It took one question in the legislature to get the problem fixed. But it’s puzzling how such a patently unfair wrinkle in social-welfare policy has been hurting people for so long without getting much notice.
The mother of a four-year-old boy whose father died in a workplace accident shortly before he was born gets a $287-a-month child-care benefit from WorkSafeBC earmarked for her son.
But ever since she started getting income assistance as a single mother, the government deducts exactly that amount — $287 — from her income assistance each month.
It’s a remarkably cold-hearted policy to apply to a mother and a son four years past the death of the father. And it apparently applies to anyone in a similar situation, although numbers are hard to come by. The first time it came up in the house, the ministry moved to fix it, which makes you wonder why it hasn’t arisen to any degree in the past.
What’s doubly confounding is that the government moved last year to rescind a similar clawback of child-support payments. Single parents on income assistance were having the value of child-support payments made by ex-spouses deducted from their benefits until a protracted public argument eventually prompted the government to rescind the practice. It also changed policy to end the clawback of a $235 orphan’s benefit paid to children of deceased parents by the federal pension plan.
But somehow, the deduction of the value of the WorkSafeBC benefit escaped notice and continued.
The philosophy behind the policy is clear enough. The government wants income assistance clearly understood to be the absolute last resort for people in difficulty. And although earning exemptions have been increased to allow clients to earn more money, the rate of benefits will always be kept low to discourage reliance on welfare. The lower the benefits, the more impetus there is for clients to find jobs. So the government will use any chance it gets to reduce those payments.
Where it gets impossible to defend is when it applies to children, particularly children who are entitled to a benefit from WorkSafeBC, arising from the death of a parent. The monthly sum is aimed directly at covering the cost of raising such children, but it’s effectively taken away by reducing the income assistance by a corresponding amount.
Even veteran NDP MLA Leonard Krog was shocked when he discovered the policy. It was his constituent — Haylie Little — who raised it, on behalf of her son, Brennan Smith.
Little told my colleague Lindsay Kines that she had expected the deductions would stop, but nothing ever happened. Her income assistance cheque is cut by 30 per cent every month, to $642, because she’s getting the child benefit arising from the death of his father. She’s been told the death benefit is completely different from the child-support payments that are no longer deducted, but she doesn’t understand how.
She doesn’t get it, because it’s impossible to get. It’s incomprehensible. The ministry concluded as much in a matter of hours and announced plans to abandon the clawback on Tuesday.
Social Development Minister Michelle Stilwell said staff follow the wording of policies word for word and it’s the language in a regulation that requires the deduction. That regulation is being rewritten so the clawback will no longer take effect. She said the move to allow clients to keep the CPP payments for orphan benefits last year shows the ministry is always looking to improve policies.
“Our intention in this type of situation is that these [WorkSafeBC] benefits would be consistent with that change, and staff is currently working on that … now that it has been brought to our attention,” she said.
There was a brief skirmish as a sidelight about how the policy came to light. Stilwell pointedly told the Opposition they’d be better off telling her directly about such cases, rather than bringing them to the floor of the legislature.
“This was not brought to me,” she said. “If it was, I could have been more proactive.”
NDP MLA Michelle Mungall said Stilwell should be ashamed for the suggestion, as the legislature is exactly the spot where all MLAs advocate for constituents. And the general rule is, the more public attention the better when you’re trying to force a change in government.
