🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <47sdju$is4@wolfe.wimsey.com>, 
    kpollak@portal.ca (Karl Pollak) writes:
>>I guess that sums up your opinion of Mr. Axworthy quite handily then. 
> 
> In this particular case, yes.
> 
> Which is rather too bad because I know him for an otherwise intelligent
> man.  It must be something they put in the water in Ottawa.
> 

    To give him his due, he's just a federal politician saying what he
thinks plays well in Ottawa (and what his boss is telling him to say).
It really has more to do with the Chretien administration's desire to
pretend they are protecting social programs at the same time they are
cutting the funding for them which is behind his temper tantrum.

> 
> Malcolm, it looks like you are trying very hard to pick an argument where
> there is not one.
> 

    Sorry, I didn't mean this as any sort of "picking a fight". I heard
on a news report that refugees were included in those people who wouldn't
qualify for welfare for 3 months, I stated why I was concerned about that.
I'm not trying to discredit the idea because of this, I simply think this
is a piece of fine tuning they might have gotten wrong.

> 
> BC has had a pissing war over welfare with Alberta for over a year now.
> With Ontario clamping down on their welfare qualifications you can expect
> an exodus for careere welfarists to BC where the grass is greener.  So we
> have a choice of becoming a welfare haven fro the entire country and pay it
> out of BC pockets, or we can tell the good folks in other provinces, stay
> at home and collect welfare there.
> 

   Exactly. I approve of the rule because I think that the vast majority
of people who will be affected by it are people who move to BC specifically
to collect welfare, either because the province they come from has cut them
off or because they like the rates or conditions here better. I have little
sympathy for people who do this, I merely pointed out a couple of cases
where people with legitimate needs might be caught up in this net also.

> 
> I guess it would be, but that is not what I have suggested be done.  Let me
> rephrase it more clearly:  The federal government controls refugee intake.
> Therefore the federal government should carry them for the first three
> months. I fthey remain inBC that time, after the three month they willhave
> qualified for regular welfare from BC.  Where's the problem?
> 

     Sure, but I assume the federal government isn't doing this (if they
are then of course it's a non issue ). Does the federal government not
expect the provincial welfare system to take refugees on board immediately?

> 
> The reason I had suggested the feds start looking for private sponsors is
> twofold first of all there are settlement aid societies.  For all we know,
> some may be interested in sponsoring refugees from private sources.
> Secondly, I believe that government should not be performing any functions
> that can be better handled by private enterprise.  These charities have the
> volunteers who can provide far more personal assistance to refugees to help
> them settle in BC, than any government social worker troop could ever hope
> to.
> 

     No problem there. If the feds find private charities to support these
refugees ( and I agree that having the personal support is better than
dealing with a bureaucracy ) then they will have no need to apply for
welfare. All I'm trying to clarify is if the feds won't pay their
resettlement expenses and they can't find a charity to sponsor them, should
the province pick up the tab or do we just tell them to hit the streets
for 3 months?


>>     (btw. I'm sure if pressed on the issue the feds would argue that
>>the transfer payments we receive includes money which is to be used to
>>cover the initial settlement expenses of refugees)
> 
> But the transfer payments are frozen now, they will start to decline and
> they are an unwarranted intrusion into provincial jurisdiction anyway.
> 

    Yes, but governments are very fond of saying "what do you mean we
don't pay for that, it's included in the lump sum we just gave you", so
I suspect their rebuttal to your argument may be that if they hadn't
expected BC to pick up the settlement cost of refugees they would have
sent lower transfer payments in the first place. I know this is twisted
logic, but then so is the whole idea that the feds should have control over
"transfer payments" which we all know came from BC taxpayers in the first
place.

> 
> I don't think so.  The BC welfare system has an obligation to provide that
> kind of "refuge of last resort" to BC residents and taxpayers.  The
> transfer payments argument fails here miserably, because the money the feds
> are dishsing out came in large part out of the pockets of BC taxpayers.
> 

     Sure it did, but the people from other provinces are still Canadians.
If federalism means anything I think it has to mean that we have some
concern for all Canadians, not just long time residents. This doesn't mean
pandering to deadbeats who come to BC specifically for a free ride, but it
does mean helping out other Canadians who find themselves in unexpected
financial straits.

> 
> If you want true portability of benefits, you would have to take welfare
> out of provincial hands and establish a national program.  Gawd help us,
> every one.
> 

      Then we'd have to call it "UI", wouldn't we :-)

> 
> Screw adjudication.  If you don't ahve a job, don't come to BC.  If you do
> come and lose your job, use the severance pay for the trip back home.
> 

     What if there is no severance pay? (Maybe the employer went broke,
or renegs on an offer of employment)

>>    Sure, just like Health Care is. But there's that pesky Canada
>>Assistance act which pays for a big chunk of the welfare payments
>>(a big stick being wielded by the feds). 
> 
> Well don't blame the feds for that.  If the provinces had not been so eager
> to grab tax money collected by the feds abck in the 60s, Ottawa would still
> have no say in the matter.

     We've been down this road before. Sure BC would be better off today
if we'd been able to "opt out" of these federal programs from the start
and collected our own taxes to pay for these programs. But that 20/20
hindsight doesn't help us deal with the situation as it stands today.

>  I think there is a lot of dishonesty in the
> province about taxation.  For example, the BC Income Tax rate is expressed
> as a percentage of the Federal Tax payable.  So if Ottawa bumps up their
> tax rates, Victoria gets a neat little bonus without having to lift a
> finger.  Hell of a neat trick, I'd say.  Must have been old Wacky who put
> that one in.
> 

     Is this unique to BC? (I'm not saying it isn't, I really don't know
the answer - I'd always assumed it was a condition of running our 
provincial taxes through the federal collection system )

> 
> When you lose your paycheque or get ripped off, who will give you another?
>

     I've never tried (and since our pay is direct deposit I'll not likely
ever have the opportunity to find out) but I assume that if I lost a pay
cheque before it was negotiated my employer would put a stop payment on
that one and issue me another cheque. Of course if it later turned out
I'd cashed both of them I'd expect to be fired.

     If I get robbed I don't expect my employer to make up for the loss,
but that's not really the same thing, because my employers responsibility
is to pay me an agreed amount for services rendered, not ensure I have
enough money to meet my basic survival needs.

> Of course it would be a hardship, but welfare was never intended to be a
> way of life. If you do fall into it, you're supposed to try your damnest to
> get off as quickly as possible.  This policy would be just one of the
> incentives not to lose your cash and get off welfare the quickest you can.
> 

     I think you'd find that two types of people tend to "lose" their
welfare money. One group are fraud artists, who we can agree
should be prosecuted when caught, the other group are people who are 
generally so low functioning that they're never going to get a job.
The hardship imposed on them by refusing to replace a cheque is not
likely to be any incentive to change their lifestyle, it's just going
to force them to suffer for a month and/or resort to other revenue 
sources such as begging or theft.

     A blanket refusal to replace any cheque hurts both of these groups
of clients, but I submit it hurts the second group more.

     Please note I'm not suggesting in any way that the majority of welfare
clients fall into this category, but it's undeniable that there are a
subgroup of them who are in such bad shape that nothing we could do would
turn them around to a point where they could get off welfare. 

> 
> I would be quite in favour of merging the two systems.  Of course that UI
> is a misnomer.  there was an attempt to make it a ral insurance program
> where people would pay a premium based on actuarial experience, type of
> work etc.  I think it was rejected about 2 years ago by Ottawa, not that I
> can blame them.  Can you imagine Ottawa running a monster like that?
> Besides, those who have the lousiest jobs and who are out of work most
> often would pay such high premiums, they would be better off on welfare to
> start with.
> 

      Exactly. Those people with relatively stable employment would
probably prefer to keep the premiums and maintain their own savings
against the chance of unemployment, those whose were frequently unemployed
would never be able to afford the premiums - so a real "UI" program
wouldn't really appeal to anyone.

      But think how much we could we save administration if we did away with
UI and had it all run out of a welfare office.

-- 
=============================================================================
Malcolm Dunnett    Malaspina University-College     Email: dunnett@mala.bc.ca
Computer Services  Nanaimo, B.C. CANADA V9R 5S5       Tel: (604)755-8738