What was their intent?
I'm mining the Hansard again. Here a useful report that highlights confusing language related to the word "clawback".
1. http://www.ontla.on.ca/committee-proceedings/committee-reports/files_pdf/ODSP_S3.09AR2009_EN.pdf
This dissent is limited to the majority report's findings on page 13 ofthe report under the title Earnings Exemptions. The original drafts contained the title "Clawback". This is the standard parliamentary word used to describe the practice of taking back monies from Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program recipients who have additional sources of income. If one checks Ontario Hansard one will find 277 references to "clawback" in the last 19 years. This sanitized version uses the words "Earnings Exemptions" which is an imprecise term used in discussions with wages, pensions and taxation. In this context, it serves to confuse rather than explain the issue. The majority report further confuses the practice of claiming back monies by pretending that recipients get to keep half of their earned income. Ministry policy is clearly designed to recover their monies. It does not reward the recipients with half of the earnings. The only way the latter could be true is if all wages were estreated and then half given back. This is not the case. Clawback is an egregious government practice which exacerbates poverty, removes incentives for working and is prejudicial to people with intellectual disabilities. Whitewashing the term and couching it in spin language does nothing to explain the practice, much less justifY it. It is for this reason that we dissent on the report as written.
1. http://www.ontla.on.ca/committee-proceedings/committee-reports/files_pdf/ODSP_S3.09AR2009_EN.pdf
This dissent is limited to the majority report's findings on page 13 ofthe report under the title Earnings Exemptions. The original drafts contained the title "Clawback". This is the standard parliamentary word used to describe the practice of taking back monies from Ontario Works and Ontario Disability Support Program recipients who have additional sources of income. If one checks Ontario Hansard one will find 277 references to "clawback" in the last 19 years. This sanitized version uses the words "Earnings Exemptions" which is an imprecise term used in discussions with wages, pensions and taxation. In this context, it serves to confuse rather than explain the issue. The majority report further confuses the practice of claiming back monies by pretending that recipients get to keep half of their earned income. Ministry policy is clearly designed to recover their monies. It does not reward the recipients with half of the earnings. The only way the latter could be true is if all wages were estreated and then half given back. This is not the case. Clawback is an egregious government practice which exacerbates poverty, removes incentives for working and is prejudicial to people with intellectual disabilities. Whitewashing the term and couching it in spin language does nothing to explain the practice, much less justifY it. It is for this reason that we dissent on the report as written.
Comments
Post a Comment