The Liberal government of Philippe Couillard will treat new social assistance applicants who refuse to participate in the Objectif Emploi program as fraudsters. The $224 cut on the basic monthly cheque represents the amount that is cut on the cheque of a social assistance recipient who has made two or more false statements.
We believe that we must denounce this new Law and unite to protect individual freedom and denounce the stereotypes and lack of humanity faced by new applicants for social assistance.
In this article, Mr. Lambert talks about this new measure which constitutes, according to him, a total misunderstanding of poverty and the clientele affected by it.
*Please note that this text does not target any political affiliation of our cabinet and that it is written with the aim of denouncing acts that go against the fight against poverty.
Penalized as fraudsters
The purpose of the Act is obvious to the general public and is intended to put a barrier in the way of new applicants for social assistance. But what is the price of this measure?
It should be noted that there has been a decrease in the number of beneficiaries for years. Year after year, more people leave social assistance than there are new applications for social assistance.
Indeed, people who are able to work and who apply for social assistance do not stay there long. Those who stay on welfare often have big problems. You have to be very prejudiced and not aware of the reality of poverty to impose a penalty of $224, the same penalty that is applied to fraudsters.
The government uses the stereotype of profiteer and system fraudster to justify the measures it has taken in recent years. However, the reality in which we live on a daily basis is that there are very few real fraudsters.
We have met many people who have been misinformed or misguided who have had a reference to misrepresentation by social assistance because “no one is supposed to ignore the Act.” Our estimate in all of our files would correspond to a very minimal percentage of 5% of the clientele.
A decade back
It should be noted that this measure existed in the old Act, abolished in 2005:
An adult capable of holding employment must take steps appropriate to his or her situation in order to find paid employment and comply with any instructions that the Minister may give him or her for that purpose.
An adult who is fit for employment must not, without serious reason, refuse or abandon employment or lose it through his or her fault in order to surrender or, where applicable, to make his or her family eligible for a program or in such a way that they are granted benefits greater than that which would otherwise have been granted to them.
This is a big step backwards on everyone’s individual freedoms.
Prior to 2005, the person who was fired was penalized. The Claimant could not refuse employment on call or refuse temporary employment. He could not refuse employment on the grounds that it did not correspond to his interests or on the grounds that he wished to change his career path. In addition, he could not refuse a job that is 30 kilometres from his home, despite the lack of public transit.
Indeed, according to the Administrative Tribunal of Québec, which hears social assistance disputes, public transit problems are not insurmountable and do not constitute a reason to refuse employment.
Violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms
Unfortunately, this is a societal choice that does not represent the values found in the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Charter provides, inter alia, that:
Every human being has the right to life, security, integrity and freedom of the person.
When a person’s freedom is attacked, his or her dignity and security are also being attacked. The new law violates the right to liberty of the person, which consists of the absence of coercion and the ability to make fundamental choices about one’s life.
Victims of life
Our office has a great social involvement. In our office, we do not see people who are doing well who are on social assistance; we see people who are in distress and who do not even have the assistance of the government.
It should be noted that social assistance recipients are not the children of doctors or children of university professors. Most of our clients are people who have been victims of life, who have suffered from depression, the loss of a loved one, a critically ill child, a difficult divorce or unexpected separation, a refusal to compensate your disability insurance, etc.
You think you’ll never be a victim of life… and we do not wish you that, because the government will not support you. It will not easily recognize that you are unfit for work, even with a document from your family doctor.
It is common for people who apply for social assistance to have never imagined that this would happen to them. We have represented clients who, after a long battle to recognize their health problem against the SAAQ, the CNESST or Retraite Québec, fall on social assistance. They then have to start the whole protest process all over again, which can take years.
Lack of assistance and resources
There is a great lack of assistance for providers and great social and psychological distress among the majority of people who apply for last resort assistance. Many of them have a low level of education and do not have the necessary resources to help them, such as a family doctor, social worker, psychologist, therapy group, etc.
We have many clients who have serious health problems and are not recognized as such. We often represent clients who come before the judge and all of them are aware that they are not well. Many people have no family doctor and no accurate diagnosis of their deteriorating health.
Do you really believe that $640 a month is a choice? You have to be around poverty to realize the plight of many people. It’s so easy to form an unfavorable opinion of what you don’t have when you’re in a good position.
Impact of such coercive measures
The government would easily have been able to create incentives instead of coercive measures; for example, it could have allowed social assistance recipients to earn $400 a month instead of $200.
Societal choices have been made and are being defeated. On the contrary, we believe that breaking social safety nets will only accentuate real problems. When social assistance no longer covers basic needs, which it already does not, there is a risk of an impact on crime rates and undeclared work.
The adoption of this regulatory change does not respond to any urgent and real social concern in a free and democratic society. In addition, there were no prior studies or analyses that justified the need for or relevance of this change. On the contrary, as discussed earlier, this measure was abolished in 2005 and reinstated more than a decade later by the Liberal government.
If the government had the courage, it would have created its famous universal guaranteed income for all instead of pulling out the stick against social assistance recipients who are an easy target because of their vulnerability.
People on social assistance have little power and are ostracized, not being represented by powerful organizations or lobbies. Me Lambert makes it a duty and a mission to be the voice of the most deprived.
Conclusion
We reduce the number of social assistance recipients by creating wealth by leveling up, by having a strong economy, a strong education system and a strong justice system.