Hey Jester; You're pretty funny, and your work with cliches is masterful. You should get a job writing for the Tyee.

These programs are not meant to work. At best they are smoke and mirrors - a way to show the haters of the poor that the Gliberals are doing something. Privatization is nothing but corporatization, anyway. It is a scam to shunt tax-payer money away from the people to the coffers of the corporations. The Gliberals - and all of the other neocons - don't even have an ideology - what they have a rationalizations for their crimes.

anarcho says:

Never said better.

Well having tried using the Elizabeth Fry society “clients” to perform work for a museum under direction of myself and other volunteers, it wasn’t worth the hassle.

I find that people who do have good work ethics, rarely need more than temporary help to get back on there feet and then they succeed on their own.

The people that are chronically on welfare, often lack the desire to get off of it. They have fallen into “survivor mode” They get enough to survive but never enough to get ahead. Some do it out of a lack of opportunities or a result of how they were raised. Some knowingly abuse the system.

I have seen people who just don’t know how to work, they don’t show up on time, can’t complete simply tasks, take no initiative, some don’t bother showing up if the work is “to hard” Welfare can be like a drug, why work when you can still be paid?

I had a friend who hired day labour, I used to hand out his number when people asked for spare change, amazing how many people got mad at being given a chance to earn money.

I had a kid working for me, he had 3 jobs, volunteered and bought himself a small boat to live on, he was 17, came from decent but poor parents. Now he is well on his way to becoming a young tug boat captain, amazing what attitude does for you.

Welfare is important and people that abuse need to be dealt with, how to do it, I have been trying to figure out for years a way, but humans are good at using any systems to their advantage.

Instead of a one-size fits all system, they should instead make a system that falls into many roads to the same goal.

Instead of saying that the single mom with a 5 year old and the 22 year old guy who just can't seem to find work and the 49 year old who can't find work even after exhausting their EI - through the same referals, and to the same job clubs. Instead each worker should look at each client and assess their needs on a case by case basis. If someone has a learning disability they made need something that is more one on one; if they have poor life skills - they aren't going to be able to retain work, so pre-pre-employment programs may be better and they can then move on to pre-employment. If someone is hard to place then they should not force them to go through the degrading process that is required to collect PPMB status.

It's really easy to figure out who classifies as PPMB to talk to them for 20 minutes. And then once the person has proven how much they are disliked by the world, then they are eligible for entry level training programs? Take those that may benefit from taking a janitor training class, a retail worker class and a shipping/recieving class and put them in, then send them out - don't make them prove how worthless people think they are first.

As the wise-cracking detective Brisco once wryly noted : "How come rich guys always owe a billion!".
As for liberal welfare policy I was merely pointing out the utter hyprocrisy of a government which decries the truly desperate, requiring the most rudimentary assistance, while ensuring their friends and backers receive billions in taxpayer subsidies and outright handhouts. To add a further perverse twist to this practise is that usually these people are already grotesquely wealthy.
The policies of economic apartheid and modern day slavery are yet another evil hallmark of phony right-wing neo-con puppets and their greedy dickensian overlords.
Posh, flimshah!!

With an unemployment rate of 3.5% in Victoria I can't imagine anyone who needs a job being able to find one.
For an employable citizez on Social Assistance the most the can get per month is $550.00. A minimum wage job @ $8.00 per hour results in a paycheque of approx.$1,320.00 per month. Now I know people are going to say that you can't live in Victoria on $1,320.00 per month. That's why we have CUPE. But there are people living on $550.00 per month. Surely a minimum wage job is a hell of a lot better.

This idea seems to be based on a two pronged delusion.

First, that there is lots of "work" around, as defined as "jobs" that somebody will give you money for.

Second that anybody who wants to is capable of doing it.

"Work" for wages is an invention of a single kind of person. Basically, it's only existed in this form intermittently, in this form, only since the industrial revolution. The kinds of business based situations that create such situations are very rare, are strictly cultural artifacts, and are only understandable, let alone accessible, by people who share the culture and capabilities of the owners.

Anybody who doesn't fall into that very narrow parameter will never thrive in the game.

Although this game is quite interesting, and very productive for the world in many ways, it's also very wasteful and destructive in others.

I don't see why it's so important for those who can play to have to pretend that everybody else must be just like them, or else be somehow to blame for it.

Surely if the special talents of some provide plenty enough for all, then the honor of that would be the reward for having that talent.

Why do we have to pretend that all the other kinds of people are stupid or lazy just because they're different?

This program is nothing more than free labour to reward Liberal supporters. Most of the jobs end after 8 weeks or the hours are cut to where nobody could survive.

"Of all the preposterous assumptions of humanity over humanity, nothing exceeds most of the criticisms made on the habits of the poor by the well-housed, well- warmed, and well-fed."
Herman Melville, american novelist.

Job training initiatives other than for a small percentage simply do not work and should be abandoned. It really does not matter what political party is in power. The money which is significant, given to contractors et al needs to be redirected.

Seems to me that the various levels of government ought to utilize the money to 'create' jobs. Those jobs ought to be offered to those deemed employable. Where a person is employable but refuses, then workfare would be the answer.

The government would same millions which them could be applied to those who are not employable.

As someone who once worked in a social work capacity, I can assure you that those most of folks who are chronic welfare recipients are the sort of people who have suffered from some sort of parental abuse, sexual abuse or vicious bullying. It is because you have a tremendous lack of self worth that you subsist on welfare. And the longer you are on it, the more difficult it is to get a job. Your self worth just spirals away. And how do you explain to bosses what you have been doing all those years? If right-wingers are so darn concerned with chronic welfare recipients they ought to do something about the cause of it. Of course, if they did then they would only have unions and feminists as scape goats. Tsk!

Nobody hear is suprissed by this story!

There will always be those, in our society (or any society) who abuse ¨the system¨. Do so-called welfare bums cost our society more than corporate welfare recipients or corporate criminals? The contracts to companies like JobWave etc sound a bit like a corporate welfare/make work program to me.

A former deputy prime minister of Canada, Paul Hellyer, has an interesting take on this ...

The federal government could probably achieve full employment if it wanted to. The Bank of Canada can print money and (effectively) lend it to the government at 0% (or 0.5% interest to cover BoC costs) to pay people to ¨volunteer" their services at any activity that could conceivably benefit our society (even if it just to make a city a more pleasant place to be). These people then have disposable cash to cycle back into our economy and may then even be able to start back on the road to self worth (for whatever that´s worth).

Note that this would provide more money to the economy without being inflationary because the volunteers would not be competing for existing jobs and thus driving up wages. Prices may spike a bit until production expands to handle the increased demand. The government would only owe the money to itself (BoC), at a decent rate of interest.

I know that there are many reasons why this scheme (or some improved variant) would not work, but there is probably a rebuttal to be found for each of those very good reasons. As Sir Tyrone Guthrie said (about the Stratford Festival): ¨ They did not know it could not be done. So they did it.¨

I should add that the Volunteer scheme discussed in my last post and credited to Paul Hellyer, is entirely my (probably faulty) interpretation of some of his written work. Apologies to Mr Hellyer if I have misrepresented his work.

Excellent report.
In fairness I'd change the headline, which calls the programs the "Libs'" welfare to jobs program.They chose to continue the program, but the deals were done by the NDP.

Touching on the "volunteer" idea, I had heard and appreciated an idea of a guaranteed income.

In a nutshell:

Every Canadian, say 16 yrs and older would be guaranteed $20,000.00 a year, tax free.
If $20 grand is not eneough, and for many it will not be enough, you can "work" with your income aqbove the $20 grand being taxed (as usual).

No more E.I.; No more Welfare;

And I think much more happy and fulfilled citizens. Sure there may be some "bumps" to figure out, but I think it can be done.

Any thoughts?

Freebar, Who would pay for this grand scheme ?

Hard-working real people of course. Just like we are now. The problem with this idea, (which was King Chretien's) is that the bums would also demand all their other payouts on top of the $20k, and the Feds would be too gutless to say no, especially with pressure from lefties like Jack Layton, the people's hereo.

Nemesis:

How many "bums" are there?

I would suggest peer pressure would influence the "bums" and that the commom good would prevail.

Do you really think Jack Layton would support additional payments to the "bums" that want more than $20 grand per year?

nemesis:

Yes hardworking real people would bear SOME of the expense via their taxes, it certainly would NOT be the corporations who do not pay their fair share of the costs of having a society that is a good environment for business (low crime, citizens with money to spend, a health care system that reduces what corporations have to spend on health care, skilled labour force ...). Currently the nominal tax rate for corporations is 21% (?) of profits (for those corporations that actually pay taxes) - wouldn´t it be nice for us hardworking real people to pay only 21% tax on our profit (not our gross revenue/income)?

Note that by most econometric standards (besides GDP which is misleading at best) the best performing economies in the world (today) are the scandinavian ones (particularly Finland) who also have the highest tax rates and widest and most complete social safety nets.

Whether we support these marginalized people or not would ultimately be decided by the kind of society we want to live in; I for one will pay for the few freeloading individuals (but not freeloading fraudulent corporations).

That's the kicker isn't runningdog. The crying from the right about "the bums" ripping off welfare blah blah blah. Then they turn around and go to bat for the corporation. It seems nemesis et al would rather see the pockets and the bay street/howe street gang lined with a few million $$ more instead of seeing average people make a decent living.

My, my. Isn't there a growing pile of buried reports, hidden spending stats, embarrassing factoids, that the Fiberals managed to keep invisible leading up to the election?
...Special thanks to CanWest for their cooperation
in this. Job well done, Aspers! Your Dad would be proud!

There it is again, straight from the mouth of the goddess of violent retribution.

The only word she has for other kinds of people is 'bums', while for her own identity- "Hard-working real people of course. Just like we are now"

nemesis, please explain the reasoning by which you are 'real' and those who are not like you are not real, but 'bums'instead.

Is it just me or does it make more sense to give those that are the least employable a lot of assistance, and those that are the most employable a lower level of assistance? That we put the most employable job-seekers in these programs to "boost" a private company's performance numbers is what Gordon Campbell see as "accountability" I guess. Too bad.

Would you call the twenty-somethings that are sitting on the sidewalk on Denman Street right now the 'least employable', or would you call them the victims of a liberalized welfare culture that is allowed to flourish under the tutelage of communists like Jack Layton et al?

Dear nemesis; Would you please quit that? It just makes you sound a little crazy or hateful or something.

You just call people names as though that somehow elevates you above them to a position where you won't be asked to justify your silly arguments.

Layton, as far as I ever heard, was a very different thing than a communist. Being different from you and your friends doesn't make people 'bums'.

This name calling is dangerous. Hitler did it. Stalin did it. Before the machete genocide in Ruanda, the military took to calling their intended victims 'cockroaches.'

You really choose to be in this company?

Bailey; I hope you're smart enough to realize that your post is nothing but ridiculous rhetoric. It's the easy way out of debate. Mention Stalin and Hitler. Pathetic.

Bailey, with nemesis & Co. you are basically talking to people who justify atrocity and call it freedom. These guys are so right of rightwing that even Andrew Coyne won't run a talkboard anymore for them to spew their garbage. The reason they resent you mentioning Stalin and Hitler is because it's too close to home.

Nice try Te. The only ones who ever mention Hitler and Stalin are the wing-nut lefties who find themselves at a loss for words when faced with a rational counter-viewpoint. It's simply and absolutely pathetic.

What's even worse is calling someone a communist when they aren't or calling someone a bum.

runningdog, the 20k per year guaranteed annual income would probably be cheaper for the government than all the federal and provincial schemes such as OAP, CPP, EI, welfare ad nauseum.

Just send everyone a cheque like the old family allowance and tax it back from those who only need part of it or none at all.

Shrinks the government bureaucracy, gets rid of all the peaple and red tape surrounding means testing and private companies milking the taxpayer for supposedly helping the poor.

Meanwhile, money gets into the hands of those who actually need it. 20k in Victoria may not go far but it would do fine in many other places. That 20k would also allow people to pursue educational opportunities or buy tools and plot their own course.

But of course we can't have that, they might actually start thinking they're able to make their own decisions and that might lead to a rise in their self-worth.

Good points Frank< I wholeheartedly agree.

Enough said!

Ken

Frank
While I agree the idea might have some merit, I would use caution in approaching the idea. Many of the First Nation receive subsidies and it have not helped to improve their lot. If you were going to do it, you would also have to be pretty hard nosed about saying no, when people cone back and say I spent it all. When I slung beer in a small town, we had a policy that we would not cash welfare checks or family allowance checks in the bar, only slowed them down a little. I remember a woman coming into the bar screaming at her husband who just spent their grocery money on beer, I knew they had 3 kids to feed, breaks your heart.

I think that if they were to receive the money, that they would have to do something in return unless they had a good reason not to. I used be against national conscription but I wonder if it might be a useful way to teach some basic lifeskills to people.

On another forum, I read that Texas issues a credit card to social service clients that can be used to pay for rent, groceries, clothes, school supplies and such. Would certainly reduce the abuse.

Well, Dubya knows how to control them there evil doin' bums.

Part of my current job is doing income assistance appeals in another province on behalf of low income clients. No, official legal aid does not cover poverty law.

First of all, welfare bashers are just poor bashers. Period. These tend to be the same people who are getting Mommy and Daddy to pay for their university tuition and every other want they've ever had.

Welfare sucks. In Nova Scotia the maximum shelter allowance for a single employable person is $184 a month. Trust me, the system is designed so that clients forever feel the whip of depravity, whether they are truly employable or not.

And many, if not most, 'welfare' recipients are not truly employable. Be it single parents or mental health consumers, they all feel that whip. And welfare still sucks.

I think poor bashers need to stop and really analyze the economics of their own lives. Did they go to university. Pre-Gordo, university was subsidized nearly 80%. Do they drive a car? The highways are subsidized. Do they have a business and employ a lawyer or accountant? All the tools of wealth are not available to the poor. And they are tools that are extremely significant in terms of real dollar values.

I agree with the poor-bashers that a better life is within the realm of possibilities for some of these people. I would also go further and say that a better life may be within the realm of possibilities for all of their children. But not when society continues to sh*t on their possibilities, blaming these children for the circumstances they are born into; and doing nothing to make it better.

I challange every Nemesis or Ron Irwin out their who believes that all it takes is hard work to donate their child's university nestegg to a poor person. I mean come on, you're kids will be fine and do not need it right?

And pardon the 'challange', 'their', and other bone-head spelling errors. Sigh.

Cosmo:

Like your comments.

Cosmo
I will offer you an example I an familiar with, two sisters, both single moms from a dysfunctional family with the same education and both were collecting welfare. One them volunteered at the museum I was working at and I was able to get her an interview at my work which lead to an office job, she then worked her butt off to get a interview at the hovercraft base, where she was hired and trained as a diver and deckhand. Which is a considerable feat in itself! The other sister stayed at home and continued to collect welfare, without trying to find a job.

It is amazing what a little attitude and sweat will achieve. I agree the system is not very fair and will likely never be. I would also agree that the system does not reward people for trying to get off of welfare and almost seems designed to discourage people.

But I have met many people while slinging beer who bragged about avoiding work and collecting welfare and have personally met quite a few outside of the bar who collect welfare, but do nothing to better their lot. You can blame the system, the parents but nobody is going to help you get a break unless they see you are trying to help yourself and that concept is often lost on people. I don’t hate people who are suffering, I do get pissed at people who scam the system as they are stealing my money which supposed to help people in need.

David Lewis had it right "corporate welfare bums". We are willing to offer tax breaks, grants and subsidies for the well off.

I have an expense account, I can go out for one lunch and spend more than someone gets on welfare in a month and the company gets a write-off for this.

We are providing cars, gas, hockey tickets,"business meetings" in the caribean and more through the tax system.

In the meantime the homeless are increasing on our streets and parks which takes away quality of life for everyone involved.

Rather than looking at welfare as throw-a-way money let's look at this as money which poor people immediately put back in the local economy in rent and groceries.

We can provide everyone with a better quality of life by re-directing our welfare from the rich to the poor.

Good points Colin but I would go a step further.
Not only do the demonized poor not have access to the heavily subsidized infastructure of the wealthy but the wealthy have the entire system rigged to perpetuate their own status. I have heard the laymanesque term "circle j*rk" used to describe this arrangement before. Consider the republican party in the u.s. and their connections to defense department contractors (i.e. haliburton, mcdonnel douglas etc.) and ofcourse the policy making branches of the goverment (whether their presence is legitimate or not.) Let's start an illegal war on intel we KNOW to be false (down st memo, plamegate etc.) and rake in billions on defense contracts and military expenditures.
Pretty sweet deal if you can sleep at night.
As Howard Dean said most republicans havent worked an honest day in their lives.

So why does this story have to be about Bush and Co. ? Is that all you think about? Gordon Campbell would be the same person and do the same thing whether it is Bush, Kerry, Dean or Kermit the Frog in the Whitehouse. the response from Mel that was focused on corporate welfare here in Canada was far more appropriate.

You're right.
I should focus more on home grown corruption instead of always reviling the bush administration and republican party.
Who cares that they form a template of evil that other like-minded sociopathics idolize each time they get away with another aggregious affront to democracy.

Its great to see people talking about these issues.The whole welfare system needs revamping.If we are not prepared to really help people then lets stop fooling ourselves.Put youself in some of these situations and how would you find your way when as soon as your file opens with the ministry they want you off,which simple means get a job any job doing anything.Lets look at that idea because it does make some sence.But say you are just getting out of the hospital recovering from open heart surgery or you just got of an abusive relationship and you and your 3 or 4 kids are starting over.Many times employment needs to be put off to let things heal and to get things like houseing organized.The one system fits all thing does not work for people .It does however work for the bureaucrat`s that design these systems of checks and balances,if these same folks were closer to the front line they would see how inefficient the process is.All systems need tweeking ,but there needs to be a will to do it.We need to believe in people first, yes there will be those that feel the need to take advantage,they are the minority and we need to remember that so we can focus on real issues.

If we want to help people we need to listen more, prescribe less.

People need skills to make it in the workforce,sometimes that also means life skills like how to interact with co workers and employers,proper hygeine etc.Seems simple but if you lack those simple skills them that can be the reason why you have been sabotaging yourself all these years.If we can help that person help themselves then we all win.To make it all work we need to have more people paying taxes.If we have to spend alittle to get there then so be it.We will always have a percentage that we will need to care for,but for those who are willing and wanting to help themselves lets lend a hand.

I spoke to a girl that complained that she could not get a job, she was heavy into punk and had the hair, clothes and piercing to go with the lifestyle. I pointed out that likely her look was an obstacle in getting hired, she relied that it was totally unfair. I asked her if it was fair that a small business person should risk losing customers because they hired her.

You have the right to look the way you want, but don’t expect that your decisions won’t effect your life and career. I also tell people that are looking for work, to hang out with people that do work, better chance of networking, learning skills and better attitude.

We do have to fit in somehow when we are working for other people,some folks might have better luck if they look for the right employer instead of the job,with this approach they can maybe meet like minded people,and as Colin has just said attitude,its a big one for most employers

An interesting observation this morning a radically reduced version of this story appeared in the Province, page A13 I believe....I miss the good old days when everything thaat you ever wanted to read pointing out the gov'ts failures was on the first couple of pages.....

You mean like when the NDP was in power and the canwest rags shreiked on page 1 every bleeding day. (the smallest thing was fair game)
Now gordo is selling us down the river (when its not being destroyed by his corporate overlords that is), scandal after scandal, criminal investigations and all we hear about is what a fine job he's doing. What a disgrace!!!!!!
I challenge canwest goebell to a duel. Their champion against me at georgia and granville.
Bring your own sword.

I'll bring the popcorn.