Out Front Out Front A big change, but no bang Province quietly drops income-assistance ban By Katie Hyslop Direct action gets intergenerational Youth rally for Chinatown seniors Story and photo by Katie Hyslop Thirteen years ago, the provincial government introduced, with great fanfare, a lifetime income-assistance ban for people convicted of criminal fraud. While geared towards stopping crimes like welfare fraud, research by the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) suggests this approach is misguided. The CCPA’s research indicates that people living below the poverty line (people on assistance are below the line in B.C.) resort to crimes like theft and survival sex work in their struggle to make ends meet—welfare fraud is less common. The government lifted the ban this summer with the bureaucratic equivalent of a whimper. “We were tipped off that there was some proposed legislation to remove it—we hadn’t heard anything about it,” says Zoe MacMillan, federal disability advocacy project coordinator with Victoria’s Together Against Poverty Society (TAPS), which has helped people under the ban apply for hardship assistance from government. Hardship assistance is designed as a last resort for people denied income assistance, and the amount of money received is at government’s discretion. Government isn’t legally obliged to provide hardship, however, and recipients must reapply monthly. The ban, applicable to both people receiving income and provincial disability assistance, was introduced by the newly elected BC Liberal government in 2002 as a way to curb income-assistance fraud. Anyone convicted of income-assistance fraud would receive a lifetime ban. Those convicted could apply for hardship assistance from government, which requires users to frequently reapply for assistance. Seventy British Columbians were receiving hardship assistance because of welfare fraud convictions when the ban was lifted on August 1, 2015. The ban was lifted after government received repeated requests to do so during public consultations, according to a A spokesperson for the Ministry of Social Development in an email to Megaphone. The Ministry held those consultations, called Accessibility 2024, with people with disabilities and disability advocacy organizations in 2013 and 2014. The ministry added the change was originally announced in a Mar. 23, 2015, press release about Bill 23, the Miscellaneous Statutes Amendment Act. Frontline staff, agencies, and advocates were told about the change over the summer. Letters were also sent out to the 70 people receiving hardship assistance. But there were 185 people convicted of criminal fraud and banned from receiving income assistance since 2002. That leaves 115 people potentially unaware they’re eligible to receive income assistance again. “We’re happy it’s been lifted because it should never have been introduced in the first place,” says MacMillan of TAPS, adding they’d like government to make more of an effort to let people know the ban is over. In place of the ban, the ministry will deduct $100 per month from individuals caught with welfare fraud. Currently the estimated amount fraudsters owe the ministry has reached $4 million. That's 0.02 per cent of the $1.68 billion assistance budget in 2014/15. On average, the Ministry has recorded 15 to 20 cases of income-assistance fraud annually since 2002. That’s less than one per cent of all people accessing income assistance in B.C. each year. Last year, 175,000 people received income assistance from the provincial government. Last April the Downtown Eastside’s Carnegie Community Action Project organized Chinese seniors against neighbourhood condo developments and rezoning applications. They protested the Keefer Block and proposals to build more condos and commercial spaces as measures to defend Chinatown's most vulnerable residents from getting priced out. Today, Chinese youth are taking up the cause in an effort to protect both Chinatown’s low-income residents and their own connection to culture and heritage. “What you’ll hear from a lot of [youth] is for them Chinatown brings back memories of their grandparents,” says artist Kathryn Gwun-Yeen Lennon. She moved to Vancouver from Edmonton two years ago and immediately got involved in Chinatown advocacy efforts following her work with youth in Edmonton’s Chinatown. Her mother is from Hong Kong. “For me it’s more like a connection to the grandparents that are on the other side of the world.” A member of the Youth Collaborative for Chinatown, Lennon is helping establish stronger intergenerational connections in the neighbourhood through events like Mah Jong tournaments held in public spaces during the summer and fall. But the Collaborative and other organizations like the Chinatown Action Group are also interested in helping Chinatown’s largely low-income, Chinese-speaking seniors population speak out against condo developments threatening to push them out of the neighbourhood. m Members of the Youth Collaborative for Chinatown, including local visual artist Kathryn Gwun-Yeen Lennon, are working with Chinatown’s low-income, Chinese-speaking seniors to speak out against Chinatown development that threatens to push them out. Last month, the Chinatown Action Group and the Chinatown Youth Collaborative brought their concerns to the City of Vancouver’s open house for Beedie Living’s 105 Keefer Street rezoning application. Although Beedie’s proposal reserves 25 of the 137 housing units for low-income seniors, it still requires a yet-to-be announced non-profit to run the housing. The remaining 112 units will arguably bring in outside residents with higher incomes, increasing the number of higher priced businesses to serve them, pushing out things like affordable groceries and pharmacies. Lennon says 105 Keefer is a stand-in for larger neighbourhood gentrification issues. “I think the community and the city has the responsibility to ensure that development is done in a way that doesn’t displace,” she says. She isn’t personally against development, but adds condo development should be treated like an application for a new mine and require a social and environmental impact assessment. “We need more oversight because it’s such a sensitive, special, and unique neighbourhood,” she says. 6 Change that Works MegaphoneMagazine.com 7