Persons found to be unfit for work should have the right to have a spouse while being on social assistance.
Currently, social assistance recipients who are found unfit for work due to a physical or psychological illness are not entitled to benefits if they are in a couple and the spouse has income.
Under the
Individual and Family Assistance Act (hereinafter
the “Act”), after one year of cohabitation as a couple, it is the responsibility of the spouse to support his or her partner.
Please note that this text does not refer to any political affiliation of our cabinet and that it is drafted with the aim of denouncing acts that go against the fight against poverty.
A measure to guarantee a minimum income for all?
Minister
François Blais
advocated for a guaranteed minimum income for all. However, both the Liberal government and the Parti Québécois took measures that undermined the well-being of recipients of social assistance.
It would be very easy for the government to amend the Act to include that a person considered unfit for work because of his or her disability could receive social assistance; this would amount to a guaranteed minimum income for the most vulnerable people in our society.
Claims for non-disclosure of a marital life situation
A person with a disability is already economically disadvantaged by his physical or psychological condition, but also on a sentimental level. Indeed, the government adds to her the burden that she is completely dependent on her spouse’s income if she falls in love.
So there are a lot of people who end up with claims on the grounds that they live as a couple and that they have not reported this situation to social assistance. However, these are people who are completely unable to go to work and who want to maintain a minimum of autonomy.
Take, for example, the case of a person who is unable to go to work because of their recurrent schizophrenia problems or that of a sick child who will fall on social assistance at the age of 18, since he will never be able to work. They will not be able to live with a working spouse; otherwise, they will not be entitled to social assistance. Because as soon as a person works, even at minimum wage, his spouse is not entitled to social assistance.
Social reintegration as seen by Me Lambert
Successive civil servants and governments do not know the reality of poverty. Indeed, the Couillard government has taken a series of punitive measures against social assistance recipients in recent years.
Mr. Couillard voted for amendments to the Act that would result in social assistance recipients who do not declare their income no longer entitled to the exclusion of $200 or $300 allowed in the Act.
In principle, it may seem fair to say that a person who has not declared his or her actual situation is not entitled to the exclusions set out in the Act. However, it should be noted that there was already a punitive measure for a person who failed to declare his real situation; this measure being the mention of
the false declaration
related to a debt. The impact of this mention is that there is interest on the debt and that the latter can never be put into bankruptcy. As a result, the government added a penalty on a penalty.
By removing the exclusions allowed in the Act for work income, the government is only increasing the number of people who will work under the table or who will permanently drop out of the job market. With this measure, the government aims to increase the amount of claims of social assistance recipients. On the other hand, the larger a claim, the longer the claimant will stay on social assistance, because he will not want to go to work to pay a debt that cannot be put into bankruptcy.
Increase the salary a person is entitled to earn
The government could have created more wealth and increased incentives to return to work by increasing the income that a social assistance recipient is entitled to earn without having their cheques cut. A method of positive incentives to work could be envisaged, instead of taking the stick against the poorest in this society.
Having handled thousands of cases over the years, we believe that a positive approach is more favourable than a coercive one.
In the past, when a social assistance recipient found a job, he received a $500 bonus as a severance package from the system to cover the various expenses related to his new job: clothes, shoes, bus passes, etc. But this measure no longer exists.
In addition, previously, companies that hired social assistance recipients were entitled to a subsidy. Indeed, the government assumed a percentage of salary for a fixed period. However, today, the percentage of salary, as well as the duration have been reduced and are no longer a real incentive for companies to hire social assistance recipients.
Instead of allowing a claimant to earn $200 or $300 a month, why wouldn’t we increase that amount?