SUBJECT: SOCIAL ASSISTANCE
PURPOSE: This briefing note is a recommendation for changes in policy pertaining to income assistance.
ISSUE: There is not enough regulation on the status check of income assistance and or disability recipients.
Background:
The welfare state is a concept that has been around for quite sometime however, its administration here in Canada has many pitfalls which call into question the accountability of the Ministry of Social Development. Income Assistance and Disability are a means by which those eligible can ascertain the equity in order to avail of the benefits of the capitalist society that is currently in Canada. The Canadian government gives these people a some of money each month to be able to afford daily activities and necessities such as food and clothes. The system is a good hearted program that lifts people out of poverty. There is no doubt that without this social security net, Canada would be a more difficult place to live in. There were 1.7 million people on welfare in the last year which accounted for 5% of the population. Many people receiving welfare are experiencing a significant amount of hardship. This hardship causes them to have lapses in judgement as they are forced to satisfy their demands at the expense of the Canadian tax payer. What has occurred in Canada with respect to the administration of this program and programs similar to it, such as Employment Insurance etc.; is the fact of the matter that the Canadian government delegates their job to the recipients of these programs. As mentioned, these people are in no condition to be able to make or do such tasks that are required of them in order to avail of the programs they are eligible for. Furthermore, the government expects these people to know the ins and outs or the technicalities of their eligibility. Another concerning note here is that some people have become dependent on these payments. Some people have been on income assistance their entire life. This not only is counter productive to those people but also hampers the tax payer.
Considerations:
Canada spends and allocates significant tax payer money to provide social support programs. In 2016 – 2017 they allotted $48.1 Bn to elderly benefits, $22 Bn to children’s benefits, $20.7 Bn to employment insurance and $13.3 on Canada social transfer. As it becomes evident these programs are a significant portion of the budget. These social supports are supposed to aim to bring people back into the community as active citizens. Income Assistance and Disability Assistance are programs that need to be reformed as what has occurred is not accountable to the taxpayer. The Ministry shouldn’t expect their recipients to know the details of their programs further they shouldn’t be delegating their job to these people as they are experiencing hardship. Hardship is caused as a result of stress. Prolonged stress causes trauma. Stress can be defined as a state of mental or emotional strain or tension resulting from adverse or demanding circumstances. People experiencing trauma have their decision making impacted by stressors. Lapses in judgment affect working memory, attention and planning. It is true that people receiving these benefits are relieved of stressors however that is only momentarily, as their funds deplete. These people experience a cyclical stress that occurs every month for long durations so as long as they are unemployed. Recipients of these programs are therefore at risk of post traumatic stress disorder as the repeated and cyclical stress affects their mental well being. Is the Canadian government accountable if they delegate their job to these people? For example, recipients are asked to do a monthly report and then transmit it to the Ministry. Furthermore, there are incidents which recipients have not been updated their status in years, some have been criminalized and accused of fraud when in fact the issue was that the Ministry lacked a streamlined and accountable system whereby they monitor the status of their recipients. Is this then the issue of the individual receiving funds or an issue of a lack of accountability on the Ministry’s part. The main stakeholders for this matter are the Ministry and the government of Canada, the tax payers and the recipients of these programs.
Options:
Option 1: Limit the years one is eligible for Income Assistance and then encourage schooling to continue receiving funds
There is no reason why people should be in receipt of Income Assistance their entire life. Disability Assistance however is another story. When discussing this option, we will focus on Income Assistance. Putting a limit on the number of years a person is eligible for Income Assistance would be beneficial for the Canadian budget. This would essentially force people to reintegrate into the work force. However, the issue here is the fact of the matter that if these people are unable to find a job, where then will they go. The government can give these people an ultimatum to be in care or to go to school. Placing these people under the care of nursing homes is the most efficient option to deal with the problem of poverty. While in care, their basic needs such as shelter and food will be met. No income assistance should be provided perhaps only a transit pass. The Ministry can then encourage these people to continue their job search. Thus, they would be reintegrated into the community once they find a job. For those that decide to go to school, income assistance should continue however after they are finished with their program, they should be given six additional months of income support prior to being under care. This supplement will aid them in their job search. This option is the most equitable for the tax payer as those who have been on welfare more than necessary will be weaned off and forced to reintegrate into the community. Once they find a job, they will then again pay taxes which would then recoup the cost of the care they received. This is the most sustainable option available as the government budget’s load will be relieved. This option is the least feasible option because it would require massive investments in infrastructure to house these people.
Option 2: Annual checkups of welfare recipients
There is an issue in the Ministry, especially
when pertaining to those receiving disability benefits. Some recipients have been continuously receiving
Disability Assistance for years without being checked. The Ministry knows that payments such as GST
are sent to people yet they don’t question why their recipients haven’t reported
income such as that. They need to
conduct annual check ups on each recipient as they are failing the taxpayer if
they don’t. Further, some of these
recipients have been accused of fraud which clearly is not the case but rather
an issue of negligence by the Ministry. What we propose is that they conduct and
interview each resident once a year for a status check to determine future eligibility. This would not only aid in accountability but
would also reduce litigation costs and burdensome cases which clog the bloated
judicial system. This is a very feasible
option but would require the Ministry to retrain their staff. They would potentially have to come up with additional
procedures to facilitate such change.
Option 3: Request bank statements & paystubs every month rather than the monthly report form
Any government program should not be requesting information from those who are experiencing hardship or disability. These people need a medical certificate in order to be able to be cleared. The current method by which disability especially is payed is not accountable to the tax payer. It is negligent because the tax payer is severity impacted and the standard is then also not met because these people are in constant stress which affects their decision making. The Ministry needs to instruct its staff to request bank statements every month from their recipients so they can look through the transactions and determine whether it is exempt or not. The current method by which they delegate their tasks to the recipient is not responsible whatsoever. This option is the most feasible option available. Furthermore, selecting this option will allow the Ministry to be able to determine eligibility more closely. They will have the ability to defacto know without reasonable doubt a person’s eligibility. The incidents where those people have been accused of miss conduct would be prevented. It will save the people from unnecessary and unfair convictions.
Option 4: Status quo: Not working which is why we have options.
This option is very feasible however, the Canadian budget is being hampered by events such as COVID. There needs to be reform on how social supports are administered in Canada. The way it is currently done is not accountable to the tax payer. It is unfair to recipients to serve them with unnecessary lawsuits. This option is the least equitable for any citizen and it is clear.
Recommendation:
Option one, two, and three are recommended.
No comments:
Post a Comment