|
|
|
|
  |
London grandparents protest changes to funding program for caregivers
The protest group, led by London grandparents Murray and Bonnie Richardson, said changes made to the Ontario Works Temporary Care Assistance (TCA) program is leading to recipients getting cut off from much needed funds. The protesters delivered dolls, representing the children the group said the changes are hurting, as well as letters and a 60-day challenge to the Ontario government, daring them to try and raise a child on the $6.98 a day the assistance provides. TCA provides income assistance and benefits to adult caregivers on behalf of a child, for as long as the child is in need or until the age of 18. In July 2008, the Ministry of Community and Social Services amended the definitions of the TCA program, which some say are making it nearly impossible for grandparents raising their grandchildren to access this much-needed financial support. According to the Ministry of Community and Social Services website (document Temporary Care Assistance Directive 22.0), the maximum funding allowed for a child in temporary care who lives below the 50th parallel is $214 for the first child and $174 for each additional child, as well as some benefits such as basic dental, drug plan and vision. And while the protesters point to recipients who have been cut off in Hamilton, and one unidentified caregiver in London, MPP Ramal is adamant that there have been no changes to the program, and no London caregivers have been cut from the program. He said the province did begin to "update the language," in relation to the program in July of this year, but those changes have nothing to do with the recipients cut off in Hamilton and the program has not and will not change. Since July, he added, the number of caregivers receiving money through the program has actually risen. "I don't understand why they created this issue," Ramal said. "Initially it became an issue with the NDP. I don't know why, we never changed the policy – we never changed anything. It is still the same program, it was yesterday, today, and it will be tomorrow." Murray Richardson, however, said the changes the government is making to the program are not just modifications, "but in actual fact the modifications are major changes. With the new rules, basically, every grandparent will be cut off." Among the new criteria for cutting off assistance, Richardson said two stipulations state that recipients could be cut off if they "provide a bedroom for your grandchild. If you take your grandchild to a sporting event – you're cut off." When asked about those criteria, Ramal said those statements are untrue. "The support available through temporary assistance is attached to the child and has nothing to do with the caregiver." He said circumstances such as if the parents' situation changes and they are once again able to support the child, or if the child starts working, could lead to the withdrawal of support – which may be the case in some of those cut off in Hamilton. But the reason for those cut off in Hamilton is not known, and protected under the Privacy Act. Minister of Social and Community Services Madeleine Meilleur said rules under the program have not changed. In an Oct. 31 statement made in the online publication, Hamiltonmountainnews.com, she said "Contrary to what has been reported, rules under this program have not changed." Meilleur said the Ontario government has invested $12.8 million in the program this year, an increase of almost 14 per cent over last year, and are planning to increase funding by another two per cent next month. "While Temporary Care Assistance is a short term program, if a grandparent assumes permanent custody, they may qualify for longer term support such as the Ontario Child Benefit," Meilleur said. Ramal said he welcomes any constituent with concerns to come to his office. "I'm more than happy to work with them and support them because I'm working to support my constituents." In Hamilton, the issue, or non-issue, is being championed by NDP MPP Hamilton East-Stoney Creek Paul Miller, and Ramal said last week the Hamilton MPP's assistant, Todd White, attended his office in London using a false name. "It's not illegal but it's unethical," Ramal said, adding despite the protesters insisting there was at least one London case where a caregiver has been cut off, they were unable to provide a name for that caregiver. "Tell me the name and I'd be happy to work with that person," he said. As it stands, while the funding received under TCA is much needed, for many caregivers it's barely, if at all, enough to make ends meet. Gail Smith, another grandparent who attended the protest at Ramal's office Thursday, said she's providing care for two grandchildren on a fixed income and she can't understand why the province would want to cut people off the program. "You either get this money or you seriously consider putting the child back into CAS (Children's Aid Society) foster care. How traumatic is that for the child? How fair is that to the child?" she asked. Noting that it costs the province thousands of dollars a month to have a child in foster care, Smith said, "but they won't give us a pittance." She said even with the assistance from the TCA the financial strain is incredible. "To try and feed these children on $6.98 a day and a limited income is very difficult. Then there are other expenses… And you have to say 'no' to them. We have $13 left each month. So you take the $13 and say, 'Okay guys, what would you like to do this month.' " Richardson said most caregivers just want to give the children a loving, healthy and safe environment, "until the point where they could be safe with their parents and kind-of fend for themselves, more or less." |
| I'm not sure I understand this story. Maybe its just not written very well or maybe I just don't see where the news lies. Is there an issue or not. Is Ontario cutting these people off or not? Too many unanswered questions. |
| By: Huh? on 11/22/2008 |
| Dear Huh? YES, there is a BIG issue. The Ontario Liberals HAVE and will continue to cut custodial grandparents/kin and the children, from receiving approx $200 mth/child, plus limited prescription, dental, eye glass benefits. Madame Meilleur, MPP says she did not "change" this program; however, the black and white facts exist! If you review the new OW-TCA guidelines and the old Directive 22, you will clearly see the "changes". The new directive makes it impossible for any of these grandparents/kin to continue receiving this assistance. Many, many of these people (primarily single, senior women), have already been cut; more are effective Dec. 1 and Jan. 1/09. We suspect the remaining will be in the same timeframe or follow shortly thereafter. If you have even one humane bone in your body, you will help these seniors and children. Visit www.cangrands.com for more info. & help us!!!Thank you VERY MUCH... |
| By: Someonewhounderstands on 11/24/2008 |
| The Liberals are trying desperately to keep this quiet. I can understand that - a Government that states child poverty is a priority and then ensures that these children will be poverty stricken. Please read this - and then tell me the Liberals do not understand - that this is all mistaken interpretation. From a person who saw first hand how the Liberals deal with poverty and Grandparents in the Legislature
***Eye-opening experience in Toronto.
"November 4, 2008, was the first time that I actually went to observe Parliament in session; it was Opposition Day. On this afternoon, the NDP were scheduled to present a motion, also supported by the PC party and a few Liberal MPPs. "I had envisioned Parliament operating on somewhat of a similar basis as a Town Council Meeting, which I have had the pleasure of attending. What a shock to see MPPs arriving late, coming and going whenever they wanted, and talking and laughing with other MPPs, during debates and proceedings, such that it was difficult to hear the actual member speaking. "MPPs were also sharing personal photos, and reading the newspaper. I couldn't help but notice that these MPPs were primarily from the Liberal Party. "When the motion was to be introduced, the Liberal MPPs began leaving the floor. Only a few Liberal MPPs heard the numerous arguments in favour of the motion. When the motion was to be voted on, the bells rang for 10 minutes, calling the MPPs. They all came scurrying in, one by one. Each and every Liberal MPP was there, except for a few renegades, with hearts and consciences (sadly, not our own Dr. Helena Jaczek). Each and every Liberal MPP followed the party line rhetoric and defeated the motion, the vast majority without even hearing one word of the arguments. "Uninformed, uneducated, apathetic, clearly following the pre-determined, Liberal agenda. "Your tax dollars at work. And, we wonder why Ontario is now the poor province. "PS. The motion that was defeated by the Liberal MPPs was to reinstate the recent funding cuts of $200 month/child, limited prescription, dental and eye glass benefits for grandchildren/kin being raised by their grandparents/kin. "PPS. In the hallway, after the verdict, a little 5-year-old girl was crying when she heard that her grandmother would not be able to afford a Christmas this year. "Merry Christmas." (by Gail Smith) **** |
| By: Gail Smith on 11/24/2008 |
| I feel sorry for Gail Smith and Someonewhounderstands, but YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND. Yes, the guidelines have been reworded last July, but the overall TCA eligibility rules remain the same as before because the legislation has never been amended. Meilleur explained that the update of the guidelines have been done because there was inconsistency in the understanding of the previous guidelines. In the previous guidelines, there were some references like "as long as the child needs it" that made some TCA recipients think that TCA could be received on a permanent basis. TCA is for TEMPORARY situations, and the Social Benefits Tribunal agrees with this interpretation. GAIL: I'M SORRY TO DISAPPOINT YOU BUT THE NDP MOTION ON NOV. 4 WAS A SET UP. Why? Because Paul Miller and the NDP know very well that the legislation has not been amended. Therefore, the new guidelines does not have the power to change the eligibility rules. Basically, the NDP motion was based on a lie, so to speak. If Paul Miller really believed what he said and really wanted to help those grandparents, he would tell them to present their case before the Social Benefits Tribunal if they are cut off. They would all win, since the SBT would have obeyed the legislation, not the guidelines. The problem is that Paul Miller's lying. He knows that those guidelines don't overwrite the legislation, therefore he knows that TCA recipients - grandparents or not - can not be "cut off" as a consequence of those guidelines. I feel sorry for those grandparents who have been manipulated. The NDP Motion was just a set up so that the medias buy the idea that the government was slashing the TCA program. The grandparents were just manipulated. Sad. Ironically, the NDP and the grandparents' advocates are doing a great disservice to this worthy cause by lying over this issue. |
| By: frenchpony on 11/27/2008 |
| Not sure I was clear in my comment. To amend the legislation, you need a vote in the House. Such a vote did not happen. The government can not change a piece of legislation simply by issuing a new directive. Do you really know what you're talking about? So under the previous directives or the new ones, the rules are the same. Murray Richardson, quoted in the article, just don't know how to read a bureaucratic directive: criteria or examples can not be read in isolation. So the statement "if you provide a bedroom for your grandchild, if you take your grandchild to a sporting event – you're cut off." is just untrue and would be challenged by the Social Benefits Tribunal. If those people are sincere, they should not take legal advice from politicians. Seriously. |
| By: frenchpony on 11/27/2008 |
| What the Liberals are doing is disgusting. They are a ruthless pack of liars that care not about children or families what so ever. |
| By: Anne on 11/27/2008 |
Submit Comment:
More Headlines
|
|
|