Disability changes will hurt many people
The proposed change in the definition of “disability” in the ODSP Act will generate significant cost savings. It will also significantly alter the lives of people living with mental illness and addiction, and their families.
The Ford government has stated it will adopt the federal CPP definition of “disability,” which depends on the person being classified as permanently unemployable. While this may be appropriate for a permanent pension, it is not suitable for a social welfare policy that is intended to assist people when they are unable to work and create positive incentives for people to work as much as they can.
The proposed change will disentitle people who are unable to support themselves for periods of time, but are able to do so at other times, due to the cyclical nature of their condition. The group most affected will be those living with a mental illness or addiction.
Since more than 50 per cent of current ODSP recipients fall into this category, there is no doubt that significant costs savings would be achieved — and that many lives will be permanently altered.
Recipients rely upon ODSP to pay rent and bills when they are unable to work due to their illness, but they also rely on the benefits (such as psychiatric medications) when they are working, because they are often employed in lowpaying jobs without benefits coverage.
It is not clear yet how the “Health Spending Account” will work, but if it is meant to cover medications, it needs to ensure medications are covered. Recipients also lose more to clawbacks as they work more, which makes it almost impossible to get ahead and achieve independence, not to mention recover self-respect and confidence to keep going.
The public might notice more people living on the streets, people behaving more bizarrely on the streets (when they cannot afford good food and clothing, or medications), more people unemployed as homelessness makes it harder to get work, increased demands on overburdened food banks and more deaths among those living on the streets.
It might be a while before those tracking deaths on the streets could clearly conclude that people living with mental illness and addiction were disproportionately affected by the inability to pay the rent. Those who are currently on ODSP would be grandfathered into the system according to published reports. However, this group would then have a disincentive to work, as they could lose their entitlement and then not qualify under the new rules.
The proposed change in the law may well be contrary to the requirements of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Human Rights Code of Ontario. If it can be shown that the substitution of one definition of “disability” for another singles out people living with mental illness or addiction for homelessness and death on the streets, it would immediately trigger a violation of sections 7 (life liberty and security of the person) and 15 (discrimination against the mentally ill) of the charter as well as the Human Rights Code. The impact of the policy will become apparent over time; it is only a question of how long it might take to establish the evidence.
When the Harris government cut welfare rates and benefits, it expressly stated that it was cutting people addicted to alcohol off ODSP. The addiction cuts were challenged as being obviously contrary to the charter and the code. The two individuals who challenged the cuts were ultimately successful. However, only those two litigants were ever compensated. Many people in the helping professions today believe they are dealing with the long-term effects of this brutal policy change in the late 1990s.
Until the courts can strike down the newly proposed changes, there will be non-recoverable losses sustained by people living with mental illness and addiction.
Is this really a policy that aims to help people get good work and become selfsupporting, as the government has said? The predictable effects do not lead to that conclusion.