In a report released February 24th, the Auditor General criticized the disability review conducted by the Ministry of Human Resources, but the Ministry's response denied important conclusions of the Auditor's report.

The Auditor General wrote that "The review helped the ministry meet the requirements of the new Act and increased assurance that only eligible clients receive assistance, however, it also increased anxiety among disabled clients and failed to achieve the cost savings the ministry expected." The Auditor said there was no evidence to support a rushed review that cost over $5 million. The Ministry could have responded by admitting that it made a mistake, one that caused enormous anxiety and contributed to a suicide according to a coroner's report. Instead, the Ministry's formal response, included at the end of the Auditor's report, said:

"The ministry believes that its designation review process, which began in early June 2002, and concluded 12 months later in June 2003, achieved the best possible balance and that the ministry did not move ". . . too quickly in fulfilling its responsibility." …The ministry believes that taking a more gradual approach, beyond the 12 months of the review, would have unnecessarily increased and prolonged client anxiety."

In other words, notwithstanding the reasoned conclusions of the Auditor General's review, the Ministry of Human Resources disagrees. Under questioning from Joy MacPhail and Jenny Kwan after the release of the Auditor's report, the new Minister, Stan Hagen, denied that the review was motivated by budget cuts, but the Auditor General wrote:

"In March 2002, the ministry included in its estimates savings of $104 million for the three fiscal years ending 2004/2005. These savings were to arise from:

• a reduction in new clients;
• cases moving from disability status to the "expected to work"
• and "temporarily excused" categories (includes rescinded
• designations);
• cases moving to employment; and
• changes in adjudication and work processes."

"In October 2002, these estimates were reduced to $56 million. The reduction included an amount of $18 million for a fewer than expected number of cases moving to the "expected to work" and "temporarily excused," categories. As noted previously, estimates of the number of clients not meeting the new eligibility requirements varied from 6,177 to 9,750."

The Auditor reported that the Ministry's expectation of kicking up to 9,750 people off of disability benefits was dead wrong. He wrote "Of the 400 (0.6%) clients found ineligible, 46 had their cases closed, 40 reapplied and were granted disability status, and the remaining 314 clients began receiving other forms of government assistance." Only 46 cases were closed as a result of the $5 million review!

Maybe government should read its own rules. No one is put on disability benefits for life; every case requires periodic reviews. If a sample had been taken, as suggested by the Auditor, the Ministry would have realized that claimants could have been reviewed in the normal cycle of updating files rather than as a mass processing accompanied by threats of termination of benefits if deadlines were not met. Not only did they waste $5 million and cause trouble for some of BC's most vulnerable citizens, they didn't learn from their mistake!

The Ministry's response to the Auditor's report concluded by saying "In looking forward, the ministry will continue to promote accountability, risk-based decision-making, economy and efficiency of operation and quality service to its clients." They clearly don't get it. How can they "continue" to do that which they have never started? They aren't accountable; they denied that the review was motivated by an attempt to lower costs. The Auditor recommended "risk-based decision-making" by first sampling to determine the extent of exposure from ineligible cases, but the Ministry refused that method saying it was only fair to process everyone quickly. "Economy" and "efficiency" are not words anyone could apply to the waste of $5 million in a badly constructed review. Blaming advocates for causing anxiety, rather than accepting responsibility for the consequences of its actions, is not an example of commitment to "quality service". The Ministry's response to the Auditor's report reeks of arrogance from a government that cannot admit when it is wrong.