Liberals Preparing For A Summer Election

[JLM]

I'm totally against an election right now but if it happens I will scrap my bussiness,go hourly and go on EI because thats all that will be available for me and others and if you only have to work 45 days then I can just imagine how many will be on it.

Sure would be nice if the partys actually were doing something for the country instead of just focusing on staying in power at all costs.
The attacks from all sides are getting so childish now that it's hard to take any politician seriously anymore.
The libs lost,they should get over it and lets get down to getting the country back in shape,then next year they can run an election on how we are doing under the cons.

I agree. When most people vote for a candidate it is with an eye to the party and also to the leader. Ignatieff (to date) has done absolutely nothing to impress me, Harper hasn't done much but he has introduced pension splitting for tax purposes which has benefitted me greatly. For anyone who believes that either of them can magically fix the economy, I have a bridge to sell them. Iggy's plan to change E.I. is simply irresponsible and will only sink us further into the glue. An election in the near future is ludicrous.

 

[Kakato]

I think they will keep forcing elections untill they get back in power,and thats sad if thats their only priority.I havent seen any stimulus money helping here in Alberta yet,most of my associates are also private contractors and the majority of them are going to Sask. to work in the patch for the summer.
They pay into EI but can never collect it so when they dont work it doesnt show up on the unemployment stats either.

 

[#juan]

I agree. When most people vote for a candidate it is with an eye to the party and also to the leader. Ignatieff (to date) has done absolutely nothing to impress me, Harper hasn't done much but he has introduced pension splitting for tax purposes which has benefitted me greatly. For anyone who believes that either of them can magically fix the economy, I have a bridge to sell them. Iggy's plan to change E.I. is simply irresponsible and will only sink us further into the glue. An election in the near future is ludicrous.

JLM I don't think you know what Ignatieff's proposed EI changes are. You have not made any secret which party you support and we know it isn't the Liberals. Neither side will call an election until they think they can win a majority. We will know better when we see what the bad news is in Harper's economic progress report. That report might just trigger an election. We know Harper won't call an election, not because he is concerned about the cost of an election, but because he is sure to lose.

 

[Kakato]

So are you saying the libs will force an election just because they think they will win?
Those are screwed up priorities and they tried it once allready.

 

[#juan]

So are you saying the libs will force an election just because they think they will win?
Those are screwed up priorities and they tried it once allready.

How old are you? Harper has called at least one election in order to get a majority. If the morning polls show that the Conservatives would win a majority, Harper would call an election before coffee break. In that regard I don't think the Liberals are any different.

 

[Kakato]

Right,you have a crystal ball on Harper,and im probably older or as old as you.
Old enough to shake Trudeaus hand before he gave us the finger..

 

[Ron in Regina]

The numbers (of seats in Parliament) say the Liberals on their own can't call
an election without the Bloc & NDP agreeing to it. Though the Conservatives
are nose-diving in Quebec, much of the Liberals "rise in the polls" comes at
the expense of the Bloc....and nationally their "rise in the polls" comes not only
at the expense of the Conservatives, but the NDP as well.

At this point....why on earth would the Bloc & NDP side with the Liberals to call
an election so that they can lose seats and drain their piggy-banks while they
lose those seats to the Liberals??? Not only is there no advantage to the Bloc
& NDP agreeing with the Liberals to call an election, but there are several huge
disadvantages for the NDP & Bloc to do so. An election anytime soon just isn't
going to happen for that reason.

 

[JLM]

JLM I don't think you know what Ignatieff's proposed EI changes are. You have not made any secret which party you support and we know it isn't the Liberals. Neither side will call an election until they think they can win a majority. We will know better when we see what the bad news is in Harper's economic progress report. That report might just trigger an election. We know Harper won't call an election, not because he is concerned about the cost of an election, but because he is sure to lose.

WRONG on both counts Juan. Iggy wants to reduce the eligibility period to qualify for E.I. How is he going to accomplish that without it costing us more money? I don't support any party, I am party neutral, BUT I'm not against Liberals, what I am against is flitting from one party to another before the party I flit to can convince me it would be an improvement. Ignatieff hasn't done that.

 

[darkbeaver]

The reason for the decline in voteing is simple, it has to do with the appaling rhetoric which conveys nothing so much as the profoundly diecietful nature of western politics and the deep ethical poverty on display for all to see.
I'd like to keep Harpers facsists and save the money, iggy is just another bag boy who will only waste cash on new curtains.

 

[JLM]

The numbers (of seats in Parliament) say the Liberals on their own can't call
an election without the Bloc & NDP agreeing to it. Though the Conservatives
are nose-diving in Quebec, much of the Liberals "rise in the polls" comes at
the expense of the Bloc....and nationally their "rise in the polls" comes not only
at the expense of the Conservatives, but the NDP as well.

At this point....why on earth would the Bloc & NDP side with the Liberals to call
an election so that they can lose seats and drain their piggy-banks while they
lose those seats to the Liberals??? Not only is there no advantage to the Bloc
& NDP agreeing with the Liberals to call an election, but there are several huge
disadvantages for the NDP & Bloc to do so. An election anytime soon just isn't
going to happen for that reason.

Ahhhhhhhh a breath of COMMON SENSE.

 

[Kakato]

As far as EI go's,I find it ironic that under Iggys plan we would wind up running a larger deficit so we could put more money into EI to fund its growing ranks,when the Libs allready took money from it to pay down the deficit once.

Go figure.

 

[JLM]

As far as EI go's,I find it ironic that under Iggys plan we would wind up running a larger deficit so we could put more money into EI to fund its growing ranks,when the Libs allready took money from it to pay down the deficit once.

Go figure.

It's not hard to figure, Ignatieff is trying to juggle his way to power.

 

[Kakato]

It's not hard to figure, Ignatieff is trying to juggle his way to power.

The Raitt thing is starting to look like a set up once you connect the dots.
The more info comes out,the more interesting it gets.

 

[JLM]

The Raitt thing is starting to look like a set up once you connect the dots.
The more info comes out,the more interesting it gets.

That could well be, politically I don't think it's a big deal, other than for her personally now that she's exposed herself to the whole wide world as being a bitch.

 

[Kakato]

That could well be, politically I don't think it's a big deal, other than for her personally now that she's exposed herself to the whole wide world as being a bitch.

I agree she should go but Jasmine MacDonnell's father has strong Liberal ties going back to Chretien and he was a fundraiser for Iggy.
She leaves a political sensitive binder at the CTV, then she 'inadvertantly' tapes Raitt in a damaging conversation and leaves the tape and the recorder in a House of Commons washroom? All in a week?

insert twilight zone music here.;-)

Too bad the Canadian economy isnt the priority in the house of commons right now.

 

[captain morgan]

I'm totally against an election right now but if it happens I will scrap my bussiness,go hourly and go on EI because thats all that will be available for me and others and if you only have to work 45 days then I can just imagine how many will be on it.

Sure would be nice if the partys actually were doing something for the country instead of just focusing on staying in power at all costs.
The attacks from all sides are getting so childish now that it's hard to take any politician seriously anymore.
The libs lost,they should get over it and lets get down to getting the country back in shape,then next year they can run an election on how we are doing under the cons.

I don't think that it's so much about the timing of an election as much as it should be about the development and application of sound policies.

Your comment re: packing in the business and going hourly hits the nail squarely in the head. As an employer, self-employed, consultant, etc. you are forced to contribute into the kitty (self included) but are ineligible to receive these funds.. Same thing for WCB... The question is: Why be forced to contribute (for self) when it's legislated that you can never receive.

In the end, the message is that the gvt (all parties) are attempting to increase their role and their take in the private sector. As long as this is the case, you'll see more and more people abandoning investment and entrepreneurial activities in exchange for more reliance on the public purse.

 

[#juan]

WRONG on both counts Juan. Iggy wants to reduce the eligibility period to qualify for E.I. How is he going to accomplish that without it costing us more money? I don't support any party, I am party neutral, BUT I'm not against Liberals, what I am against is flitting from one party to another before the party I flit to can convince me it would be an improvement. Ignatieff hasn't done that.

No. The EI currently has a 51 billion dollar surplus that has built up over twenty five years. During this recession I think we could go a little easier on those needing assistance without hurting ourselves. Why hasn't Harper considered this?

 

[JLM]

I agree she should go but Jasmine MacDonnell's father has strong Liberal ties going back to Chretien and he was a fundraiser for Iggy.
She leaves a political sensitive binder at the CTV, then she 'inadvertantly' tapes Raitt in a damaging conversation and leaves the tape and the recorder in a House of Commons washroom? All in a week?

insert twilight zone music here.;-)

Too bad the Canadian economy isnt the priority in the house of commons right now.

You have to wonder how much these highly competent geniuses are getting paid!!!!!!!

 

[JLM]

No. The EI currently has a 51 billion dollar surplus that has built up over twenty five years. During this recession I think we could go a little easier on those needing assistance without hurting ourselves. Why hasn't Harper considered this?

I don't doubt the $51 billion any more than I doubt the creative math it took to reach that figure. Let's just say to run your household you have 10 envelopes each with money in them. Well, if you are in the minus in 9 of those envelopes, does $51 in one envelope prove anything? Harper has already said he is going over $50 B in the hole this year, so maybe the $51B would do better plugging that hole.

 

[#juan]

I don't doubt the $51 billion any more than I doubt the creative math it took to reach that figure. Let's just say to run your household you have 10 envelopes each with money in them. Well, if you are in the minus in 9 of those envelopes, does $51 in one envelope prove anything? Harper has already said he is going over $50 B in the hole this year, so maybe the $51B would do better plugging that hole.

The Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) predicts the current economic downturn will push Canada’s unemployment rate up to seven per cent this year and up to 7.5 per cent by 2010 from 5.8 per cent less than a year ago. To date, worker contributions have created a healthy $54.1 billion Employment Insurance (EI) fund, but despite this, it appears the EI system is letting the jobless down. They’ve not just lost their jobs; they’re also receiving inadequate EI benefits, if any at all.
EI, formerly Unemployment Insurance, was introduced in 1940 with the objective of providing financial assistance to unemployed workers. Benefit rates have historically been around 75 per cent (of insurable earnings) for claimants with dependents and 67 per cent for those without dependents. The maximum number of weeks a claimant could receive benefits was 51. Throughout the 1980s and 1990s though, increasingly conservative federal social policies saw the dismantling of many social programs, including EI. According to the Canadian Labour Congress, the EI program is “broken” and “in recent years, six in 10 unemployed men and seven in 10 unemployed women failed to qualify for any benefits, even though they paid EI premiums.”
True, today’s EI benefits have been clawed back extensively from years past. The basic benefit rate is now 55 per cent of average insurable earnings, or $447 per week — whichever is lower. The average weekly benefit paid out in 2007 was $317.65 per week. Even the maximum payment, which can only be paid out for up to 45 weeks, adds up to just $20,115 (before income tax deductions since EI is considered taxable income). With the poverty line assessed at around $24,000 per year, recipients of EI are therefore expected to live below it.
In fact, the average EI benefits of $1,270.60 per month would not cover modest living expenses for a single person in Calgary. Based on average monthly costs from 2008, a single Calgarian pays $951 rent for a one-bedroom apartment, $250 for groceries, $83 for a transit pass and $30 for a phone. With EI benefits, the average Calgarian would come up $43 short and that isn’t accounting for debt payments, utilities, dependents or any other expenses.
Not only do EI benefits fail to cover reasonable expenses, recipients have to wait more than a month to find out if they will receive benefits. Service Canada reports the average time to process applications is now 40 days. Benefits are also not paid for the first two weeks of unemployment — call it the deductible. Over 60,000 Calgarians are just one paycheque away from homelessness. One wonders how going without three paycheques could affect the average Calgarian.
Understanding the impacts of unemployment, some employers pay employees a severance package when they’re laid off. However, EI treats severance as wages and deducts it from any benefits. Arguably, though, severance should be seen as compensation for the long-term costs of job loss. Those hardest hit by the economic downturn are those in the manufacturing and automotive industry who may have been with the same company for decades. The chances of finding comparable work with similar benefits and wages are small — hence severance pay. The transition from one job to another may also reduce pension and other benefits. Further, EI treats severance pay as regular wages, creating a disincentive for employers to pay it.
Service Canada, the government agency that delivers EI as well as other programs and services, declares that EI fraud, defined as knowingly withholding information or providing false or misleading information, is a serious offense. The agency recorded close to $150 million in fraudulent claims in 2007-08. Such fraud constitutes possible prosecution and fines of up to three times the benefits received. The agency expects to recoup all but $60 million of the fraudulent claims. In contrast, the federal government redirected surplus EI premium revenues to general government purposes from the mid-1990s through to 2007, and Canadians will never recoup those misdirected revenues. Most notably, former prime minister Jean Chrétien and former finance minister Paul Martin, redirected over $50 billion of EI surplus funds to general revenues. Canadian workers contribute EI premiums from their paycheques with the understanding that those premiums are being used for the purpose of supporting unemployed workers, yet the government knowingly redirected those funds for other purposes, arguably committing fraud of over $50 billion without consequence. In a case brought to the Supreme Court of Canada by the Syndicat National des Employes de l’Aluminium and the Confederation des syndicats nationaux, Quebec’s second-largest trade union with more than 300,000 members, Justice Louis LeBel concluded in December 2008 that it was up to Parliament, under its general taxation powers, to spend the EI surplus as it sees fit.
The current federal government has announced it will create an independent Crown corporation, the Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board (CEIFB), to restrict the use of premiums for EI only, starting with a reserve or “rainy-day fund” of $2 billion. The chief actuary, though, recommends a minimum reserve of no less than $10 billion to $15 billion. Either way, these numbers are significantly less than the current EI surplus of $54.1 billion, which begs the question, what is the plan for the remaining $52.1 billion Canadian workers have paid into the EI system if the government is only applying $2 billion of it to the new reserve?
Labour unions and workers alike called upon the federal government to include the expansion of EI benefits into the economic stimulus plan announced January 27. Surely, if consumer spending is expected to help us out of this recession, the $54.1 billion surplus in the EI account should be duly paid to unemployed workers who now need it. The January 27 federal budget announcement, however, has made clear that other than increasing funds available for retraining and increasing the maximum benefit period from 45 to 50 weeks, there will be no increased benefits for the thousands of unemployed Canadians (70,000 full-time jobs lost in December 2008 alone) now dependent on the EI program they thought would be there for them.