Top court says Ottawa broke law in financing EI

[Praxius]

CTV.ca | Top court says Ottawa broke law in financing EI

The Supreme Court of Canada says that Ottawa illegally collected employment insurance contributions for three years under the former Liberal government.

In a 7-0 decision, the court ruled the Ottawa illegally collected premiums between 2002, 2003, and 2005.

A Quebec labour union took the case to court, claiming that Jean Chretien's Liberal government diverted $54 billion from unemployment insurance contributions made by employers and their workers.

• Read the full text of the court's ruling by clicking on the right-hand link

The Confederation des Syndicats Nationaux claimed the government was using the money unconstitutionally to balance the budget. Labour leaders demanded that the Ottawa take the money out of general revenues and return the money to the EI program.

The Canadian Labour Congress wanted the money to:

• boost EI's future benefits
• or offset future increases in EI premiums

Before the ruling, the governing Conservative government had not agreed to return the $54 billion diverted from the EI fund. But Ottawa had said it would set up an independent crown corporation to run the program on a break-even basis.

Federal lawyers argued before the ruling that the Confederation des Syndicats Nationaux demands would put future governments in a "constitutional straitjacket" in managing the system.

The debate over how EI premiums could be used began in the 1990s, when Paul Martin, then-prime minister Jean Chretien's finance minister, brought in new EI legislation.

New rules made it more difficult for laid off workers to be eligible for benefits, but they also brought in new training programs.

Critics said the government was raising EI premiums to fund the new programs, while cutting benefits for those out of work.

Ah, so that's why my ei a few years back was garbage.

 

[barney]

Ah, so that's why my ei a few years back was garbage.

You're saying it's not now?

EI in this country is, or at least should be an embarrassment to Canadians on the social, as well as at the bureaucratic level; it inappropriately deals with the financial situations of (usually) working Canadians, while at the same time being a bureaucratic monster that costs proportionally more to maintain than it provides benefits.

And the re-training aspect of it is humiliating and degrading: telling a professional that they have to re-train just to fill a temporary employment gap is just plain low. Are real slap in the face, particularly to highly-skilled Canadians.

It also has a tendency to result in duplication of services when it overlaps with the welfare function (a similarly embarrasing, but unfortunately increasingly necessary program).

I would think that Canadians would find it rather insulting that they pay through the nose to maintain EI but then when they actually need it (most everyone does at some point), they're put through hell and treated like scum just to get a few fiscal scraps--if they get anything at all.

Of course, it doesn't help when its funding gets diverted...

 

[Praxius]

You're saying it's not now?

Didn't really notice since I'm not on EI at the moment.

EI in this country is, or at least should be an embarrassment to Canadians on the social, as well as at the bureaucratic level; it inappropriately deals with the financial situations of (usually) working Canadians, while at the same time being a bureaucratic monster that costs proportionally more to maintain than it provides benefits.

And the re-training aspect of it is humiliating and degrading: telling a professional that they have to re-train just to fill a temporary employment gap is just plain low. Are real slap in the face, particularly to highly-skilled Canadians.

It also has a tendency to result in duplication of services when it overlaps with the welfare function (a similarly embarrasing, but unfortunately increasingly necessary program).

I would think that Canadians would find it rather insulting that they pay through the nose to maintain EI but then when they actually need it (most everyone does at some point), they're put through hell and treated like scum just to get a few fiscal scraps--if they get anything at all.

Of course, it doesn't help when its funding gets diverted...

No, getting diverted could be the very reason why the money back has been sucking hard laitly. The Surplus got there one way or another, probably because people were given, as you said, scraps just to barely get by. I know it sucked for me when I had to go through it..... and of course then it eventually runs out.

But with any luck, with this coming out, maybe they'll have a chance to finally overhaul the whole thing so that it works a hell of a lot better.

 

[barney]

Maybe. Then again, considering Canada's bureaucratic track record, maybe not.

If I may, I would argue that the root of the problem is the philosophy behind social assistance in general: it's considered to be an unavoidable cost, not a necessary benefit. This arise from the flawed 'survival of the fittest' mentality that dominates here; if you're poor (or in this case merely unemployed) you probably deserve it, because otherwise you wouldn't be poor or unemployed (i.e. you'd be raking in the dough, a 'self-made person', free of the shackles of the public service to which the lazy and practically useless masses so desperately and pathetically cling).

 

[taxslave]

Theft by government

Where are the Liberal apologists? Sir joe? Liberalman? Perhaps Dion finally had a good idea to abandon ship and let Iggy deal with the enraged taxpayers at yet another theft of their paycheques by yet another liberal government. Expect Harper to rule for a very long time after this announcement. Not too may Canadians want a coalition of thieves, dippers, and separatists having access to the government chequebook.

 

[barney]

Not too may Canadians want a coalition of thieves, dippers, and separatists having access to the government chequebook.

No of course not: Canadians are better off with fiscally-irresponsible right-wingers headed by a western separatist having access to the federal government chequebook.

If there is a coalition don't expect the Liberals to get out of line this time: pressure from the "dippers" will force them to stick to what they've promised, now that they can. One of the advantages of coalitions is that co-dependence has the effect of forcing more responsible policies.

 

[Praxius]

No of course not: Canadians are better off with fiscally-irresponsible right-wingers headed by a western separatist having access to the federal government chequebook.

If there is a coalition don't expect the Liberals to get out of line this time: pressure from the "dippers" will force them to stick to what they've promised, now that they can. One of the advantages of coalitions is that co-dependence has the effect of forcing more responsible policies.

Agreed.... and believe it or not, but those "Dippers" do have some brains amongst them. This would be probably their one and only moment to let the public actually see how they do in a bigger role in the government..... (I'm asuming dipper is reference to the NDP?)

screw it up

let the liberals get away with something like the above or resurecting the carbon tax

allow the bloc to seperate or cripple the government/country (can't actually happen anyways)

and they're screwed as a political party.

See the Conservatives and Liberals can keep screwing up and they just keep coming back, because they've been around forever, so people llike having something familiar running things, even if it means the familiar action of being screwed over countless times.

If everything goes to hell, the NDP will probably have the most to loose on this whole thing and the majority of the blame will go on them, and then we're back to the Liberals and Conservatives..... who created these situations in the first place since day one. Harper and his bully, no talking to the other parties attitude, and Dion Mr. I don't know wtf I'm really doing, let's have the entire party walk out of votes on a number of occasions to avoid an election because we're not ready and when the election comes, screws it all up just enough to bring us all right back to all of this same crap in front of us now.

Yay...... that was fun, what's next?

Oh yeah..... More of the exact same!!!

Horay for Zoidberg!!!

 

[barney]

Agreed.... and believe it or not, but those "Dippers" do have some brains amongst them. This would be probably their one and only moment to let the public actually see how they do in a bigger role in the government..... (I'm asuming dipper is reference to the NDP?)

One and only moment? If the kind of work they've done so far is the best they can do, then yes I would have to agree. On the other hand, if they get their act together and actually try to function as a viable political alternative to the Liberals, and more importantly, as political leader, rather than follower in Canada then it's another story. But that would actually take vision...or money. Sadly, NDP has little of either. That said, the NDP would certainly push EI issue...

And yes, "dippers" means NDP. (I personally never use that term. I was just echoing taxslave.)

See the Conservatives and Liberals can keep screwing up and they just keep coming back, because they've been around forever, so people llike having something familiar running things, even if it means the familiar action of being screwed over countless times.

Yes, this unfortunately tends to be the norm throughout history. People having short memories when it comes to irresponsible behaviour othe part of those who represent the oligarchy (or the oligarchy/aristocracy itself depending on what era we're talking about) doesn't help much.

If everything goes to hell, the NDP will probably have the most to loose on this whole thing and the majority of the blame will go on them, and then we're back to the Liberals and Conservatives..... who created these situations in the first place since day one. Harper and his bully, no talking to the other parties attitude, and Dion Mr. I don't know wtf I'm really doing, let's have the entire party walk out of votes on a number of occasions to avoid an election because we're not ready and when the election comes, screws it all up just enough to bring us all right back to all of this same crap in front of us now.

I never ceased to be amazed at how much heat the NDP takes even when they are in a next-to-powerless position. I guess that mirrors the unceasing attacks on even the weakest "liberal" in the USA. Talk about beating people when they're down.

Welcome to the circle of political life in Canada, with characters straight out of Disney.


Just one thing on EI: why is there is so little discussion on GUI (Guranteed Universal Income) as an alternative? I mean, this is not some left-wing pipe-dream, it's actually been seriously considered in the USA of all places. It's efficient and it works on paper so WTF are we wasting precious tax dollars on all these social programs for when a fix-all solution is already available?

I'm thinking about opening a thread on that. It's directly related to the topic of social welfare in that it asks the question: do all Canadians deserve to have the necessities of life regardless of other factors?

That said, it realtes very much to EI so I'd appreciate some talk about it in this thread.

The biggest problem in Canada isn't poverty but what has come to be called, the "working poor" (i.e. people who are employed but still can't make ends meet). As a result, EI gets mixed in with income supplements and both duplicate some functions of welfare.

Believe it or not, it was the great monarchist conservative Winston Churchill that called for a need for a social safety net in order to provide necessary security for the working population; that this was very much the responsibility of the state.

 

[barney]

Sorry it's also known these days as Basic Income.

Basic income - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments? (I want to know what people think of this.)

I should also mention that oddly, Basic Income doesn't form part of the NDP platform...

 

[barney]

Heh, yeah I should've guessed the mere mention of Basic Income would kill this thread...