What has the government been up too?

 

These are some of the changes and discriminating legislature that were introduced by the province of Ontario and is retained by the province of Ontario, through federal legislation and provincial legislation, discriminating provisions by OW and ODSP acts that continue too harrass single mothers on public assistance.

 

The Canada assistance plan for mothers on public assistance was removed by Paul Martin. 

 

The transfer payments which are also used for public housing are being miserly kept hidden by Paul Martin for use in the ten year cost reduction plan which is expected too continue too remove public assistance, public healthcare, and public schooling.

 

For single mothers the removal of the Canada Assistance plan mean't that women were no longer able to receive mothers allowance and fathers ---fathers allowance or educational benefit(s) through the vocational rehabilitation which was also removed. This affected about 1 - 3 million people throughout Canada and single mothers are the sole target(s) of government(s) that refuse to make necessary changes. Dalton McGuinty promised change, but has refused to make any except to misrepresent the NCTB federal portion of monies through the corporate media which announced in a press release that single mothers on welfare would be receiving the federal portion of the benefit which is approximately 3.00 --to 4.00 per month.  The national child tax benefit which is a monthly benefit is mean't for all families and is still clawed back from single mothers on public assistance. 

 

A press release issued by Dalton McGuinty and Sandra Puppatello, Minister of Community and Social services deliberately mislead the public and obscured the announcement too cause confusion about the provincial portion of the NCTB/ benefit.

 

21.6 percent of monies was the immediate financial cutback of public assistance payments which was broadcast on CJOH indicating that welfare reform as betrayed by minister Janet Ecker in the nonsensical clip that explained that the neo-right conservatives were actually trying to help people on social assistance and wanted to help people get off of public assistance. What she neglected too say was that it was a global agenda---the NAFTA agreement that reduce(s) or negates public services in entirety.  It is purely and simply a political agenda. The welfare system was redesigned since 1995 to function as a business entity to make money off of backs of people on public assistance.

 

The forced OW programs which are the method and means of motis operandi are involuntary--- but described as volunteer and/are reduced employment program(s) and are set up in a demeaning fashion which allows educator(s) to capitalize at the public's expense and too make money on the backs of people that are unable to reject the programs without the threat of losing their inadequate monthly income, living circumstances, mortgage after divorce or death of a spouse, or loss of housing, and minor drug and dental benefits are offered. Many single mothers have been  forced out into the labour force only to find their wages are less than their coworkers by 3.00 - 4.00 per hour.

 

The involuntary employment programs are set up as minimal six to eight to ten week training programs that  could never begin to address the real inadequacy of labour market wages and lack of benefits. The threat is so huge that single mothers more than any other select group would be forced into the inadequate programs that have a return of no wage, money or future security in labour and equates to 2.00 to 3.05 ---wage per hour.

 

Single mothers are seen as people who would prefer drugs and violent partners or that choose violent partners, and are considered lazy, inadequate in terms of self worth, and money management, not self sufficient and a drag on the economy.  This is what the former premier of Ontario Mike Harris thought of women on welfare and used his slanderous approach to achieve his political garb. That is how the government got their own way, the slanderous approach that is typical of the USA method of treating single mothers on welfare as less than human, but not quite as good as illegal immigrants or migrants that would be expected to work in the slave trade industry or black market(s) for 2.00 too 3.00 per hour or less or for minimum wage.

 

The idea is too keep single mothers and their children undernourished and quiet publically at all costs while the government gets their own way in the cost deficit reduction plan and keeps relations smoothed over with the USA and Columbia, to appease the first NAFTA Trade agreement signed and since then other countries have signed onto further agreements that will inevitably crucify living conditions for single mothers and children living in Canada on public assistance. Amounts received  grossly recede the poverty line. The amounts are approximately 28,000 dollars or more below the poverty line.

  

The liberal government is doing nothing too aid women too search for progessive social and economical freedom or too secure rights too adequate housing. The government has taught people too believe that the single mother is exactly what the government has been convinced of and thus instructs the general public to treat her the same. 

 

The assaults from welfare workers are numerous and frequent, workers act as though they have a right to determine for others her place of free labour employment to business elites and where or whether or not a person eats or lives if anywhere and the miserable amounts of money are threatened by welfare workers daily and systematically that think they should have absolute say about another person's procreative status and often act as though they are hard done by or that they shouldn't be disturbed by single mothers that are in receipt of public assistance. 

 

The government has given welfare workers the right to harrass, threaten, verbally abuse, financially manipulate and abuse, and selectively target by what is being coined the mandate through welfare administration which has been designed to simply reduce the welfare roles, and has distorted and disconnected socially the value of women both economically and socially.  Workers harrass a number of people associated with single mothers, their parents, other family members, landlords, colllection agencies, dentists, doctors and the invasion of privacy acts were changed in 1997 to reflect invasions of privacy that surpass all civil rights and freedoms and take invasion of privacy to a new height. It should read more like the nuance it is--- the right to invade or the privacy invasive acts.  

 

Usually 2 days before cheques are due welfare workers find superstitious reasons to cut off the inadequate monies with the intention of threatening too make single mother(s) homeless or just too engage in their own controlling and superior mindset. And, because workers have no real ability to make decisions and too think their way out of the bureacratic double talk of disreputableness, decisions for access and other benefits that could be available are scrutinized by a multilayered bureacracy that just spends money friviously in 10,000s of dollars for reviews that actually have no outcome for people other than to simply deny any further financial or medical benefits. In other words decisions go through three layers and titles of people that have no alternative to decide against brutal bureacratic delays, cutbacks and administrative decisions that account for about 650,000 single mothers, and others that were simply thugged off of the welfare system.

 

Minimum wage was intended to be glorified as a resultant of welfare reform and servers wages were put down by .50 cents per hour by Mike Harris because it was viewed as a women's job that didn't account for much other than attaching her to the household, as the indigenous, slave mother.

 

The start up allowance has now been redesigned in an effort to count heads and keep people from moving or relocating while the new nine million dollar computer system is incorporated into public assistance offices.

 

Accenture Incorporated is paid millions of dollars to invade personal information of single mothers and all recipients and the company selectively overlooks unenforced laws that arterially invade welfare recipients personal tax history and credit finances. The finances which are none other than the scraggly monthly rates designed intentionally 28,000 dollars below the poverty line. 

 

Single mothers receive 620.00 per month for rent, food and shelter. This amount is alloted for a woman with 2 children. This amount is expected to pay for market rent or the single mother is harrassed by welfare workers that are incapable of understanding that there are no vacancies in public housing and none is being built. Workers refuse to understand that they are not entitled to make those decisions.

 

Single mothers are then verbally accused by workers for not trying hard enough to get money from the father of the children and is told that she has no parental rights if the father pays the minimum of 128.00 or less to support his two children. If the father does pay his parental support social services keeps the money that was intended for the single mother and children. The worker says that it is her mandate and continues the harrassment even though she is fully aware of the financial paradox that the government has created. The worker berates the single mother into submissive and degenerative poverty and is satisfied if the single mother has not one cent in her wallet, no relationship with the father of her children and no future savings. In fact it is better for the worker if she treats single mothers as crudely as possible because she gets a pat on the back for a job well done.

 

People seem too have difficulty distinguishing this type of bureacratic abuse as what it is, abusive behavior and misuse of power.

 

The spouse in the house rule was acheived by four single mothers in Ontario that challenged the provincial government too a supreme court decision that states that landlords cannot discriminate in the receipt of public assistance and that welfare benefits cannot be reduced as a result of having a live in partner.