access to additional resources more desirable, but still out of reach.

Of course, this program was a Federal Conservative initiative, whereby they only know of the families that might have approached them about concerns about the livelihoods of their children (most of whom have severe physical or intellectual disabilities) and voila, they solved the problems of poverty for all persons with disabilities with a single pen stroke! In reality, I believe this will benefit approximately 5 - 10% of persons clients with disabilities, including those only seeking the grants and bonds portion. Many of them are older than 49 years old, and thus no longer eligible to receive such grants and bonds that would otherwise be available to those unable to contribute. That is why organizations supporting poverty-reduction for persons with disabilities should only acknowledge this, but not focus too closely on it. Continue to fight for help for ALL low-income persons with disabilities, instead of falling to divide and conquer which seems to work well.

Many people who support this type of government have never seen want or need. Most grew up in relatively middle class households with supportive parents who likely covered at least part of the costs of their university education; many even gave them a car and taught them how to drive shortly after their sixteenth birthday. They have no clue there are many Newfoundlanders who grew up without this advantage, or who later lost this support for whatever reason (e. g. parents having died or became ill themselves). They have no idea that telling this latter group to pull themselves up by their bootstraps is useless, as they have no bootstraps to pull themselves up with.

The whole premise behind the Conservative budgetary choices is that those who fall into desperation are NOT like us; there is something WRONG with them, not the economy, not employers that refuse to hire qualified persons with disabilities, not with social assistance rates, and certainly not with families that have frequently abandoned them. This is supposed to reassure us, but however, it does nothing to reassure the people that these things happen to despite doing everything in their lives right: getting an education, getting married, trying to work or start a business, etc. Unfortunately, this is what the current economy is about ... creating desperate situations for people who never expected to find themselves there.

There are lots of pundit views as to what is going to happen with the budget. Some say there will be sufficient infrastructure and social spending to satisfy the Liberals, but there will also be large tax cuts for people who already have a significant disposable income. As usual, there will likely be nothing more for persons with disabilities, nothing for low-income workers, nothing for laid off workers (who cannot survive on existing EI rates, even if they miraculously do qualify).

My concern is the Conservatives' obsession with tax cuts. Unemployed workers do not pay taxes. Persons with disabilities living on low incomes do not pay taxes. Low income pensioners do not pay taxes. Low-wage workers pay only a small amount of taxes, so if any tax cuts are given to these people, they wouldn't even notice. Such tax cuts do not pay the mortgage for these people, nor do such tax cuts pay the grocery or utility bills. Desperate people will remain desperate and continue to have little or no disposable income.

The truth is that the economy needs people who have disposable income AND a margin of need for additional products and services delivered locally. To give somebody earning $90,000 a year additional disposable income when they already have five cars, a six-bedroom house, a cottage in the wilds and a regular gym and golf club membership is not going to add to their local spending. However, if somebody earning $10,000 a year gets an additional $5,000 a year, this additional $5,000 WILL be spent locally.

The fact that Conservatives want to deny and hide behind is they do not understand the true plight of low income Newfoundlanders. These people are NOT driving a car, NOT going to the movies, NOT eating out (even at McDonald's), NOT buying clothing, NOT sending their kids on school trips and NOT even buying things for their homes, because almost every last penny goes to rent or mortgage, utilities and food. Many rely on food banks to make their income stretch further. This does NOT help the economy. As more and more Newfoundlanders plunge into this situation, it is certainly not going to help by throwing more money at people who already have what they need and more.

In fact, any deep tax cuts at this point will likely plunge us further into a deficit and when times turn around again, of course the government will once again focus on shrinking the size of the deficit, which means only service cuts to those who can least afford to endure them. That means, among other things: cuts to medicare, cuts to EI, cuts to housing programs, cuts to job training programs, increases to tuition fees and student loans, etc. A decent lifestyle will become even less accessible to those of us among the disadvantaged and among future generations. At this point, I would not even count on having an old age pension if you are under 55 years old today. Retirement will become an opportunity only for the wealthy. The rest of us work until we die.

All of this is because we have managers and policy makers in government and politics that have no clue what it is like to want for anything. They do not even consult with other levels of governments on the rare occasion they do come up with some policy idea. Different programs often operate at cross-purposes to one another and not one single government has ever attempted to disentangle them. It works in the interests of those who work in these programs to keep people in them, thus keep the poor from ever becoming non-poor. This keeps them happy enough not to strike against the powers that be who have hired them.

To me, the greatest offender against the rights of persons with disabilities, for example, is the government and often, politicians that have no clue what it means to have a disability. Politicians in St. John's Region, for example, only see "disability" as being in a wheelchair, scooter or walker, as nobody else is granted relief from exorbitant transportation costs in this city. The provincial government has listed only a short list of conditions that they feel merit a "special dietary allowance", when in fact almost EVERY medical condition has impacts through diet. They just don't want to admit that most people on any kind of assistance can't even afford a basic diet. And as I said above, the Disability Tax Credit definition leaves out many people for whom disability related issues carry costs to them, but do not qualify under their stringent criteria.

On one hand, government wants to say that people with disabilities are able and should remain independent and when one tries to assert that independence and get a job or start a business, but are prevented from doing so because of the prejudice of employers, they are then denied many kinds of disability benefits, as these OTHER benefits require people to be almost unable to manage their own funds (e.g. require a trustee), unable to live independently (e.g. live in a group home or high intensive supportive housing), unable to bathe/carry out person hygiene (e.g. need home care for personal assistance), etc.

To me, if employers do not want to hire people with disabilities then TAX THEM HEAVILY so that this money can be directed to be paid ON TOP of disability pensions and not clawed back, so that people forced to live on social assistance can at least eat and live decently, until such day a sympathetic employer will hire them. The number of disability programs should be reduced, but paid out more generously. My fear is that by the federal government using the Disability Tax Credit criteria, it may one day require all provinces to harmonize their definitions with theirs and guess what's going to happen? Exactly what they would never anticipate ... more people on the streets, more people in desperate poverty.

I just hope the provincial government at least tries to put out a budget that will help low-income Newfoundlanders and persons with disabilities and bring them hope ... which is so foreign on this side of the border, just so soon after the inauguration of a wonderful man down south who made history as the first African-American President. I think we would be fooled to believe that Americans were asking for change desperately from the Bush administration to such a point they moved behind Obama in great numbers, that my fellow Canadians don't think the same way.

In other words, if Danny Williams doesn't want to move with the mood for change, he may as well step aside and let somebody else take the reins. More and more Newfoundlanders are sick and tired of being left behind and for any politician that wants to remain in power, it is best they pay close attention in the next year or so.


Brudder

Poverty: Reduction or Redemption Part 2

The federal budget was what I predicted it to be.

A mish mash of handouts to big corporations, tax cuts, as well as billions of dollars in spending on so-called infrastructure. There was some promise of reform to EI, which it seems fewer and fewer people get each year, but this came up short whereby people are essentially getting nearly what they got ten years ago from EI and the same stringent criteria continues on. In my view, this budget does not put one more meal on anybody's table or another penny in anybody's pocket, other than those who already do okay.

Poverty activists want to focus on the "housing" announcements. As I stated before, I see no point in making housing a social service. Housing is a necessary commodity, much like food, clothing and clean air. Unfortunately, "housing" in the eyes of many of these people comes attached to social workers that want to control the lives of more people who end up living in this "housing". To me, the less control you put into somebody's life, the better quality of life they have, but then I never have the final say in these things.

Further, others cry for "subsidized" housing or rent-geared-to-income housing. I have tried, but have been unsuccessful, in getting these folks to tell me how this takes people out of poverty. As one fellow blogger writes, working is counterproductive if one is living in subsidized housing and receiving some type of benefit, such as social assistance or even HCS. First, HCS and HRLE chops your net earnings from the very first dollar and then "housing" increases the rent to a point of an additional claw back of thirty five cents on every dollar. Once the earnings are grossed up at the end of a year, even more money is lost. The intelligent and prudent thing to do when in this situation is to stay at home and eat your bonbons.

Further, because subsidies are calculated at far below the maximum "shelter" allowance given for social assistance and HCS incomes, one would receive far less benefits from social assistance or HCS than they would if they were housed in the free market. This means one's income would continuously remain under the so-called "poverty line". While housing costs are lower, this does not stop other costs such as food, clothing, transportation, telephone and other costs from skyrocketing. How subsidized housing reduces poverty has always been a trouble spot for me, possibly because of my background policy writing as well as lived experience.

Thinking from the centre is not mediocre for sure. I get attacked from both the left and the right for my views, instead of either/or. I ask questions, but don't get answers. I own my own home, but still I am flat broke. What help is there for me? Certainly, me, my family and thousands of other homeowners in the same boat are not going to sell and move to some unit where they will be under the thumb of some crazy bureaucracy. People need to be as independent as possible, as well as free to advance their circumstances, or else poverty will become a permanent fixture in our society -- bringing even potentially middle-class families down with it.

I would tell the government to save the billions of dollars they would otherwise spend to build units of this type, but instead use it to increase the money in the pockets of individuals and families, so that people actually have choices. Right now, the low-income contingent of our society has no choices. They are told to live as their social worker tells them to, which is to never make a mistake ... therefore, never learn from them. They are told to live within their means, but are never given the means to live. They are told to "get a job", but employers are not told to hire such persons or to pay the people they have decently. As usual, society wants the poor to play a single handed tango, while the other partner can watch and criticize. How can we as a society possibly value people who have been so disadvantaged that we have to instinctively reach out and control their lives, as opposed to giving them choices and opportunities ... yes, some of these folks will fail, but then again -- many of us who have never been in this situation have also failed, many of us miserably.

How many so-called "normal" people have bankruptcies on their record? How many so-called "normal" people can't seem to ever lose weight? What about all those successful professionals that turn to drugs and alcohol to deal with the stress of it all? What about so-called "normal" people who drive a car one day and forget to do the all-important shoulder check and get into a horrible motor vehicle accident? How many "normal" people are smokers? How about the typical friend of ours that always seems to "pick" abusive partners? The rest of us herein do not have strangers telling us what we should be spending our money on, whether or not we should be driving a car, or whether we can manage our own bank accounts. So why are we allowed to pass judgment on those less fortunate than we are? Are we trying to block the way for the poor from becoming less poor, and perhaps, grabbing a bit of dignity while they're at it?

To me, there is maximum dignity in having choices and opportunities. Those of us who have had these things take them for granted. We "assume" that everybody else also has these things, or had them at one time. Then, we bash them for making "bad choices" or "failing to take advantage of opportunities" (even though they were likely never given any). This is not a leftist rant here. I have a life full of people from all walks of life, some of whom were very advantaged and cultured, others that cannot understand what life would be like for them if they could make their own basic choices. The latter have had the system make choices for them all their lives: they were told where to live, had their money spent for them, what to wear and who to be friends with ... never being allowed to choose is tantamount to imprisonment.

I grew up in a rough kind of way. As a young adult, just before securing my post-secondary education and so-called empowerment as a professional person, I knew two things. One, people must have the right to make choices, even bad choices. Two, people have the right to have access to opportunities to advance themselves and improve their quality of life. I got into a lot of trouble for my beliefs. Many social work types tried to downplay my ideas and tell me to be more "realistic" and insist a certain portion of the population continue to be spoon-fed (while the social worker types continued to get good pay cheques for doing so).

When somebody is living on HCS/HRLE supports and in subsidized housing, they do not have the opportunity to advance themselves and improve their financial situation. Their efforts become like a hamster on a spinning wheel, whereby they work harder and harder but end up in the same place. For every dollar they earn, they lose just as much. People in "housing programs" have even less choices, as many of these programs disallow overnight guests, alcohol use, earning money from a home-based business, etc. I've seen people evicted from so-called "mental health housing" for stopping their own medications. This leaves people with no choice. When you can only make the "right" choice, you cannot make ANY choices.

When you take away the choices of people, you take away their dignity. You also reduce the value that society will have of that person. When people feel we have to make decisions for others for whatever reason, we are not valuing that person's own opinion, own tastes or own desires, nor are we allowing that person to fully develop as a mature human being. When we don't value somebody in this way, these folks DO feel it. They feel it when they have to go to the food bank to get their groceries. They feel it when somebody tells them where they have to live and what they can do and can't do when they live there. They feel it when nobody appears concerned about their lack of opportunities and options.

I meet people who want to move out of subsidized housing all the time. This is very difficult to do. Several relatives of mine were living in subsidized housing twenty-five years ago, and despite children growing up, etc., some continue to live that way today, as do their children. Enforced poverty breeds enforced poverty. This provincial government promises to "break the cycle" in one breath and even names its poverty reduction plan the same thing, while at the same time, wants to entrap more people ... this makes no sense to me. Open the doors, I want to say ... and make employers open them too.

Five years ago, the poverty reduction strategy began development of it's first draft. This news is from one of the committees I sit on, I learned... for the better part of the first three years, a dozen people or so worked hard to put together a set of standards we will be expecting of employers, spanning between one and five years from now, with respect to the hiring, retention, training and accommodations for persons with disabilities included. To me, the sought standards don't go far enough, but we were working within a certain regulatory framework ... a framework that has to fit within the province's business model as well as reach the goal of bringing more qualified persons with disabilities into the paid labour force.

While access to employment and business opportunities will help improve the outcomes for people with disabilities, we also need to focus on bringing them out of poverty. Poverty is the killer of the soul. It is punishment for a crime one never committed. It kills any initiative one might have even had before they became poor. Both a focused effort on reducing and eventually eliminating poverty through the development of opportunity and increased access to meaningful choices in improving one's well being and quality of life, is what is needed. This would envelope both the needs of persons that can and want to work, as well as those that cannot.

We have to defeat the poverty industry, the set of organizations, leaders and spokespersons, that make a living or gain personal notoriety on the backs of the poor. These are the people that run the food banks, the homeless shelters, the "housing" programs, vouchers, consumer/survivor drop-in centres, etc. without considering that the people they are "helping" should learn how to fish some day and be given the tools and the right to do so. If this means some of the people in the poverty industry lose their jobs, so be it ... if one were an effective leader in a sense, this would not be a worry for them whatsoever.

I am very concerned that some of these organizations are now asking for government money. Should taxpayers be funding food banks, or should they be financing programs that allow people to choose and purchase their own food? Should taxpayers be funding homeless shelters and "housing programs" or should we be funding initiatives that help put money into people's pockets to the point they can reasonably choose where and how to live (within reason, of course ... not everybody going to move to King Williams or Richmond Hill).

What is really needed when the day is done are ideas on how to make this happen, not how to bolster the status quo, which we all know has failed us miserably. Your thoughts?


Brudder

Did You Know?

Did You Know That Eastern Health runs only five ambulance units per regular day time hours, and only two units at nights and weekends, for St. John's, Mount Pearl and surrounding areas. Secondary support is provided by the fire departments.

Did you know that there is not one single wheelchair accessible ambulance in the province of NL.

Brudder

Poverty: Reduction or Redemption Part 1

Poverty Reduction

The Poverty Reduction Strategy is a Government, province wide approach to transform Newfoundland and Labrador from a province with the most poverty, to one with the least over a ten year period. The strategy includes initiatives and programs which target the groups most vulnerable to poverty.

The Plan was announced in March of 2004, and the working document published in June of 2006, leaving leaving a relative gap of five years, where little to nothing being done to lower poverty in the province.

The groups that the strategy is geared toward are predominantly: Minimum Wage and Part Time Low Income Earners, Seniors, Disabled, Unemployed, Single Parents and Social Program Recipients.

For the purpose of the piece, I’d like to note the orientation of certain program deliverables from HRLE and the income support system. These programs are obviously designed to be abused, but given the minuscule amounts given to clients in a time of such overwhelming costs of living levels, even the biggest of Grinch and miser would have to yield to the need for recipients to do so.

Program Overview
Monthly Rates
Applying for Income Support
Child Benefit
Health Related Services
Support Trusts
Mother Baby Nutrition Supplement
Services for Victims of Violence
The Appeal Process
The Online Mail-back System (TOMS)
Moving into the Workforce
Family Justice Services

Under the income support program, there is no real distinction lent to what could be called a real eligibility versus questionable eligibility client applications. I surround myself with a very diverse group of acquaintances, friends and foe even. I do not understand stereotypes, prejudice or classification of people, thus my personal network of information, and persons willing to share it are huge.

Let’s examine some true to life scenarios, discovered by my own research of persons I spoke with and whom allowed me to write about their very personal information. The following talks about these six acquaintances with their families, all in one way or another, they are being serviced by HRLE. No real names, address or telephone information used in this article.

1. John and Sarah - has two boys 7, 11 and one girl 5. Both parents are physically abl to work; Mother has some post secondary education, and father grade 12. All are living in subsidized housing. The family receives $900.00 per month in child benefits, $650.00 income support, and a special medical diet subsidy for Mother of $125.00. Kicker: Dad works full time driving cab, Mother working four nights a week, bar hostess. Approximate income 4,200.00 – 5,200.00 monthly, Both Employable.

2. Justin Case – Single Person, Spinal Bifida, confined to wheelchair, CONA grad, living in city owned apartment, Income support $932.00, $450.00 of it for rent. Unemployable for physical type jobs.

3. Greg and Nancy – w/ two girls, 5 and 1. Both parents are physically able; mother and father has post secondary education. Living in subsidized housing, family receives $700.00 child benefits, $640.00 income support and, they use food banks, drug cards, and when necessary to see a doctor it has been the case where ambulance has been used to get to hospital for flu symptoms and HRLE supported cab fare back. Employability for both is high.

4. Dick & Jane: Both Physically Disabled, Both receive HRLE & HCS support, both live in their own apartments in two different buildings, both receive home care allowance, one for 12 hours per day, other 4 hours per day. both receive basic personal income of approximately 650.00 each. Neither are very employable for most tasks. Dick and Jane have entered into a relationship, and feel they are ready to live together. Our system says “NO”. No, unless one or the other gives up entire benefits. Dick and Jane feels their cohabitation will save government $29,063.20 in rent and home care costs alone, they cannot afford to live as a couple on one basic income, as a result our system will pay twice.

5. Benny and June: Both Physically able, Both receive HRLE support, both live in their own housing apartments, in two different buildings, both receive basic personal income of approximately 450.00 each per month. both are very employable for all tasks. Benny receives child benefit of $300.00; June receives $400.00 because her child is under age six. Benny and June have entered into a relationship, and felt they are ready to live together. But realize their losses if they cohabitate. Outside of their combined government income, Benny works at a private business for cash, $400.00 weekly. Their net income $3200.00. How? A week at one apartment, a week at the other. Illegal? No, outside the cash job.

6. Don Juan Marko: Physically disabled, uses three home support workers per week to deliver his care. One worker has taken a personal liking for Mr. Marko and would like to explore the interest. Our system says, if Mr. Marko were to live common law or marry his able body care taker, she can no longer be paid, and a review would determine if he qualified for any continued home care given his now being living either married or common law. Subsequent to that, should there be a E.I claim or subsequent income involved after layoff of worker, then Mr. Marko would also be reviewed under the income thresholds.

Is it just me thinking this, or is our system set up to offer protection to those best able to abuse it, and ignore the needs of those who need it most. As a tax payer it bothers me to know that some lazy bastard who doesn’t want to work is reaping rewards from my earnings, while some dear lady can’t get her oxygen covered off due to black and white policy.

I am amazed at how we can offer the income support package so easy now! “APPLY ONLINE” even! What a joke, and the best kick in the face, these services are being offered under our labor department, oh my god, can it get better?

I attended an assessment by Eastern Health of a disabled lady from Mount Pearl some years ago, where the lady was trying to recoup some lost home care hours. That lady was lambasted with a 20+ page document, laced with questions that had zero reference to the issue or need at hand. The interview, mostly medical in nature, was conducted by two social workers, who from my opinion would be clueless in reference to this ladies disability. Shortly after deriving that thought, god love her, (social worker) proved me right, when she asked her client if she still had her prostate.

My point is simply this, If we put a person sitting in a wheelchair, visibly deformed, one arm missing, oxygen prongs up their nose and airway through the throat we subject them to repeated and painful annual reviews in order to get even the smallest amount of help. However, if you send up a guy with a wife and two youngsters you are granted the world.

The criteria for eligibility is all wrong, social welfare in this province was never intended for those people who did not want to work, but rather for those who could not. Since confederation we have been trained to depend on safety nets, whether welfare, EI, CPP or OAS, but for just as long our government has become to lax on it's delivery.

There needs to be a multi divisional structure for client intake, and review of existing clients set-up, with an ability to work assessment being the first review process.

The sure thing we do know is, even at minimum wage, a 40 hour work week will pay more than welfare payments, though not much more. however for argument sake, if the earnings are not sufficient enough to support the cost of living boundaries and strategies as set by our national poverty line, then provincial governments must be ready to implement the dust laden promises written in the planned strategies.

In order that our most vulnerable are properly taken care of, we must instill a belief in all those with welfare dependency syndrome that working for your income is better for the heart, soul health and community.

How would we accomplish this? It would take some ingenuity and effort, and it would take a full shovel ready systemic, unilateral approach by HRLE and divisions of, that affect any program offered to sustain our poor.

This system would first have case workers, work with program applicants to determine their physical and mental ability to work, where a green light is evident, the case worker would
pre-arrange job interview/job matches with listed employers. How would this happen? This would happen with HRLE using it's own resources such as The Career Beacon, LMIWorks, Service Canada Job Bank, and other such resources that would link employers to employees. These jobs would be guaranteed by agreement's between government and employers by such incentives as job wage sharing for a defined period of time. These jobs would be guaranteed and un-denied by eligible income support applicants, in other words, if you refuse a job, your application would be denied.

Indeed the devil would be in the details, there would need to be great strides made to make it work, but the need to get those not needing to be on the system off it and into the work force would be worth any effort.



Brudder

Multi-Tasking Ministers - How Effective Are They?

Multi-Tasking Ministers - How Effective Are They? First though let us take a closer look:

Jerome Kennedy: 1. Minister of Finance, 2. President of Treasury Board, 3. Minister Responsible for the Public Service Secretariat, 4. Minister Responsible for the Office of the Chief Information Officer.

Dianne Whalen: 1. Minister of Municipal Affairs, 2. Minister Responsible for Emergency Preparedness, 3. Minister Responsible For Registrar General.

Kevin O'Brien: 1. Minister of Government Services, 2. Minister Responsible for the Government Purchasing Agency.

Susan Sullivan: 1. Minister of Human Resources, Labour and Employment, 2. Minister Responsible for the Status of Persons with Disabilities, 3. Minister Responsible for the Labour Relations Agency, 4. Minister Responsible for Francophone Affairs.

Dave Denine: 1. Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs, 2. Minister Responsible for the Volunteer and Non-Profit Sector.

Joan Burke: 1. Minister of Education, 2. Minister Responsible for the Status of Women

Shawn Skinner: 1. Minister of Innovation, Trade and Rural Development, 2. Minister Responsible for the Rural Secretariat.

Trevor Taylor: 1. Minister of Transportation and Works, 2. Minister Responsible for the Newfoundland and Labrador Housing Corporation.

Kathy Dunderdale: 1. Deputy Premier, 2. Minister of Natural Resources, 3. Minister Responsible for the Forestry and Agrifoods Agency, 4. Minister Responsible for the Status of Women.

The man/woman power at the PC caucus table isn't small, in fact 28 of the entire caucus are back benchers, and many with outstanding personal achievement. That considered however far to many are powerless, while the clique poorly carries out the provinces business.

What about ability even? Dunderdale, Whalen, Taylor, Skinner, Oram and Wiseman boasts some life experiences and private college buy your certificate education, but no real credible post secondary education or degrees.

Simply put, it's odd to review some of the other elected talent that are gone to waste, while our province is ran by a hand selected clique. A clique that simply put are to top heavy in responsibility, but no real accountability for getting it right.


Brudder

Child Youth Advocate - Purpose?

Liberal Leader Yvonne Jones: 'If we can't depend upon the child advocates office to go forward and represent these children that are not getting the proper care, then who can we depend upon?'

Yvonne Jones said, "Child and Youth Advocate Darlene Neville, whose office is funded by the provincial government, should be calling for a mentally ill teenage girl to be removed from an adult ward at the Waterford Hospital in St. John's."

In December, a nursing shortage prompted officials to move two adolescents who were being treated at the Janeway Children's Health and Rehabilitation Centre to the Waterford Hospital. Without any doubt and hindsight this was an immoral move, especially since these children who suffer from depression were handcuffed like criminals and transported from the Janeway to the Waterford by the RNC.

Jones said, "If we can't depend upon the child advocates office to go forward and represent these children that are not getting the proper care, then who can we depend upon? And I think there needs to be some changes made in that office if this kind of representation is going to continue."

Neville said, "that she has no authority to compel Eastern Health or any officials to "admit, treat, transfer or discharge any patient."

As a writer I would like to First say thank you to Yvonne Jones for keeping this issue out there in the public. It is my understanding that the Child and Youth Advocate is doing an investigation into the Mental Health Service for youth in province. Hopefully this investigation will include some input from the families of the children affected.

The Child and Youth Advocate office is a complete waste of resources and the division of Child Youth and Family Services is not much better. Approximately. 4 years ago an associate began dealing with these entities concerning an issue whereby her ex-spouse was attempting to alienate and intimidate her children into not having a relationship with her.

Neither of the organizations mentioned above would listen to her concerns , in fact , Unified Family Court refused to listen to her concerns ... this coming March will mark the 3 year anniversary of not having any contact with or any knowledge concerning the life of her children. This lady have not had any contact or information provided to her in the last 3 years ... as entities entrusted with the lives of children, you have no reason to be proud ..you have failed her children horribly.

The position of Youth Advocate is all show, government sanctioned and paid for. She has no power, and she's finally admitted it. Yet I've seen her interviewed many times before regarding the Shirley Turner case and the failure of the "system" and other topics regarding youth. But she won't touch this case with a ten foot pole, at least to speak of it publicly.

Why won't the otherwise opinionated Ms Neville comment now? Well maybe Fraser Marche's day in court will shed some light on that! Let's be honest, these advocates are billed as independent, free speech watchdogs. But wait, that's on paper, that's the story fed to those concerned. The very likely reality is opposite, and like many other directives, this one is heavily monitored and guided, all Neville has become is a puppet, with Wisemans hand up her ass to control her mouth strings.

I would like to know what she does everyday to earn her paycheck? How is the youth of this province better off today because of her? These are some of the questions I would like the premier's office to answer. It's about time the public sees what it's getting for the bucks spent.

Brudder

Skeleton Crew!

What a team! Haha, not funny but it may come to this. Nurse shortage, physicians left and leaving each time you turn a news paper page. Warning by NLMA that more are leaving! Where does it stop? Hey Danny Can You Say

CRISIS?

Bubba I hate to burst your bubble, but we are there! Maybe your staff is not filling you in on the dailies out here, maybe they forgot to tell you how Roger died, or how a lady in Labrador had cancer for seven months before Eastern Health told her? Wait! What about the kids locked up at the Waterford or the lady who lost her oxygen funding because of an income threshold that she was two dollars and cents over.

Maybe it's a matter of I can't recall, but the truth is; people are hurting, people are suffering and the reality is, people are dying out here in the real world. It becomes a sad day when ill people feel safer staying home, than they do going to hospital.

Has it not become clear? The people of this province will give up the oil, ore, and water deals for a safe and secure health care system. I believe in this case we need to spend money to save it. Would it not be more beneficial to hire doctors who graduated from Harvard, rather than gradate from the St. John Ambulance first aid program?

It does not matter how good our recruitment program is, if we can't/won't pay, then doctors are not coming. Health care costs are universal, and those unable to pay become very obvious and known as a system on a lower scale of quality health care. Danny, we are heading toward that list, some would say we are there.

We are living with a skeleton crew, and it is. Undoubtedly, it's a CRISIS

Brudder

Danny's Puppet Show?

44 elected MHA's,
16 ministers,
9 hold 2 - 4 posts,
28 back bench's - 10 & more years served,
13 MHA's elected 2003 to present,
3 ministers elected in 2007.

The open line shows, public feedback forums such as VOCM question of the day, CBC comments and feedback both television and Internet, The Telegram feedback system and certainly public chatter put a lot of emphasis on the Danny Williams Puppet syndrome. This is to suggest that Mr. Williams uses his caucus as puppets in some master scheme to control any power given to them by virtue of the peoples vote.

At a glance this belief all seems more than likely, especially given the hide-away posturing of Kennedy and Wiseman of late. VOCM has been trying to reach the pair for more than a week now, no go. It appears that not one member of the cabinet speaks free will, or without first having consent of Mr. Williams. However, if you give these ideals more than a glance, it still looks the same.

A near obvious reality shows with the cabinet selection alone, the entire cabinet is made up of ministers who were made ministers after being elected to office in 2003 and 2007, prior to the cabinet posts in 2007, those MHA's not granted that post in 2003 served in high profile parliamentary roles, the grooming stage.

I believe had most of us been bestowed that kind of recognition our first week at a new job, we would somehow feel obligated to honor thy boss. For example; Burke, Skinner, Kennedy, Dunderdale, Sullivan, Denine, and many more were newbies when they were posted. Joan Burke came to power after giving up her job as a parole officer in 2003, that same year she was appointed HRLE Minister. Would it not seem right to toss a bouquet of gratuity at Mr. Williams in pledging to tow his rope?

I tend to lean on the argument of the many, the democracy under Williams is weak, the direction we are taking as a province is the wrong direction. Enjoy the show!

Brudder

Roger & Judy

As I listened to the VOCM open line with Randy Simms this morning, Judy began telling her story of pain and despair, that stories ending will leave a her with a life full of changes and negative impact for both her and her family. "Judy said it should not be like this" as she described the story of her late husband Roger.

Roger had taken ill the latter part of January 2009, and generally speaking, felt almost symptomatic of a flu. After a sudden turn for the worse he decided it would be best to go to a local health care facility to be examined. During his visit, Judy said "they ran several blood, urine and other tests and found nothing". The end result was Roger being sent home!

At that very sad whim of Eastern Health, this man was sent home with what was later found to be a sever infection, that would a few days later take Rogers life.

Roger was a victim of a common medical condition known as gall stones, and Judy says "they missed that, oh dear god she sobbed, this should not have happened". Apparently several stones had moved and created a situation that caused a severe infection that entered his blood stream, causing his death.

What can be said of this very terrible incident? Is our system getting worse or are more people simply opening up and telling these horrific stories? Do we really have the best health care system in Canada or have we been able to blind site the rest of the nation into believing a great untruth.

Take a close look at this blog alone, I reveal far to many horror stories out of just the Eastern Health Authority alone. Maybe we have been living a lie for years in regard to health care for many years.

Whatever the logic, our people are in danger, people simply do not die as a result of gall bladder infections in 2009. Maybe we need much more than a Cameron inquiry, we need a system where the human rights of individuals always prevail. Let me search a resolve, this is a sad day for NL health care.


Brudder

Couple Upset With Delay In Getting Cancer Test Results

Are there any good stories in health care? Waiting seven months for terrible news like this is totally unacceptable. She could have - and should have - started treatment last year. Who knows what the delay will cost Ms. Whitehorn. It’s more of the same old, same old. Jones is right when she asks what happened to the follow up procedures promised by the Cameron Inquiry. Lives are at stake here and someone has to held accountable. What’s just as disturbing is that there may be more people like her unaware of positive test results. And I wouldn’t put much faith into the fact that there is an internal investigation .

I heard about this story when it first broke, I could not believe what I was hearing. Didn't anyone in Government or at Eastern Health learn anything by going through an expensive Cameron inquiry? When I was viewing the evening hour news I see nobody from Eastern Health was available for comment. I wonder why? I would like to know where No Crisis Wiseman stands on this issue. No comment from him? I guess Danny did not tell him what to say yet.

I really do think it is time for Williams to do the right thing and look for NO CRISIS Wiseman to step down. Mr. Wiseman has failed this province as health minister over and over. How many more people have to die before we see action. I think the Liberals should jump on this issue and see to it that the axe falls where it should.


Brudder

Children At The Waterford?

Please Read The Telegram Report - Click Title.

It absolutely saddened me to have learned of this story, and in defence of these children one would have to scream foul, scream bloody hell.

I agree with Jones when she says that the "Waterford Hospital is the wrong environment for young people dealing with mental health issues." Absolutely, what trauma it must be for these children. Would this not be like looking through a window into their future, and without the ability to change it, be watching what would have been told they would become themselves!

Where is child youth services at these times, and yes indeed, Darlene Neville should have been all over this like butter on bread. We have allowed a ground breaking evolution to happen. I can read the policy now. "whereas the province of Newfoundland and Labrador does not operate a child mental treatment facility........"

NO! this is fundamentally wrong, it's morally wrong and Mr. Wiseman had best get his ducks lined up because I can write with peace of mind, this will not go away until I see news breakers telling Newfoundlanders and Labradoreans it's fixed.

Imagine how many parents will shield their potentially ill children from this kind of digression by not seeking help for them, out of fear from our parents, more children will fall through the cracks.

Brudder

Something To Hide Danny?

A national audit of freedom of information laws puts Newfoundland and Labrador in the bottom half of national openness and transparency rankings.

This is quite contrary to what Danny fought for while in opposition and somehow the about face is amusing.

A 2005 CNA audit, using different methodology, put Newfoundland and Labrador at third-best in the country. Well what has happened since then? Does the Spending, Health Care, Public Service workers being stifled on providing information close doors? Any of this seem like plausible reasons to keep the lid on public information?

"Across Canada, respect for the freedom of information right by government is wildly inconsistent. Your rights as a Canadian should be the same wherever you are. no one is looking at the right to know and saying: it's got to be upheld as strongly in Newfoundland
as in Saskatoon."

Lack of openness, transparency and accountability has never been worse in this province, and in saying that, voters need to take charge of their own destiny in regard to process and policy making. Until we are ready to stand united, rid ourselves of being a culture of defeat, we will live with it as is.

I Know Who I Am

Brudder

Home Care Again

The province has to start showing more respect for home-care workers and take action to increase salaries, says Carol Furlong, president of the Newfoundland and Labrador Association
of Public and Private Employees (NAPE).

Otherwise, she said, the home care industry could collapse because of a shortage of workers.

“The minister announced late last year that a government report on home care would be released in the fall and months later it still isn’t ready. This is unacceptable, ” Furlong said.

The report was to have dealt with, among other things, salaries and benefits for home care workers, Furlong explained. In the absence of the report, Furlong added, the government should maintain the differential in the minimum wage back to Jan. 1, when the minimum wage was increased. “That increase was promised but has yet to be paid out to home-care workers,” she said.

The state of home care isn't a government issue really, it's one of interference and greed by unions and otherwise home care agencies. For those who do not know, home care workers we receiving $6.49 per hour in 2003, minimum wage. Today home care workers are receiving $1.29 per hour more than minimum wage at $9.79 and will receive three more $0.50 cent wage in July 2009, January and July 2010. at which time the rate will be; $11.29.

The big concern for nape and the agencies will be point mute for the battle. Government do not hire home care workers, they fund clients to hire their own workers. It costs about $5.00 more per hour for a client to hire from the public pool, than what it would to hire from an agency.

Furlong isn't concerned about patient needs, or worker rights. Shes concerned about larger union numbers.

Brudder