[Newsbot]

Title: Top court says Ottawa broke law in financing EI
Category: Political
Posted By: dino_bobba_renno
Date: 2008-12-11 10:05:26
Canadian

[uwish]

unanimous ruling.

looks like Ottawa needs to revamp this.

[ziggy]

Ok Derby,now what say you?

[DerbyX]

You need to read more closely:

$1:

However, the court said Ottawa legitimately collected premiums in all other years since 1996 and rejected claims by organized labour that the Liberals deliberately ran up massive surpluses in the EI fund, then diverted the money to balance the federal budget and fund other initiatives.

The money was used properly in paying down the debt.

They simply stated that the Liberals failed in 3 seperate years to properly consult parliment like they did the other 7 times.

All that means is that they should have gotten the same input each and every year. Of course they were lowering it each and every years also so perhaps they figured since they weren't raising it they were OK. They were wrong on not getting input.

Correct to pay down the debt.

[DerbyX]

Here is another key finding:

$1:

The Liberals brought in legislation in 1996 that tightened eligibility rules for EI benefits but simultaneously opened the door to new training, education, placement and other programs.

That sounds alot like "workfare not welfare" to me. That idea is firmly in line with conservative thinking about not simply giving people money but retraining them to work elsewhere.

Was that a bad thing? Were the Liberals wrong to offer out of work people new training, additional education, and work placement programs?

Sounds like "the best social program is a job" thinking to me.

[HyperionTheEvil]

DerbyX DerbyX:

You need to read more closely:

$1:

However, the court said Ottawa legitimately collected premiums in all other years since 1996 and rejected claims by organized labour that the Liberals deliberately ran up massive surpluses in the EI fund, then diverted the money to balance the federal budget and fund other initiatives.

The money was used properly in paying down the debt.

They simply stated that the Liberals failed in 3 seperate years to properly consult parliment like they did the other 7 times.

All that means is that they should have gotten the same input each and every year. Of course they were lowering it each and every years also so perhaps they figured since they weren't raising it they were OK. They were wrong on not getting input.

Correct to pay down the debt.

You need to pay attention

$1:

In a 7-0 decision, the court ruled EI premiums were inappropriately collected between 2002, 2003, and 2005. That's when the Liberal cabinet set EI rates directly without the authorization from Parliament and the employment insurance commission, a violation of the principle of no taxation without representation.

"This means that employment insurance premiums were collected unlawfully, without the necessary legislative authorization," Justice Louis LeBel wrote in the decision.

$1:

Canada's highest court ruled, however, that the federal government was within its rights to divert EI contributions to pay down the deficit from 1996-2001

Typical liberal spin

It's about bringing in a hidden tax without consulting Canadians.

It means they had the right to divert funds from EI to paying the debt, they broke the law by not collecting them properly and by not taking the issue to Parliment. so much for Liberal claims at prudent fiscal balance, they broke the law to make themselves look good at the cost of working Canadians. And at the cost of Canadians who were out looking for work

Just another Example of more liberal arrogance deception when they thought they coud take advantage of every day Canadians and rbing in a hiddem tax without having to say so to Canadians

[DerbyX]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

DerbyX DerbyX:

You need to read more closely:

$1:

However, the court said Ottawa legitimately collected premiums in all other years since 1996 and rejected claims by organized labour that the Liberals deliberately ran up massive surpluses in the EI fund, then diverted the money to balance the federal budget and fund other initiatives.

The money was used properly in paying down the debt.

They simply stated that the Liberals failed in 3 seperate years to properly consult parliment like they did the other 7 times.

All that means is that they should have gotten the same input each and every year. Of course they were lowering it each and every years also so perhaps they figured since they weren't raising it they were OK. They were wrong on not getting input.

Correct to pay down the debt.

You need to pay attention

$1:

In a 7-0 decision, the court ruled EI premiums were inappropriately collected between

$1:

2002, 2003, and 2005

. That's when the Liberal cabinet set EI rates directly without the authorization from Parliament and the employment insurance commission, a violation of the principle of no taxation without representation.

"This means that employment insurance premiums were collected unlawfully, without the necessary legislative authorization," Justice Louis LeBel wrote in the decision.

Canada's highest court ruled, however, that the federal government was within its rights to divert EI contributions to pay down the deficit from

$1:

1996-2001

Typical liberal spin

Did you even read the article? Can you read?

$1:

In a 7-0 judgment, the court ruled Thursday the former Liberal governments of Jean Chretien and Paul Martin collected EI contributions illegally in 2002, 2003 and 2005.

Legally in 96, 97, 98, 99, 00, 01, and in 04.

Counting them up, lets see, 1-2-3-4-5-6-7.

Yep. The other "7" times.

In addition, they collected them illegaly because:

$1:

In those years, EI rates were set directly by cabinet without proper authorization from Parliament, violating the ancient constitutional principle of no taxation without representation.

They didn't get proper authorization like they did the other 7 times which in all likelihood would have resulted in no change to the rate set by the Libs.

Thats to say nothing that using the EI to pay down the debt was perfectly legal for 96 through 2005 despite not getting proper consent. At best, without proper consent they had no legal right to change the EI rate not to collect it and since it went down every single year at best you can argue it should have remained higher.

Typical conservative inability to decipher english at an adult level.

[HyperionTheEvil]

DerbyX DerbyX:

They didn't get proper authorization like they did the other 7 times which in all likelihood would have resulted in no change to the rate set by the Libs.

Thats to say nothing that using the EI to pay down the debt was perfectly legal for 96 through 2005 despite not getting proper consent. At best, without proper consent they had no legal right to change the EI rate not to collect it and since it went down every single year at best you can argue it should have remained higher.

Typical conservative inability to decipher english at an adult level.

Im glad to see you admit finally that the Liberal party broke taxation law.

I didnt say paying down the debt wan't legal, the court said it was legal and it's something you're ignoring. They broke the law by setting rates in the EI program that amounted to taxation without representaion. What they did before has no bearing on whether they broke the law, which they did.

There's no argument here. The Supreme court just found that the Liberal Party broke the law. and yet her you're ae defending them.

[ziggy]

Dont worry Derby,your latest donations are safe for now.

$1:

The court issued no order for repayment and suspended the effect of its judgment for one year in order to give the federal government time to sort out the legislative tangle.

[DerbyX]

HyperionTheEvil HyperionTheEvil:

Im glad to see you admit finally that the Liberal party broke taxation law.

I didnt say paying down the debt wan't legal, the court said it was legal and it's something you're ignoring. They broke the law by setting rates in the EI program that amounted to taxation without representaion. What they did before has no bearing on whether they broke the law, which they did.

There's no argument here. The Supreme court just found that the Liberal Party broke the law. and yet her you're ae defending them.

Again you can't read.

You objected to my quote here:

$1:

The money was used properly in paying down the debt.

They simply stated that the Liberals failed in 3 seperate years to properly consult parliment like they did the other 7 times.

All that means is that they should have gotten the same input each and every year. Of course they were lowering it each and every years also so perhaps they figured since they weren't raising it they were OK. They were wrong on not getting input.

Correct to pay down the debt.

Clearly I said they failed to properly consult parliment, an act I had not been aware of. I'm not defending that. I'm defending the debt usage of it as well as pointing out they did indeed consult parliment 7 out of 10 times. Why those three? I'm not sure. There might be an explanation even if their isn't an excuse.

Like I said before though, the IE contributions went down every year so even though they were obliged to consult parlimanet for a rate change at best you can argue is that they illegally lowered them.

I'm glad to see that you undertsand it was legal to pay down the debt with it though where you get I'm ignoring that fact is beyond me seeing as its always been my point.

[DerbyX]

ziggy ziggy:

Dont worry Derby,your latest donations are safe for now.

$1:

The court issued no order for repayment and suspended the effect of its judgment for one year in order to give the federal government time to sort out the legislative tangle.

I'm sure everybody will like it if the supreme court rules the rate reduction in 02, 03 and 05 illegal and reverses it making the people owe the govt additional money.

That will go over well.

[ridenrain]

Come on Derby... Say it!

"this is all those Conservative appointed judges"

[Zipperfish]

Well, at least the Liberals had a pretty good economic record and were paying down the debt. Harper's been in for two years and the economy is crap now. Oh, I know, I know, it's not poor Stevie's fault. It's everybody else's fault.

[uwish]

I think it is a bit of a stretch linking Harper to the worlds economic issues.

A monkey could be in the PM's office and the same thing would have happened.

[uwish]

"Did you even read the article? Can you read?"


"Typical conservative inability to decipher english at an adult level."




who is launching personal attacks now?