Liberal Views on Persons with Physical Disabilities: The Registered Disability Savings Plan

“In June 1986, one out of every 30 workers in Canada had a disability that limited the kind or amount of work he or she could do. Nationwide, there were almost 380,000 such workers” (Cohen, G., L., 1989). Although the development of technology is improving conditions for persons with disabilities, this group still faces various obstacles.

Liberal ideology seems to permeate recent Conservative motivations. One example of such movements is the Registered Disability Savings Plan (RDSP) (Jennifer Moreau, October 31, 2008). What I got from this initiative was that it is similar to a Registered Education Savings Plan (RESPs) in that no taxation is allotted to those putting money into the RDSP until the money is withdrawn. Instead, the federal grant matches the amount put into the RDSP (Jennifer Moreau, October 31, 2008). Contrary to the Registered Retirement Saving Plan for people without disabilities, a tax break is not given to members invested in the RDSP. Similarly to a tax break, how much money one receives from the RDSP bond will depend on how much the correspondent puts into the fund.

From this standpoint, the prevalent ideology underlying the RDSP seems to be liberal. Although the current ideology in place, liberalism, may appear as an improvement from neo-conservatism, problems affecting persons with physical disabilities only appear to be targeted by liberals on a superficial level. The notion that “The various interdependent social systems sometimes get out of tune with each other and create social disorganization” is grounded in liberal ideology (Mullaly 1997, 57). This notion then does not accept full responsibility for reviving society and is a shortfall of liberal ideology. The liberal notion that the states purpose is to help when every possible avenue has been exhausted(Straka November 3) not only supports dependency among marginalized citizens but is clearly stated in the “Founding Principles” on the Conservative parties website when they purport “A belief that it is the responsibility of individuals to provide for themselves, their families and their dependents, while recognizing that government must respond to those who require assistance and compassion” (Conservative Party Website).

Personally, I think the RDSP endorses liberal ideology in the sense that it deals with the concurrent social problems that result from capitalism (Mullaly 1997, 64). Moreover the RDSP only truly benefits those people who have a head start in the race of life (Straka 2010). In a sense this seems contradictory to the group the RDSP was developed for in the first place, for “people with low to modest incomes suffering a physical disability” (Carrick, R., February 2009). The lack of fulfillment of requirements for higher paying jobs is another problem for persons physically disabled, which generally has to do with their lower paying jobs (Cohen, G., L., 1989). One drawback of the RDSP is if you take money from the RDSP, money one has accumulated from the grant within the past ten years must be paid back to the federal government (Carrick, R., February 2009). Therein, persons with disabilities will make less in wages in comparison to those who do not have disabilities and will likely struggle paying what they owe back to the government. Getting companies on board in implementing the RDSP presents another dilemma, stated in Carricks article titled Savings plans for disabled offer long-term security: “Simple economics explain why more companies aren't offering RDSPs. There aren't enough potential customers to generate the same kind of revenues as RRSPs…. ” (Carrick, R., February 2009). With this in mind one can see how the lack of available companies could interfere with ones willingness to purchase the RDSP, for instance people in rural communities who have a limited number of companies to choose from to begin with could really feel the effects of this problem. Also, persons with interlocking oppressions may be less likely to receive the ‘fruits of their labor’ once they need to dip into the RDSP. According to Bahm and Forchuk, among the population of persons with disabilities, those most stigmatized are those who are both physically and mentally disabled (January 2009, p. 1). In light of all this, how can society generate a positive outlook for people with physical disabilities?

To target problems inherent in the RDSP, more accountability has to be directed towards the liberal ideology which motivates these initiatives in order to fix their downfalls. First off I think developing policies in all areas of primary and secondary schooling that accommodate the physically disabled could result in higher numbers attending post-secondary schools therefore, fulfilling education requirements of available jobs. Also some endorsements to influence employers to hire persons with physically disabilities possibly could be put in place. Initially maybe simply advocating and bringing awareness to the under employment of people with physical disabilities could be established. How to go about influencing companies to adopt the RDSP, is an element I am unsure how to address. Barriers like the ones described here, wherein the government has to ask how stakeholders will benefit in monetary terms has caused government to reach even further into people’s pockets. The capitalist ideology that people must compete to prosper individually has perpetuated selfishness of this sort.

On an end note, I feel a push toward a social democratic society would better address issues pertaining to people with physical disabilities. Although the efforts of them may come from a moral place, the foundational virtues of the liberals do not attend to people with physical disabilities beyond the superficial level.

Bahm, A. & Forchuk, C. (2009) Interlocking oppressions: The effect of a comorbid physical disability on perceived stigma and discrimination among mental health consumers in Canada. Health & Social Care in the Community, 17, 63-70.

Carrick, R. (2009). Savings plans for disabled offer long-term security.

Retrieved from http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/investment-ideas/savings-plans-for-disabled-offer-long-term-security/article12184/singlepage/.

Conservative Party of Canada. (2010) Founding Principles. Retrieved from http://www.conservative.ca/party/founding_principles/

Moreau, J. (2008). Harper delivers the goods-

New RDSP plan devised for people with physical or intellectual disabilities.

Retrieved from http://www.burnabynow.com/health/Harper+delivers+goods/2803731/story.html

Mullaly, B. (1997). The New Structural Social Work (2nd ed.). Don Mills, Ontario: Oxford University Press.

Strunk, J. (2010). Respite Care for Families of Special Needs Children: A Systematic Review. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 22, 615-630.

Cohen, G. L. (1989). Disabled workers. Retrieved from http://www.statcan.gc.ca/cgi-bin/af-fdr.cgi?l=eng&loc=http://www.statcan.gc.ca/studies-etudes/75-001/archive/e-pdf/2286-eng.pdf&t=Disabled workers

-Brooke D.

How An Aboriginal Perspective Can Change the Way We Think About People with Disabilities

It has been recognized that people with physical disabilities are often an oppressed group in Canadian society, based largely on the way we see them. Graham, Swift and Delaney (2009) define disability as “any limitation in ability to perform functions considered ‘normal’ for a human being or required for a social role or occupation” (p. 139). They go on to identify three main views of people with disabilities, which have shaped social policy. The first is the biomedical model which labels disability as an individual characteristic, and focuses on “curing” that characteristic by such methods as rehabilitation (Graham et al., 2009, p.141). An economic view of disability also exists, which reflects a capitalist stance. It asserts people with physical disabilities are unable to be as productive as those who are able-bodied, and thus social policy should involve “compensation” for being unable to participate fully in the work force (Graham et al., 2009, p.141). Finally, the socioeconomic model frames disability as an oppressive relationship between those who are disabled and a society which has built unequal structures which disadvantage them (Graham et al., 2009, p.141). However, I believe all of these definitions fall short, because within each definition a recognition of the inherent humanity of those who are disabled is missing. If we are to form a cohesive view of disability we’ll have to change the way we see. Only then can proper social policies be made.

The identity often given to individuals with a disability is that their disability is seen first, and their humanness second. However, an Aboriginal perspective challenges this. It forces us to recognize the spirit of individuals, and know that each person is essential for the community to function as a whole, regardless of their physical limitations. In his thesis Morrissette (2006) explains that an Aboriginal perspective on human nature differs from a Western perspective in that Aboriginals see all people as inherently good and spiritual (p.175), and believe strongly that each human has a specific role in which to contribute to society. This belief of human nature shifts the emphasis from individual ability to an individual’s interconnectedness with others. It should be noted that in the Cree language there is no word for disability (Stienstra & Ashcroft, 2010, p. 194).

An interesting study was done with physically disabled children in Navajo First Nation Communities. It showed that children with physical disabilities were not considered as helpless in the community, but were recognized for their individuality. Their disablement was not viewed in terms of a problem, or illness but instead as a unique “characteristic”. This had huge impacts on how these children were raised. Instead of isolating them from the community, the Navajo treated them as equal members who had their own set of gifts to contribute despite whatever physical impediment they may have been born with (McShane & Hastings, 2004, p. 37-38)

So rather judging people by capitalist standards, we need to shift to an Aboriginal perspective to define disability. Then maybe social policies will be made that don’t exclude those with physical disabilities, but focus on what they have to offer.

-Erin Roche

Bibliography

Graham, J. R., Swift, K. J., & Delaney, R. (2009). Diversity and social policy (Chapter 6). Canadian social policy: An introduction (3rd Ed.; p.121-148). Toronto: Pearson Prentice Hall.

Morrissette, V. (2006). Towards an Aboriginal perspective that addresses ideological domination in social policy analysis. Chapter 5: Implications for Social Work p.162-189). Unpublished master’s thesis, University of Manitoba.

McShane, K., & Hastings, P. (2004). Culturally sensitive approaches to research on child development and family practices in First Peoples communities. First Peoples
Child & Family Review: A Journal on Innovation and Best Practices in
Aboriginal Child Welfare Administration, Research , Policy & Practice, 1, 33-48.

Stienstra, D. & Ashcroft, T. (2010). Voyaging on the seas of spirit: an ongoing journey towards understanding disability and humanity. Disability & Society, 25(2), 191 – 203.

Physically Disabled: Deserving Poor

The neo-conservatives are an extremely right-wing party and they are all for the reduction of taxes. They spend far less money than the liberal party would due to the fact that they are far more concerned with individualism as opposed to collectivism. Conservative thought is often said to focus on the idea of individualism: self-help, self-support, self-sufficiency, self-respect. It rejects dependence, “scrounging,” collectivism, the belief that “the world owes you a living”.1 They are very much capitalists in the sense that they are more concerned with individual businesses and helping them turn profits. This leaves less room for government services such as welfare and health care.

Neo-conservatism has a very large effect on those with physical disabilities as well, because it not only leaves less room for government services but it also produces many limits and obstacles for those with physical disabilities. Many people with disabilities also would struggle if there was less or no welfare because the employment rate among them is significantly lower. They may have trouble making ends meet. There are approximately 4.5 million Canadians with disabilities and unfortunately many continue to live in extreme poverty, are unemployed or underemployed and lack adequate disability supports that would enable their ability to work, volunteer and live life to its fullest, like all other Canadian citizens.2 Overall, the unemployment rate (29%) for disabled Ss was significantly higher than the rate (12%) for nondisabled Ss.3 Even though this is an older reference; the same pattern carries through to the present. In a neo-conservative government, these Canadians would be far more limited in a lot of ways because a lot less money is being spent on accessibility for them.

Some of the other obstacles faced by those with physical disabilities include: accessibility, accommodations, prejudices, humiliation, as well as feeling inferior. Accessibility such as ramps and bars are not always available at workplaces, schools, and other public places really limiting people with physical disabilities to where they can go if they are in a wheelchair. Also, many bathrooms are not wheelchair accessible, which is a huge obstacle. As for accommodations, in many schools and workplaces they are not available, very limited, or are in the process of being reduced, which needs to be taken into consideration immediately. Another thing that people with physical disabilities must face daily is the prejudices that people have of them. People tend to avoid and sometimes even be nervous around people with physical disabilities. This causes the persons with physical disabilities to feel very inferior, as well as humiliated. Imagine how it would feel to know people were not comfortable around you due to the way you look. These are all very unfortunate obstacles and issues that these people have to face daily.

1 Barrett, M., McIntosh, M. (1982). [Review of the book Families in the U.S.]. Chapter 16: The anti-social family. 219-230.
2 http://www.diaconalministries.com/diaconalministry/disabilities.htm
3 Lonnquist, Daniel E. (1979). Employment rates among severely physically disabled and nondisabled college graduates and dropouts. Journal of Applied Rehabilitation Counceling, Volume 10, Spring Issue, 24-27.

-Marina

Removing the Court Challenge Program: Pro-subordination attempts of neo-conservatives

Maintaining the idealogical views of neo-conservatives is explicit in France Russels Critique of the removal of the Court Challenges Program(CCP) and the Law Commission of Canada ( http://proquest.umi.com.proxy2.lib.umanitoba.ca/pqdlink?Ver=1&Exp=10-06-2015&FMT=7&DID=1167653281&RQT=309&cfc=1).

The mission of the CCP is to financially assist cases of language and human rights and bring more attention to improve these issues (http://www.ccppcj.ca/e/about/about.shtml). The attempt of neo-conservatives to alleviate this program blatantly show the principles of government. Maintaining the idealogy of the ruling elite will only further suppress the vulnerable groups that this programs initiative attempts to reach out to. An apparent group under this marginalized canvas is Women. The advent of this program will maybe not change the social hierarchy in place right now but it certainly gives Women opportunity to voice humanitarian issues that hit close to home.

Interestingly, Ian Brodie, Stephan Harpers cheif of staff, not only holds the ideal to keep society in competition, and displace government from 'personal problems', but has graduated from the same institution Harper graduated from himself. Some professors of the Calgary university mention the push the school has towards particular theories originating from Straus. Correspondingly to values inherent in the demolition of the CCP, Straus' theory says "Secrecy is necessary. The people will not be happy to learn that there is only one natural right-the right of the superior to rule over the inferior, the master over the slave, the husband over the wife, and the wise few over the vulgar many. Strauss argues that the wise must conceal their views for two reasons: to spare the people's feelings and to protect the élite from possible reprisals."

I would conclude that the latter perception neo-conservatives have ensures a lazy attitude and negligence to social problems real in many womens lives. The prior quote establishes that Harper and the elite we leave in charge to govern us hold to the idea that men have power and control over women, not because society has engrained in them this perspective and restrained them from thinking otherwise, but because that is just 'the way it is'. Here the question remains: are the people in charge really good representations of roughly half the people that constitute this universe?

In order for women to put these issues on the map they have to have the resources to even do that. Financial assistance, a huge contribution of this non-profit organization(CCP), allows women of all economic backgrounds the ability to voice issues pertaining to them.
-Brooke

less tax

Neo-conservatives are strongly right wing, in general they believe in the priority of individual rights over communal and non- government interference within the economy. These ideas have been absorbed into the more mainstream Canadian Conservative Party.

The Conservative Party of Canada claims that if re-elected they will spend:

$3.2 billion in personal income tax relief. This includes allowing Canadians to earn more income before paying federal income tax and before being subject to higher tax rates. It includes the enhanced Working Income Tax Benefit to strengthen work incentives for low-income Canadians. Tax measures for 2010–11 also include higher child benefits for parents and lower taxes for low and middle-income seniors.                                                                 -  Conservative economic action plan <http://www.conservative.ca/policy/budget_2009/>

The majority of people are not going to see the benefits of paying half their income to someone who may not reinvest it local initiatives.  Constant arguments on how the government spends taxes and the bureaucratic system lengthening the process, certainly would discourage me from handing over my hard earned money.   Single parents are most commonly mothers, baring the responsibility of being the only breadwinner often struggle to make ends meat, sometimes living pay check to pay check this reduction in income tax could allow them to get ahead of the bills.

Holly

Bill Maher on France

Have a laugh, and consider Bill Maher's position on "neo-conservative" politicians in the United States vs. French politics

Who benefits from "Laissez-faire"?

Women and poverty are two marginalized groups that are quickly spiraling out of control, especially when the two are paired together.  Not only are women in poverty denied many rights and opportunities by neoconservatist values, but they are blamed for being born into the environment they are now stuck in.  One of the neoconservatist values are "Laissez-faire", simply stating to leave things alone.  As Mullaly (2007,p.72) states in The New Structural Social Work, the "government's role should be reduced, [and] individual rights diminished" .  Therefore, everyone is left to fend for themselves because that is what seems to be fair in a race, even though women in poverty began way behind the starting line.  How is a women to reach the same opportunities as a white, middle class man when she is single, on welfare, has children, is poor, etc.?


In 2004, single parent women aged 65 and younger with children 18 and under made up for over 47% of all people in poverty in Canada (Statistics Canada, 2007).  Poor women usually do not have health care plans that cover the cost of birth control, which is usually around $50 per month, and they cannot afford to pay for it if they decide they want birth control.  But middle class women have that covered in their health care plan because they have enough money to pay for their birth control.  Middle class women can afford to have an abortion if they chose to, and it is free of charge with their health care plan.  I am assuming as any other procedure in Canada, abortions are costly when you do not have a health care plan.  Poor women who cannot afford to have an abortion or afford birth control to prevent pregnancy are the ones that need help to pay for it so the cycle can be broken.  Instead, they are stuck.  This is not to say that all women want to take birth control pills and have abortions, but the choice is there for middle class women, women in poverty lack this, among other choices because they are in poverty.


Does it make sense that the rich get things free and the poor have to pay more for the same things?  Sure they do not have health care plans or insurance because they are on welfare, which is because they are usually looking after their children and cannot keep a job because of this.  It is easy for neoconservatists, middle-, and upper-class people to "Laissez-faire" because they do not have to share the wealth; they are the ones that benefit from this.  But to leave alone women in poverty is not going to "teach them a lesson" so they can learn to take care of themselves next time.  They need to be treated appropriately and feel worthy, and have the same rights, benefits, and opportunities as anyone else; they cannot afford to leave things alone.


References:


Mullaly, B. (2007). The New Structural Social Work (3rd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.


Statistics Canada. (2007). Income Trends in Canada 1980-2004, Table 2020804.  Retrieved November 18, 2010, from http://www.ncwcnbes.net/documents/researchpublications/ResearchProjects/PovertyProfile/2004/PovertyRates-FamiliesENG.pdf




Avery F

Who really profits: The For-Profit vs. Non-profit Daycare Debate

Child care has been an issue of concern in Canada for a number of years, due to the lack of spaces available, compounded by increasingly high daycare fees.  In July of 2006, the Conservatives introduced the Universal Child Care Benefit (UCCB) which provides families with $1, 200 per year for every child under the age of six, as well as $250 million promised each year to provinces and territories aimed at creating new child care spaces.  This money would be aimed specifically "in collaboration with not-for-profit organizations" (http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/financialpost/story.html?id=75115544-f81d-4c42-8f78-ae09137dea54).

However, a few years ago the neoconservative paper The National Post published a series of articles aimed at the Conservative’s new platform regarding a universal child care system, decrying the government’s decision to support non-profit daycares.   One article in particular titled “For-profit daycare: Harper’s best choice” by Peter Shaun Taylor argued in support of neoconservative ideologies as the best strategy for ensuring child care social services.  But what effect do these ideologies have on those who rely on child care services the most- mothers?

Mullahly (2007) described neoconservative ideologies as ensuring that “the state should follow laissez-faire policies and reject government interventions” as well as “privatization” of social services resting on a strong belief that a free market is the means to individual well-being (pg. 72).

This is at the basis of the argument of the National Post’s criticism of the UCCB.  They insist that if the government begins to control child care services, especially supporting non-profit agencies, there will be a “one-size-fits-all approach” to child care, eliminating any competition and therefore failing to provide quality services for parents.  In his article supporting for-profit daycare, Peter Taylor backs the neo-conservatism idea that competition between daycares will produce the “entrepreneurial ability” to create a larger pool of services from which parents can then select the best one.

It should be noted that women remain the primary care givers of children in most families.  According to 2001 census, out of 1.4 million single families in Canada, only 20 percent were headed by men (http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/09/12/census-families.html).  There has been increasing pressure for women to choose between a career and a family.  Often, women are expected to do both.  If universal child care is not made easy and affordable for women, their choices become more limited.  Especially in homes where women are single parents, as they are not only the main breadwinners but also the main caregivers.  If for-profit child care is supported it would be allowing an unregulated market to control the prices of day care, and women who could not afford to pay would have to settle for less than quality services.  If women were choosing between hair salons, this may not be such a problem.  However, choosing which daycare your children will attend involves emotions not just money.  And having sub par daycare services isn’t something women should have to settle for.  I would argue against Peter Taylor by saying that government intervention in child care would ensure programs where there are trained and qualified staff looking after children, leaving women with peace of mind. 

Another argument of Pete Taylor is that for-profit daycares will be of most benefit to tax payers.  However, if women- and single mothers in particular- are forced to participate in a for profit child care system, taxpayers may still be paying.  As stated previously, single women are  responsible for raising their children, as well as finding an income to support themselves. This often means women will have to work long hours away from home in order to make enough money to pay for rent, food, clothing, and the other necessities of life, leaving no one to watch the children.  Since day care costs cannot always be supported on a minimum wage, single mothers must often turn to welfare in order to support themselves and their children.  The neoconservative system has made it more affordable for women to receive welfare, than try and pay for child care services.  A universal child care system should ensure equal and affordable access to all members of the population.

In conclusion the neoconservative policies on child care in Canada, as exemplified by the National Post, would disadvantage women, and in particular single mothers.  Investing in childcare is not just a monetary investment but an emotional one as well, and women should not be at the mercy of the market to determine who cares for their children.

-Erin Roche

The Undeserving Poor

Based on Mullaly (2007), Neo-Conservatives view that there are the "deserving poor and the undeserving poor" as to who should qualify to receive welfare benefits from the government. A recent article in the Globe and Mail http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/lone-parent-poverty-canadian-social-policy-can-still-do-better/article1629287/print/ states that "in the mid-1990’s most provinces adopted "tough love" initiatives that rendered welfare access much more difficult for those classified as employable" this was applied to single parents. It is safe to say that the majority of single parents are young women. It goes on to state that "welfare was denied to some who should have received it". The goal of the policy was as the article states to "push" single parents considered "employable" regardless of circumstances to seek work. Therefore, it is okay as long as the overall rate of “lone-parents” employed rose.

What about the single mothers who did not qualify and what were they to do, it does not mention what those requirements are, but what about circumstances such as women with post-partum, or other mental health issues that may or may not be related to giving birth? Also with limited education and skills, they may not be able to find a job. What are these women to do if they do not have family or friends who can help them? As the neo-conservatives contend, they do according to Mullaly (2007). With no other means are they then to turn to more marginalized, dangerous avenues for income like the sex-trade, drugs Etc. I have driven by streets and have seen women standing there waiting to sell themselves for money, some of these women I take it are single parents, who feel they have no other choice. Do we just ignore these women? Moreover, what about the children involved. Not only should the well being of these women and children be a concern for society but by not thinking so contributes to a cycle of poverty and crime in our society and affects other areas such as healthcare.

Priscilla