RECORD!! job creation in Canada.
Reverend Blair @ Fri Oct 10, 2008 1:57 pm
$1:
Part time jobs are better then job loses, atleast those people can get part time jobs compared to being able to get nothing.
Part time jobs can support a family, they just won't be living the luxury's they were before and have to make some sacrafices.
Heres a situation, you were just laid off because your job was out-sourced to India. You are having a hard time finding a job with simular pay in the same field you had your old job. What would you rather have? Job lose, where you have no other options or increase of jobs even if majority of them are part time where that person can atleast get a part time job for some income while he works on trying to get a job in his old field with that simular pay.
A income in money, is better than no income at all.
Part time jobs can support a family, they just won't be living the luxury's they were before and have to make some sacrafices.
Heres a situation, you were just laid off because your job was out-sourced to India. You are having a hard time finding a job with simular pay in the same field you had your old job. What would you rather have? Job lose, where you have no other options or increase of jobs even if majority of them are part time where that person can atleast get a part time job for some income while he works on trying to get a job in his old field with that simular pay.
A income in money, is better than no income at all.
Losing high paying, high benefit full time jobs and replacing them with low-paying, low benefit part time jobs is not a sign that everything is fine with the economy though, Bacardi. That's how it's being presented by the Conservatives.
There is also a danger...and we saw this during the Mulroney years...that holding a part-time or even a low-paying full-time job can make people inelgible for retraining programs and even government hiring programs that could see them return to similar wage levels as they held before. At that time it was basically, "No pogey, no access to government programs."
So while having an income is, on the surface, better than having no job at all, it can be a detriment.
The biggest problem is that it allows the government to hide the truth behind statistics though. We see the claims being made. "There were 75,000 jobs created so everything is fine." Well, everything isn't fine. Taking a part time job to make ends meet during hard times does not mean the hard times have ended.
ziggy @ Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:00 pm
No pogey because the libs were too busy robbing the EI fund to pay down the debt and then bragging about it.
ziggy @ Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:01 pm
Ya,having a job is a detriment,spoken by someone who obviously knows how to work the system.
DerbyX @ Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:02 pm
ziggy ziggy:
No pogey because the libs were too busy robbing the EI fund to pay down the debt and then bragging about it.
Seems Harper stole far more. Gotta keep reminded you about that fact.
ziggy @ Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:03 pm
Dont think it was even close my furry little friend.
ziggy @ Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:06 pm
Especially when people out west were getting denied EI while the libs just kept raping the fund.
ziggy @ Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:12 pm
I could show you some figures but they would be off an Alberta seperation site and I dont want to be called a partisan hack,even if the figure's are true. 
DerbyX @ Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:12 pm
ziggy ziggy:
Dont think it was even close my furry little friend.
Yes it was. Thats entirely why a crimnal complaint was lodged against them.
Your inability to admit this is your partisanship despite having voted for Chretien.
Harper "stole" from the EI fund in exactly the same manner only it was more because the fund had more money in it.
'nuff said.
ziggy @ Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:14 pm
So was someone charged for this complaint?
Bacardi4206 @ Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:17 pm
Reverend Blair Reverend Blair:
$1:
Part time jobs are better then job loses, atleast those people can get part time jobs compared to being able to get nothing.
Part time jobs can support a family, they just won't be living the luxury's they were before and have to make some sacrafices.
Heres a situation, you were just laid off because your job was out-sourced to India. You are having a hard time finding a job with simular pay in the same field you had your old job. What would you rather have? Job lose, where you have no other options or increase of jobs even if majority of them are part time where that person can atleast get a part time job for some income while he works on trying to get a job in his old field with that simular pay.
A income in money, is better than no income at all.
Part time jobs can support a family, they just won't be living the luxury's they were before and have to make some sacrafices.
Heres a situation, you were just laid off because your job was out-sourced to India. You are having a hard time finding a job with simular pay in the same field you had your old job. What would you rather have? Job lose, where you have no other options or increase of jobs even if majority of them are part time where that person can atleast get a part time job for some income while he works on trying to get a job in his old field with that simular pay.
A income in money, is better than no income at all.
Losing high paying, high benefit full time jobs and replacing them with low-paying, low benefit part time jobs is not a sign that everything is fine with the economy though, Bacardi. That's how it's being presented by the Conservatives.
There is also a danger...and we saw this during the Mulroney years...that holding a part-time or even a low-paying full-time job can make people inelgible for retraining programs and even government hiring programs that could see them return to similar wage levels as they held before. At that time it was basically, "No pogey, no access to government programs."
So while having an income is, on the surface, better than having no job at all, it can be a detriment.
The biggest problem is that it allows the government to hide the truth behind statistics though. We see the claims being made. "There were 75,000 jobs created so everything is fine." Well, everything isn't fine. Taking a part time job to make ends meet during hard times does not mean the hard times have ended.
Nobody can control losing jobs, it just happens. Which actually is what the NDP is trying to do. Stop company's from selling out, and losing jobs. However they do happen and it is much better that a effort is made to atleast create jobs, even if they are part time rather than just letting it sink with a job lose.
Having high paying jobs replaced by part time ones is not a sign of being ok, you are right but it is a step forward because while countries are losing jobs. We are atleast paused, and infact increasing jobs at a slow pace. The point being, while countries like America as a example are losing jobs at a rapid rate. Even though some of our high-paying and high demand jobs are lost, atleast some temporary jobs are being efforted to be placed so those that lost there high paying job can atleast recieve some income while this situation is going on unti'll we can get those jobs back.
DerbyX @ Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:19 pm
ziggy ziggy:
So was someone charged for this complaint?
Probably not because it wasn't anymore against the law when the Liberals did it then when Harper did it.
http://briarpatchmagazine.com/2007/03/1 ... i-surplus/
$1:
Criminal complaint against Harper over huge EI surplus
After accusing Liberals of using Employment Insurance fund as a ‘partisan piggy bank’, Harper Conservatives are now doing the same thing.
National Union of Public and General Employees
March 9, 2007
Ottawa - A criminal complaint has been filed against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative cabinet for misusing the now-staggering $51-billion surplus in Canada’s national Employment Insurance (EI) fund.
The surplus, which the Conservatives howled that the Liberals were abusing when they were in office, has mushroomed by $7 billion since 2004 and continues to grow at a spectacular rate - fed by ongoing worker contributions and interest gains.
Yet the Tories are behaving the same as the Liberals behaved, putting the surplus into general revenue where it can be used for anything and not specifically for the benefit of unemployed workers as the law requires.
The RCMP has confirmed that the complaint was lodged March 7 by a lawyer representing the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU).
Larry Kowalchuk said on behalf of the union in Regina that he took the action in response to long-standing concerns that surplus EI funds are being diverted to uses other than providing unemployment benefits.
Denounced by Auditor General
Sheila Fraser, the federal auditor general, denounced the former Liberal government repeatedly for running EI surpluses beyond what was needed to meet payments to the unemployed, even during the most difficult economic times. Federal officials say the outside limit for this purpose would be a maximum surplus of about $15 billion.
Despite accusing Liberals of using the fund as a “partisan piggy bank,” the Conservatives are now controlling a much bigger EI surplus as they embark on an unprecedented multi-billion-dollar spending spree in preparation for an election.
It is widely expected that Harper, who is currently leading the Liberals in opinion polls, will find a way to precipitate Canada’s third federal election in three years sometime this spring.
“There have been a lot of media talk shows about what the government should be doing with the $51-billion surplus,” Kowalchuk told the Regina Leader-Post.
“I was listening to that and going: ‘Well you can’t do anything about it, it’s a trust. It belongs to the workers and government can’t spend it on health care or anything else. If they do it is a breach of trust.’”
Criminal Code Section 336
Kowalchuk said Section 336 of the Criminal Code makes it an indictable offence for “every one who, being a trustee of anything for the use or benefit, whether in whole or in part, of another person, or for a public or charitable purpose, converts, with intent to defraud and in contravention of his trust, that thing or any part of it to a use that is not authorized by the trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.”
He said the union is not making any specific allegations about particular federal programs or initiatives that may be benefitting from EI money.
Instead, the union is asking the RCMP to investigate the general handling of the fund in relation to Criminal Code restrictions. If the $51 billion is not in a trust account, to be used solely for providing unemployment benefits, the union wants to know where it is and what it was used for, Kowalchuk said.
NUPGE intervention
The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) has been calling for years for Ottawa to use the fund as intended to benefit workers who are in between jobs.
In 2001, when the surplus stood at $36 billion, NUPGE president James Clancy wrote to former prime minister Jean Chretien urging him to make major changes in the operation of the fund.
Specifically, he called on the government to pay EI recipients a minimum of 66% of average earnings and to restore the maximum benefit period to 50 weeks. He also proposed better integration of federal and provincial training programs to help EI recipients get back into the labour force and called for abolition of provisions penalizing short-term and seasonal workers.
Recipients are now required to work 420 to 700 hours, depending on local unemployment rates, to qualify for benefits. It has been estimated that 17% of workers who pay into the program never qualify because of the limited hours are they are able to work.
After accusing Liberals of using Employment Insurance fund as a ‘partisan piggy bank’, Harper Conservatives are now doing the same thing.
National Union of Public and General Employees
March 9, 2007
Ottawa - A criminal complaint has been filed against Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservative cabinet for misusing the now-staggering $51-billion surplus in Canada’s national Employment Insurance (EI) fund.
The surplus, which the Conservatives howled that the Liberals were abusing when they were in office, has mushroomed by $7 billion since 2004 and continues to grow at a spectacular rate - fed by ongoing worker contributions and interest gains.
Yet the Tories are behaving the same as the Liberals behaved, putting the surplus into general revenue where it can be used for anything and not specifically for the benefit of unemployed workers as the law requires.
The RCMP has confirmed that the complaint was lodged March 7 by a lawyer representing the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (RWDSU).
Larry Kowalchuk said on behalf of the union in Regina that he took the action in response to long-standing concerns that surplus EI funds are being diverted to uses other than providing unemployment benefits.
Denounced by Auditor General
Sheila Fraser, the federal auditor general, denounced the former Liberal government repeatedly for running EI surpluses beyond what was needed to meet payments to the unemployed, even during the most difficult economic times. Federal officials say the outside limit for this purpose would be a maximum surplus of about $15 billion.
Despite accusing Liberals of using the fund as a “partisan piggy bank,” the Conservatives are now controlling a much bigger EI surplus as they embark on an unprecedented multi-billion-dollar spending spree in preparation for an election.
It is widely expected that Harper, who is currently leading the Liberals in opinion polls, will find a way to precipitate Canada’s third federal election in three years sometime this spring.
“There have been a lot of media talk shows about what the government should be doing with the $51-billion surplus,” Kowalchuk told the Regina Leader-Post.
“I was listening to that and going: ‘Well you can’t do anything about it, it’s a trust. It belongs to the workers and government can’t spend it on health care or anything else. If they do it is a breach of trust.’”
Criminal Code Section 336
Kowalchuk said Section 336 of the Criminal Code makes it an indictable offence for “every one who, being a trustee of anything for the use or benefit, whether in whole or in part, of another person, or for a public or charitable purpose, converts, with intent to defraud and in contravention of his trust, that thing or any part of it to a use that is not authorized by the trust is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 14 years.”
He said the union is not making any specific allegations about particular federal programs or initiatives that may be benefitting from EI money.
Instead, the union is asking the RCMP to investigate the general handling of the fund in relation to Criminal Code restrictions. If the $51 billion is not in a trust account, to be used solely for providing unemployment benefits, the union wants to know where it is and what it was used for, Kowalchuk said.
NUPGE intervention
The National Union of Public and General Employees (NUPGE) has been calling for years for Ottawa to use the fund as intended to benefit workers who are in between jobs.
In 2001, when the surplus stood at $36 billion, NUPGE president James Clancy wrote to former prime minister Jean Chretien urging him to make major changes in the operation of the fund.
Specifically, he called on the government to pay EI recipients a minimum of 66% of average earnings and to restore the maximum benefit period to 50 weeks. He also proposed better integration of federal and provincial training programs to help EI recipients get back into the labour force and called for abolition of provisions penalizing short-term and seasonal workers.
Recipients are now required to work 420 to 700 hours, depending on local unemployment rates, to qualify for benefits. It has been estimated that 17% of workers who pay into the program never qualify because of the limited hours are they are able to work.
Apollo @ Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:20 pm
Are some of you not missing the point here? If the economy is anywhere near as bad as Layton and Dion says it is, we should have lost 100,000 jobs last month, not gain over 100,000.
This just proves that Derby, Rev and their ilk are nothing more than partisan hacks.
The world is going to hell in a handbasket, Canada creates over 107,000 jobs in a month and they are telling us that this is bad news.
They would certainly be singing a different tune if any other party was in power. 
Bacardi4206 @ Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:21 pm
Apollo Apollo:
$1:
Part time jobs are better then job loses, atleast those people can get part time jobs compared to being able to get nothing.
Part time jobs can support a family, they just won't be living the luxury's they were before and have to make some sacrafices.
Heres a situation, you were just laid off because your job was out-sourced to India. You are having a hard time finding a job with simular pay in the same field you had your old job. What would you rather have? Job lose, where you have no other options or increase of jobs even if majority of them are part time where that person can atleast get a part time job for some income while he works on trying to get a job in his old field with that simular pay.
A income in money, is better than no income at all.
Part time jobs can support a family, they just won't be living the luxury's they were before and have to make some sacrafices.
Heres a situation, you were just laid off because your job was out-sourced to India. You are having a hard time finding a job with simular pay in the same field you had your old job. What would you rather have? Job lose, where you have no other options or increase of jobs even if majority of them are part time where that person can atleast get a part time job for some income while he works on trying to get a job in his old field with that simular pay.
A income in money, is better than no income at all.
Well said Bacardi. Are you sure you're an NDP supporter? You certainly don't sound like one.
You don't follow what the NDP sais much do you
. NDP want's to tax company's so they won't sell out and create job loses. Something like that, I forget what they wanted to do but it was a great solution to making company's not sell out there jobs to people in India who work for lesser pay. Keeping the jobs in Canada, and keeping the jobs here. NDP has always tried to work for the benefit of the people, rather than whoring themselves for profit. Which is why most NDP supporters are suprised NDP never wins.
ziggy @ Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:22 pm
DerbyX DerbyX:
ziggy ziggy:
Dont think it was even close my furry little friend.
Yes it was. Thats entirely why a crimnal complaint was lodged against them.
Your inability to admit this is your partisanship despite having voted for Chretien.
Harper "stole" from the EI fund in exactly the same manner only it was more because the fund had more money in it.
'nuff said.
Well,Im not going to rely on the govt. for a job,I've spent over a grand on upgrading my tickets this year and am branching out in other fields.
Diversifying myself so to speak.
My latest achievement.
DerbyX @ Fri Oct 10, 2008 2:24 pm
Then I suggest you re-read my TD report. I also suggest you undestand that part-time jobs are never enough to live on by themselves and most require govt funds to top them up.
A hack and his words are soon parted. You wouldl be screaming the opposite if the reverse were true because even though Chretien and Martin held the helm during great economic times and job growth they were criticized for not doing enough in whatever area of the country was suffering such as BC and the softwood dispute or even Alberta and its madcow affair.