Elizabeth May on her pogie past


Locutus
#1
Our American-Canadian douche-hugger at her best.

Off-season at her family's restaurant business. Only in Canada eh.



‘When I needed it, I used it’


Green Party leader Elizabeth May objected Thursday to the Conservative government’s targeting of “repeat users” of the Employment Insurance system — because she was one herself.


Ms. May said that from 1975 to 1980, she received what was then called unemployment insurance during the off-season while working as a waitress and cook at her family’s restaurant and gift shop business in Cape Breton, she says.


Labelling regular users of EI, such as herself, as lazy or abusing the system is unfair, she said.


“I paid into employment insurance. When I needed it, I used it. When I didn’t, I didn’t. I raise my personal experience because I don’t think anyone should be ashamed that seasonal businesses in this country that are big, or small, have benefitted from a legal system of insurance that pays for itself.”


more

Green Party's Elizabeth May says she was repeat EI user:


h/t to
Hashtag Of The Entitlement Generation


From small dead animals: small dead animals: Hashtag Of The Entitlement Generation
 
Most helpful post: The members here have rated this post as best reply.
Colpy
Conservative
+6
#2  Top Rated Post
Who really cares??

Elizabeth May used EI the same as hundreds of thousands of other Canadians. There is no hint of fraud, or misuse. The accusation is ridiculous.

Personally, I hope she gets to collect EI yet again, late in 2015.

Besides that, it is a non-issue.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#3
I think what the pressing issue here is that the EI system has the potential to act as a form of de facto employment. In the case of one that leans on the system on a pre-meditated basis, the program no longer acts as insurance.
 
Machjo
#4
I don't think anyone suggested those on EI are necessarily lazy as it depends on details.

However, regardless of the past, we can let bygones be bygones, but from this point forward we need to help those with seasonal work not be dependent on EI each year. What would be wrong for instance with a life-guard also being trained as a ski instructor so that he can work year round?
 
TenPenny
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

I think what the pressing issue here is that the EI system has the potential to act as a form of de facto employment. In the case of one that leans on the system on a pre-meditated basis, the program no longer acts as insurance.

Exactly. I dislike the plan to work for a few months and go on ei I the rest, year after year after year
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+2
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

Exactly. I dislike the plan to work for a few months and go on ei I the rest, year after year after year


Perhaps, at some point, the EI system will evolve to represent a kind of bank account wherein the portion that is paid in by the employer and employee represents a tangible number that can be drawn down as needed. For those people that paid in a lot, they could receive more than the present max amount and for those that have not contributed substantial funds, they could collect a minimum stipulated amount.

I can see how this would not be appropriate for certain job classes or wage earners, but maybe it represents an idea, which in conjunction with other existing social programs, could evolve.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
#7
Quote: Originally Posted by Locutus View Post

Our American-Canadian douche-hugger at her best.

Off-season at her family's restaurant business. Only in Canada eh.



‘When I needed it, I used it’


Green Party leader Elizabeth May objected Thursday to the Conservative government’s targeting of “repeat users” of the Employment Insurance system — because she was one herself.


Ms. May said that from 1975 to 1980, she received what was then called unemployment insurance during the off-season while working as a waitress and cook at her family’s restaurant and gift shop business in Cape Breton, she says.


Labelling regular users of EI, such as herself, as lazy or abusing the system is unfair, she said.


“I paid into employment insurance. When I needed it, I used it. When I didn’t, I didn’t. I raise my personal experience because I don’t think anyone should be ashamed that seasonal businesses in this country that are big, or small, have benefitted from a legal system of insurance that pays for itself.”


more

Green Party's Elizabeth May says she was repeat EI user:


h/t to
Hashtag Of The Entitlement Generation


From small dead animals: small dead animals: Hashtag Of The Entitlement Generation

Not really surprising, a few years ago many of her ilk sat for weeks on end at logging sites on Vancouver Island and in the Squamish Valley sabotaging industrial operations, without a care in the world for the loggers and their families!

Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

Perhaps, at some point, the EI system will evolve to represent a kind of bank account wherein the portion that is paid in by the employer and employee represents a tangible number that can be drawn down as needed. For those people that paid in a lot, they could receive more than the present max amount and for those that have not contributed substantial funds, they could collect a minimum stipulated amount.

I can see how this would not be appropriate for certain job classes or wage earners, but maybe it represents an idea, which in conjunction with other existing social programs, could evolve.

Yep, you can't spend money ya ain't got!

Quote: Originally Posted by Machjo View Post

I don't think anyone suggested those on EI are necessarily lazy as it depends on details.

However, regardless of the past, we can let bygones be bygones, but from this point forward we need to help those with seasonal work not be dependent on EI each year. What would be wrong for instance with a life-guard also being trained as a ski instructor so that he can work year round?

There's exceptions to every rule, but you have to question the logic of someone who would opt to sit on E.I. when they could have a job that pays more!
 
petros
+2
#8
She used to have a cushy job with the Feds but got her ass kicked by Mulroney and SK Premier Divine and went loopy.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

She used to have a cushy job with the Feds but got her ass kicked by Mulroney and SK Premier Divine and went loopy.

Some people are givers and some are takers!
 
petros
+2
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

Some people are givers and some are takers!

She wigged out and went on an extended boat ride to recover.
Hilarious. Party leaders with mental health issues aren't a good thing.
 
Locutus
#11
Having Bill Clinton over to dinner when she was a teenie bopper sure wouldn't help her mental state. Then the Dems went wonky for awhile and her folks ran away to Canada after Nixon won.
 
damngrumpy
No Party Affiliation
#12
First of all I don't like Ms May, but who cares if she drew on it in time of need that is
what's its there for. Cape Breton is a different world and there are those who do
understand it and those who don't. There is a saying on that Island, Even Good times
are hard times in Cape Breton.
Everything there is seasonal. They have had steel mills, mines and tourism and
every time they get something going they are lied to by the people who came in and
set up shop. The government programs poured out money not to the workers but to
those who were to invest in the long term viability of the region. When the government
was finished with its part of the bargain the investors took off with the profits and the
assets and left the locals holding the bag.
Coal was needed in the earlier part of the century right up into the 1980's Many of the
younger fellows and middle aged folks were looking for other jobs elsewhere. The
government of the day needed coal so they convinced them to stay and made a deal
that if they did they would have work guaranteed until for a time. Before the time was
up, the government bailed.
This was part of documentary I saw, about ten or fifteen years ago, trying to remember
the name of it. Anyway, up until then I would agree with some of you but Cape Breton
has been shafted more times than any place else. Besides most of their youth is in
Alberta, I have several cousins there.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

She wigged out and went on an extended boat ride to recover.
Hilarious. Party leaders with mental health issues aren't a good thing.

That's true but is there one who doesn't?
 
petros
+2
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

That's true but is there one who doesn't?

Narcissists, the whole lot of them.
 
TenPenny
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by damngrumpy View Post

First of all I don't like Ms May, but who cares if she drew on it in time of need that is
what's its there for. Cape Breton is a different world and there are those who do
understand it and those who don't. There is a saying on that Island, Even Good times
are hard times in Cape Breton.
Everything there is seasonal. They have had steel mills, mines and tourism and
every time they get something going they are lied to by the people who came in and
set up shop. The government programs poured out money not to the workers but to
those who were to invest in the long term viability of the region. When the government
was finished with its part of the bargain the investors took off with the profits and the
assets and left the locals holding the bag.
Coal was needed in the earlier part of the century right up into the 1980's Many of the
younger fellows and middle aged folks were looking for other jobs elsewhere. The
government of the day needed coal so they convinced them to stay and made a deal
that if they did they would have work guaranteed until for a time. Before the time was
up, the government bailed.
This was part of documentary I saw, about ten or fifteen years ago, trying to remember
the name of it. Anyway, up until then I would agree with some of you but Cape Breton
has been shafted more times than any place else. Besides most of their youth is in
Alberta, I have several cousins there.

Cape Breton is an interesting place, but it's not as simple as you make out. Many of the workers don't want to work full time.
 
Bar Sinister
No Party Affiliation
+1
#16
Given the fact that Canada has seen enormous surpluses in EI contributions over payouts isn't this so called "reform" really a dead issue? It seems to me that changing the EI system is ideological in nature rather than an attempt to correct any abuses in the system.

$57-billion EI surplus won't be coming back to contributors
 
Praxius
Free Thinker
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by Bar Sinister View Post

Given the fact that Canada has seen enormous surpluses in EI contributions over payouts isn't this so called "reform" really a dead issue? It seems to me that changing the EI system is ideological in nature rather than an attempt to correct any abuses in the system.

$57-billion EI surplus won't be coming back to contributors

Indeed.... everybody that I'm aware of has a % of their pay put into EI for when they need it later on, then if/when they do need it, they have to jump through hoops to get their own money back and if you don't get through one of the hoops you're supposed to jump through, you don't get your money back, thus the surplus and there's very little chance the government will ever give you back all the money you put in.

As far as I'm concerned, every Canadian should have the right to opt in or out of paying into EI and if they opt in, they should have every right to take the money back whenever they need it. If they never put money into EI or used all their money up, they don't get any more.... it should be as simple as that.

When it comes to Welfare, that's where all the hoops and restrictions should exist, but is a different subject.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#18
Quote: Originally Posted by Praxius View Post

Indeed.... everybody that I'm aware of has a % of their pay put into EI for when they need it later on, then if/when they do need it, they have to jump through hoops to get their own money back and if you don't get through one of the hoops you're supposed to jump through, you don't get your money back, thus the surplus and there's very little chance the government will ever give you back all the money you put in.

As far as I'm concerned, every Canadian should have the right to opt in or out of paying into EI and if they opt in, they should have every right to take the money back whenever they need it. If they never put money into EI or used all their money up, they don't get any more.... it should be as simple as that.

When it comes to Welfare, that's where all the hoops and restrictions should exist, but is a different subject.

I think there is one misnomer about E.I. that a lot of people don't get, it's insurance and like most kinds of insurance most people don't get "their own" money back. Insurance is for unforseen unfortunate events that we hope never happen, but it's protection in case we they do happen to us but otherwise we are happy that they don't and are just happy to have paid a token amount, the payout being peace of mind.
 
TenPenny
+1
#19
Quote: Originally Posted by JLM View Post

I think there is one misnomer about E.I. that a lot of people don't get, it's insurance and like most kinds of insurance most people don't get "their own" money back. Insurance is for unforseen unfortunate events that we hope never happen, but it's protection in case we they do happen to us but otherwise we are happy that they don't and are just happy to have paid a token amount, the payout being peace of mind.

Exactly, it's insurance.

If you wrote off your car every year, year after year after year, do you think your insurance company would keep covering you?
 
CDNBear
+1
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

Exactly, it's insurance.

If you wrote off your car every year, year after year after year, do you think your insurance company would keep covering you?

Not a snow balls chance in hell.

At the very least, your premiums would be punitive.
 
captain morgan
Bloc Québécois
+1
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

At the very least, your premiums would be punitive.

As it should be. The insurers would interpret (correctly) that it was either an abuse of the system or that you were not insurable at all.
 
taxslave
Free Thinker
+2
#22
Most resource industry workers collect EI on a semi regular basis. Most often it is clawed back at tax time since when we work we make good money. Not so with part time , seasonal tourism jobs. Most people could not afford to live on what EI pays for any length of time since it pays less than 2 days worth of work.
There are of course chronic abusers that don't want to work and are happy being broke. They also tend to use a disproportionate share of other government programs.
This is also part of the reason why forcing EI recipients to take a lower paying job than their qualifications is a non issue. Those with ambition are not going to stay on EI or a dead end job for long and there is still the overlooked fact that some employer still has to offer them a job.
 
TenPenny
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Most resource industry workers collect EI on a semi regular basis. Most often it is clawed back at tax time since when we work we make good money.

Are you saying that in good times, you pay more than normal EI contributions to make up for collecting EI at other times? Or are you simply pointing out that you pay income tax, and therefore deserve EI, which are different pots of money.
 
petros
#24
Privatize EI.
 
JLM
No Party Affiliation
+1
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Privatize EI.

Along with about 562 other matters Gov't sticks their noses into!
 
CDNBear
+1
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Privatize EI.

Why?

Paul Martin left it in excellent sustainable shape, even with the abuses.

The loopholes and abilities to use the system, should be looked at closely and those issues fixed.
 
petros
#27
Quote: Originally Posted by CDNBear View Post

Why?

Paul Martin left it in excellent sustainable shape, even with the abuses.

The loopholes and abilities to use the system, should be looked at closely and those issues fixed.

Even private management would fast track the sealing of loopholes, tag a "hands off" ruling for dipping into the fund by govt and offer tiered levels of deductions and benefits. The more stable your employment the less you pay.
 
CDNBear
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

Even private management would fast track the sealing of loopholes, tag a "hands off" ruling for dipping into the fund by govt and offer tiered levels of deductions and benefits. The more stable your employment the less you pay.

All that could be done by the gov't, with oversight from all party's.
 
petros
+2
#29
They'd form a Commission hire buddies and when over they'd all be on EI
 
Kakato
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by TenPenny View Post

Are you saying that in good times, you pay more than normal EI contributions to make up for collecting EI at other times? Or are you simply pointing out that you pay income tax, and therefore deserve EI, which are different pots of money.

if you make a certain amount of money the next year they take a percentage of it back at income tax time because you were on EI
 

Similar Threads

18
Elizabeth Taylor
by karrie | Mar 24th, 2011
5
Elizabeth Edwards dies at 61
by Icarus27k | Dec 7th, 2010
1
Elizabeth: The Golden Age
by Blackleaf | Oct 22nd, 2007
0