🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <47o2f2$cgc@wolfe.wimsey.com>,
    kpollak@portal.ca (Karl Pollak) writes:

   First let me say I have no problem with the 3 month waiting period
when it is applied to people who are already residents of another
province, or to "voluntary" immigrants. I have some concern about
applying it to refugees (let's not get into an argument about how many
refugees are fakes, my point is that there are legitimate refugees and
if they arrive in BC we should look after their basic needs). I also
think there needs to be an appeal process for the special cases ( eg
family moves to BC to take a job, job falls through after they arrive ).

> 
> In their dreams.  This is similar to what the NDP had been telling us for
> the last 3 years, in claiming that the Feds would cut their contributions
> to welfare if a residency requirement was enacted.  The Premier's office
> does have a legal opinon they had commissioned which states that the
> residency requirement is on solid grounds legally.
> 

     Someone should tell Axeworthy then. He was quoted yesterday
as saying he's going to withhold transfer payments. 


>>If anything the feds should be supporting a move to make welfare residency
>>requirements the same as for provincial health plans.
> 
> I can't see why the feds would care one way or another.
> 

     Apparently they do, your failure to see why isn't very relevant.
Their view seems to be that *any* welfare residency requirement is
unconstitutional.

> 
> The report states (page 20) "the total paid out to replace lost cash in
> Fiscal Year 1991-1992 was $3 million.  However, this may be understated due
> to incorrect coding.  

     OK, let's assume that the real number is twice that much ($6 million).
What percentage of the Social Services spending does that represent? While
certainly not something to ignore it's hardly a make or break situation
for their budget.

> I have mentioned this report recently here before.  Not one of the resident
> Socialists has had a thing to say about it.  Hmmmm, curious.
> 

    Don't recall it, sorry. Again, it seems a bit of a tempest in a teapot
compared to the total spending by the Ministry.

> 
> "Consider greater use of pay direct and vouchers for lost cash.  Consider a
> waiting period before replacement."
> 

      To use pay direct the receipient would need to have a bank account,
Many of the people on welfare don't ( if they did they'd deposit their
cheques there and not take them out in cash ). Vouchers may have some
merit, but people would still scam them by selling them (at a substantial
discount ) and then claiming they "lost" them.

      I presume from your posting (a part I cut out) that a 3 day waiting
period for lost payments and a decision to withhold the next months payments
if a double payment can be proven have been implemented.

> Oh what the
> hell, Malcolm, you come in and have some good time too ....
> 

    Sorry, what exactly is it that we are arguing about? Surely it's not
that $3 million/year of "lost" welfare payments is the biggest problem facing
the Ministry?

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