sideshow

I've never heard Harper say anything about that, and even on banning abortions and banning same-sex marriage, you will hear the same views from individual members on the Liberal bench and on the Conservative bench. As for hating Canada, well that's such an absurd argument since it can be argued anyone of any political stripe hates Canada. Personally people who make such juvenile comment's ought to get out more and realize that not everybody that doesn't vote the same way they do are not evil Nazis or commies trying to destroy this country. That goes for both sides of the spectrum. Wow an intelligent thought that doesn't reek of sarcasm. Refreshing. And couldn't agree more.

Well....... Most banks nowadays set a limit to the amount of over the counter transactions an account holder can have each month-unless they pay a fee for unlimited access. So some people are REQUIRED to pay the ATM fee-or pay at the counter. So in this regard I see it as an unfair practice by the banks. On the other hand, like others have said, if you plan properly, I don't see why you need to have so many transactions. I mean, I barely EVER use an ATM. Internet banking, interac at the till, whatever, seems to be so easy, so convenient, and so prevalent that you shouldn't need to be making constant trips to the ATM. And even if you do once in a blue moon get stuck, whats a buck or two for the convenience? So in this regard, why shouldn't the various banks be able to charge a fee for a convenient service? I guess I really don't agree or disagree with the whole concept of regulation. I could care less.

I would think that economic prosperity would be a part of a persons "success". I measure my success in life in several ways. In order of importance: Family. I am happily married, have healthy, intelligent, beautiful children. I am close to my parents, my siblings, my inlaws, and my wifes siblings. Health. My family (for the most part) has their health. Being physically and mentally able to do things we love is important. (this is not a success, but rather a part of what makes me happy and fullfilled in life) Career. I have a job that is the most satisfying career (to me) that I can imagine. I wouldn't change careers for twice the money as I love going to work, feel completely satisfied in every aspect, and have a sense of duty and accomplishment. Economics. I have a nice home, a few "toys" and nice vehicles. I have better than some, worse than others, but I don't really care what they have. My home meets MY needs. I will comfortably be able to put my kids through college, and help them out as they grow and mature. And I am fortunate enough to have been able to put some funds away for retirement, and I have a comfortable retirement plan in effect. Will I be jetsetting the world in retirement? No. But I will be able to do modest travelling, and basically enjoy doing the things that make me happy. Education. I am proud of my educational accomplishments. Learning is a growing experience, and I think life long learning is important for mental health. So I understand why Catchme used the illustration of his child to show her "success." Because economics are an important part of ones life.

Tell me about them please. I would like to hear as I am in insurance and rarely have I heard anyone getting charged. MPIC (Manitoba Public Insurance Corporation) involves the Police and has fraud charges filed all the time. If someone files a fraudulent claim, then they are stealing. No different from any other type of fraud/theft.

How else should it be? Why is any of your concerns a problem? Like I said, it is completely voluntary. If the victim and the criminal can NOT agree on a settlement for compensating the violation of "victim's rights" the criminal gets thrown in to do all of the time. And to add to this CA, it also puts the victim in a bit of "power" position and allows them some measure of control over the whole issue-something which they currently don't (but should) have. I like your suggestion.

Well the topic is stay at home moms and welfare. Just my two cents. My wife and I work opposing shifts (i work so many on so many off and she works on my off days). She works part time. We dont use daycare, never have, and never will. Now I know lots that use daycare and have healthy adjusted children and raise their kids just fine. For us, its just not what we wanted. And we receive the conservatives monthly child benefit of 100 bucks per kid. This benefit has helped us a lot. It does in fact provide for my wife to work a little less and spend more time at home with our kids. Which was the intended reason for the benefit. So for that I give kudos to the conservatives. Because the liberals plan would have done NOTHING for our family. Though for some people i am sure that the liberal plan would have been a better deal. Everybody has a different situation. And as I am in a higher tax bracket, I feel it gives us a little bit back from the amazing amount of tax I have to pay each year, so I feel no guilt in accepting this cheque. So basically they took it out of my left pocket and put a little bit back into my right pocket.

I have two thoughts on this subject. One, they should have to work. Preferably they should learn a trade, a skill, or whatever, so that once they are let back into society, they arent just dumped without any skills and end up reverting back to crime and going right back to prison. Work provides them with what might be the first stable schedule some have ever had. Make them get up at a certain time, make them provide work, pay them a wage, and deduct the cost for their room and board from the wage. This makes them pay for their own upkeep, teaches them a skill, and helps towards future rehabilitation. If they are rich? Same rule applies. No free rides. Everyone treated the same. If they have the means to pay for their upkeep, well, those monies should be going towards the victims of their crimes on the outside-not to provide for luxuries in prison. But really the vast majority of prisoners are without visible wealth or means. My second though is on extended education. I don't see anything wrong with prisoners getting an eduction in prison. In fact, it is probably a good thing so that they (once again) have a skill to use upon release. The problem is who pays for it. Well if they have to work in prison and are paid a wage, then they should be able to set some of the money left over (after they pay their keep) to provide for education costs. But they should not be subsidized or get any better shake than the kid busting his hump at a fast food joint in the evenings to pay for eduction. Just my opinion.

One case, one example. I have seen many, many cases where charges have been pressed. And it is not technically the insurance company that presses the charges, rather it is the law enforcement officer that does.

You make some great points. And those kind of examples that you have provided do indeed highlight the problems with the WCB as it currently is. I just don't personally think the baby should be thrown out with the bathwater. It seems no matter what insurance, benefit, or whatever, people will abuse where they can. And unreasonable rules and decisions will be made. The example you state about a drunken worker playing pool-completely unreasonable, and I can understand why you would be frustrated with the system after having to deal with that kind of thing. As well, I am personally in favor of not only firing an employee that is proven to have faked an injury, but think that they should be fined and/or criminally prosecuted. Basically its stealing from the employer (as they pay the premiums) and if it was a private insurance company (like say making a fake automobile or home insurance claim), they could/would be charged with fraud. And maybe if it was easier to charge these people, perhaps there would be less scamming, which would ease the financial burden on the employer.

Probably a very accurate view. It makes sense that Ontario would have a large majority of incentives.

Actually I am very familiar with the michelin issue. In fact, if it wasnt for the michelin bills, they would have packed up and left long ago. As for help for the maritimes, i see know problem with helping companies relocated there. If some can do it on their own, then fine, but those businesses that need the help for a move, and will provide employment once ther e are really not a problem.

If Canada joined the US then a central tax agency would make more economic sense. However, Canada is not part of the US but Quebec is part of Canada. Therefore it makes zero sense for Quebec to have its own agencies to do the same thing that the federal one does. Exactly. Sometimes I think certain elements in Quebec strive to be different just to be different. Who cares what language the tax is collected in?

Name calling is for high school kids. Our well paid politicians should have more dignity while conducting themselves. But people are people....

Its all rather comical really. Liberals bring in a terror bill. Conservatives try to extend it. Liberals oppose. Conservatives bring in GST. Liberals say they will get rid of it. Conservatives cut it. Liberals oppose. If it wasn't so funny watching the antics I would have to cry. The only thing more funny would be Jack Layton's mustache on Stockwell Day while he skidoo'd up to that news conference a few years ago.....

@Wilber: Employers could be provided with incentives to move from areas of low unemployment and higher wages, to areas of high unemployment and lower wages. For instance. If there are way too many employers competing for employees in one province, and there are a lack of people to fill the jobs, why not provide the employer with a financial incentive to pick up and move to a region where there are people needing the work? It is basically win-win. Because the employer gets the workers, the workers get the employer. The government needs simply to provide the incentive. And that incentive need not be out of pocket. It could even be a big cut in taxes in one region, or rent free land, or whatever-something that it is not using or getting a financial advantage for right now anyways. And in the end, if the employer is paying SOME tax (as compared to none in that region), and the workers are paying SOME tax (as compared to paying none in that region) then it's a win for government as well. Just because a province like Alberta is overflowing with cash for the last decade or so, and may do so for another decade or so doesn't mean it will always be that way. Times change. Manitoba had its wheat barons at one time. And it may become a water exporter in 50 years and be the "rich" province. Who knows? The maritimes are still part of Canada and deserve to have a hand up because they need it. I think that the government, for helping companies like Michelin, should be applauded. They keep their work there and supply good jobs. And though the unions may hate the "michelin" bill, the government in that instance stepped in (dare I say butt in?) and created a law (that some see as unfair and unbalanced), that helped encourage growth of a company/industry. If not for that government intervention, I would be sure that michelin would have packed up and left-to a huge detriment to the community. So sometimes government intervention is a good thing. And I support unions.

I actually like the current situation. It keeps the conservatives from acting with complete impunity, the liberals have been brought down a peg and aren't able to play "god" like the last ten years, and the NDP and BLOC still have enough votes and sway to push their agendas to a small degree. I don't think that 50% is required to be a legitimate government under our current system. But I think it should be.

Why shouldn't the government get involved? Perhaps the government could provide incentives so that employers would move into the region and provide employment-and thus create more opportunities, wealth, etc. Manufacturing can be done anywhere, telecommunications can be anywhere, etc. If there were powerful incentives for employers to move to the region and create jobs perhaps that region would/could grow? I'm not a huge proponent of government incentives, but I think when a region is dying economically the government really should step in and help out. I don't know the specific cure for what ails the east coast, but I think that anything that helps a)employers create employment and profits, and b)employees find good employment that stimulates their purchasing power within the economy, is a good thing.

Unfortunately, the current SCC tends to make up law as it goes on when it comes to aboriginals so the feds can't really afford to let it go to court.Incidently, this a good example of how the legal system discriminates in favour of aboriginals. A group of white people would be entitled to nothing even if they could prove that their ancestors were defrauded by the government 150 years ago because of a principal called the doctrine of latches. This is a 'use or lose it' principal in law which requires someone who is wronged to enforce their rights within a reasonable period of time. Good point. This whole land claim issue is sickening. The issue needs to be settled once for and all, country wide and then move on. How much more can society keep giving? And who should we all keep giving it to? Settle the "debt", pass legislation to keep it that way, and stop with the handouts, special treatment, etc. If we are all to be members that are equal in society, then treat us all as equals. If there is a debt-pay it. And move on. That means EVERYONE pays taxes, no more handouts, etc. I would rather see a lump sum payment to go towards aboriginal land claims that comes out of all of our pockets and finalize things, rather than bleed us all dry for another hundred years or so and still leave things unresolved.

LOL! Renegade, feel free to take your pail and shovel and leave the sandbox. Though I don't agree with your assertions I can understand how you may feel the way that you do. Sorry Saturn. I took the lazy way out again. With the compiling arguments its getting a bit cumbersome to keep quoting others responses and then responding.

I agree with the last poster. I mean they raid the fund to balance the budget elsewhere, and then impose rate hikes which negatively affect both employers and employees. This is just not fair. If the purpose of the fund is to provide transitional income, then they should make the fund solvent, get their hands off of it, and surpluses should be used to ease the burden on the people that are paying into it-the workers and the employers.

In my opinion, the obligation is on the employer. If they want to make money, then they have to willing to follow some rules. Like no dumping antifreeze into our water system, paying people a minimum wage, paying taxes, etc. It is all part of the economic game. As an employer is part of society, I think that this is their societal part to play. It always astounds me why people think that simply because some provides a job for someone else, they should be able to do whatever they want. People both on welfare and off welfare do it all the time. They just do it illegally. It's called working under the table. For example a mother may not be able to take a minimium wage job outside her home because she has her own kids to look after. Should she be able to offer her own services as a babysitter for $5/hour looking after other kids? People do this all the time. What I'm pointing out to you is that for this mother the job benifit is more than $5/hour. It is also the beneift of being able to stay home with her own child. Breaking the law is wrong. Working under the table is stealing. By both the employer and employee. No different than stealing anything else. So the argument is moot. Yes I agree with you. The government regulates much of our lives. But that is just a statement of fact, not a justification of why it should be so. It would be seem your justification is "the government regulates so much already, so they should regulate this too". A pretty weak argument IMO. All I can say here is that I agree with government regulation. You may not, but I do. So if that is a weak argument from your point of view that is a fair statement on your behalf. With this one statement you have shown all the contraditions in your own argument. You have previously stated that employers will pay as little as possible. Now you concede that even in areas where employers previously paid the minimium, they sometimes in fact do pay higher. Why do you think that is given your previous statement that they are not "exploiting" the fact that they can legally pay a lower wage. Since you concede that it is becoming a "non-issue", then doesn't that mean minimium wage legislation is also a "non-issue". So if it is a "non-issue", why do you care about removing such a minimium? Your argument at this point is full of holes. Because the minimum is still the floor. Without a floor, in tough times, employers WILL exploit workers-and have. We just happen to be in a period where this discussion is coming up, because of relatively low unemployment, lots of work out there, and employers are at a "disadvantage" at the moment and having to pay higher than the minimums to retain employees. But the minimum is exactly that-the minimum. And are there for when times are toughest. I don't know how much economic theory you have taken, but if you have, you are ignoring a lot of it. The consumer is not one person. There is not a single magic price that a consumer would pay. Consumer demand follows a curve. Some people will be willing to pay an artificially high price. The price is artificial because the government by intefering with the price of labour will also affect the price at which the supplier is willing to offer the goods for. Artificially high prices are bad for the supplier of the resource (labour), the employer, and ultimately the consumer. I don't really have the patience to explain to you why, but basic economics should tell you that this is true. I don't agree with this. Prices for pretty much every product seem to be pretty much the same across the board. Gas, televisions, bedroom sets, clothes, etc. If you go into any store, and walk across the street, the prices are very similar. There are "deals" here and there, but all things created equal, goods tend to be worth roughly the same. And when prices are artificially high, whos fault is it really? I mean look at gas. We hear about a fire at a refinery, and prices jump 10/litre the next day. Gas prices drop in the middle east, and it takes 3 months to hit the pumps-and then jumps right back up. Somebody is setting some kind of price hike, and it has nothing to do with minimum wages. The risk for the employee is not the same as for the employer. For the employee who is being paid every two weeks, his only risk is the maximium two weeks of labour he has expended and not yet been paid. The employee is never guaranteed a long term income stream. Neither is the employer, however also the employer also has invested capital (usually substantial) which is at risk. Business failure is common so the loss of invested capital is a real and substantial risk. I have said from the start that the employee faces some risk, but it is far outweighed by the risk of the employer. Tell this to the workers at Hersheys that are losing their jobs. Where do they go to make the same wage in their town? What happens to their pensions after 25 years of contributions? I think that the impact to employees is much more profound than you think. And time and time again, we see that creditors, employers and others get paid first-employees get paid last. So how often does the employer walk away from the business and the employee end up losing their last paycheck? Lots. Clearly you lack business experience and you are speaking from ignorance. Have you ever started your own business, worked in a start-up, acted as a financial officer or operating officer? I'm concluding that your view of the business world is based upon your lack of experience in it. LOL! Attacking the person to discredit the theory is a great political tactic. Yes, I have owned my own business. It was moderately successful but was not what I wanted so I closed it. I have also had the opportunity to be a financial officer for a small organization. The books were always balanced and the bills were always paid. As well, while I have only taken limited economic training, my major in university was human resource management. Hmm another weak argument. "The majority must support it so that must make it right.." Exactly. Majority rules. I don't agree with all of the laws, regulations, etc. in this country, but the majority (through the ballot box and our elected representatives) makes the rules. The people have spoken and the people are never wrong. Who should decide the fate of this great great country we call Canada? The minority? Perhaps you misunderstand the examples. Of course in society as-is trades people, models, aren't working for less than minimium wage because they aren't allowed to. When I speak of learning a trade, I mean learning a trade skill. Let me expand further. I have a full time office job, however I would like to acquire some skills in home renovation such as plumbing, so as to be more handy at home. I would like to apprentice myself to a professional plumber on weekends. To make it inducing to the plumber I would offer to work for free or $2/hour to get the experience. BTW, this is not a made up example. I would really do this but am prevented from doing so for a lot of different reasons including minimium wage rules. As for the existing wealthy, they already do so. It is called volunteering. Heard of it? I find it hard to believe that you have trouble finding a plumber that would be able to pay you minimum wage to work. One of my brothers owns his own business. He employs approximately 25 people. He starts his employees off at around 12 per hour and over a course of about two years as they progress, get better at what they do and become reliable, he moves them up slowly to about 20 per hour. He has an incredibly hard time finding people to work for these wages. So if you cant find someone to pay you 6 bucks an hour (or whatever the minimum is where you are) I don't know what the problem is. Because from what I understand, skilled plumbers are making like 30 per hour and companies still cant get enough of them. So to "apprentice" someone for 6-8 per hour, seems like a bargain to me. As for volunteering, yes it happens. But does it happen in for profit environments? I know where I work we have volunteers, but we are not a for-profit entity. How do you know? Why people want to take the job is irrelevant. For as many examples which you give, which you deem "unacceptable", I can give examples which are "acceptable" and reasonable. You have not shown why you or the government on your behalf should be the custodian of what is an "acceptable" or "unacceptable" motivation. The government should be custodian because every ship has to have a captain. With 30 million plus people in the country, someone has to be in charge and set the rules. So we vote, and send our elected representatives to the capital to make these decisions. What they deem acceptable or unacceptable should be done on our behalf. If we dont like the outcome, we go back to the ballot box. The market. Again your response displays a startling lack of basic economic theory. The employer cannot unilateraly set the price of labour. If they could we'ed all be working for $1/hour or less. The greed works both ways. The employer "greeds" dictates that he get the lowest price for the labour, the emplolyee's "greed" dictates that he get the highest possible price for his labour. Exactly. And that is why minimum wages are so important. This is (in part) WHY the employer cannot unilateraly set the price of labour. And that is why minimum wage legislation is so important. Because just like a dog with no boundaries, an employer (and for that matter an employee) will run wild in the absence of restrictions.

I think that you summed up the argument perfectly here. I couldn't add anything to make the point more clear.

I agree with the last poster. I have to laugh at the stupid things said by members of all parties, and then watch the damage control later.

Insurance companies rarely if ever have the cash to pay out all their claimants. EI is similar, it is based on risk and they carry a certain about of liquidity to meet the risk of various economic situations. I don't think a surplus there is really a great idea, insurance companies pay out dividends to their shareholders all the time, the government should declare itself one too. As long as the policy is audited independantly and determined to be solvent within a reasonable risk range, the profits should go to the crown... or we should see our rates cut (much more my style of thinking). I think that with the massive amounts of surplus that has been built up, there is no reason why the EI system can't be made into a solvent account. I don't think the profits should go to the crown, but I do think that the rates should be cut equally for the employer and employee. It helps everyone out.

And this is the reason that these same workers talk to me AND to their WCB Case Manager (who is supposed to be neutral). Lots of them probably suspect her. Like anything else, the smaller percentage of scammers get all the press. While not all cases are clear, there are many that are extremely transparent. One thing that most scammers have in common is that they can't keep their mouth shut about how smart they are. What they forget is that the guys they work with that they brag to ALSO don't know how to keep their mouths shut. Word gets around really quick, even to me. And, no, I am not a physician. I have, however, dealt with a great number of cases of workplace injury over the years. Rarely do I see a case that I haven't already gone through in the past, and I am quite able to spot ones that don't seem to be consistent. What has to be kept in mind is that the Alberta WCB no longer has a straight-forward method for employers to dispute the validity of a claim. As for a full evaluation, the worker's doctor is the primary contact for short-term injuries. The opinion of a company-paid physician carries no weight with a compensation board and that is why this type of treatment/evaluation is almost non-existent in Canada. If there is a question regarding validity or severity of a lost-time injury, the Adjudicator/Case Manager from WCB can arrange a Medical Status Exam (MSE) or an Independant Medical Exam (IME). The joke is that while the doctor conducting the IME cannot have any other involvement in the worker's treatment, the majority of these physicians work almost exclusively for the WCB. What exactly is "independant" about that? The WCB's mandate is to get injured workers back to their "pre-accident level" employment as fast as possible, and if you COULD check, I'm sure you would find that a lot of the return-to-work cases have probably caused more damage to injured workers than the original injury. It's all about the money. In the case of my wife, the "independant" physician actually has his office in the Millard Center (this is the rehab center in Edmonton, which also has WCB Case Managers and physicians working in it). Both we and her employer would have been better off financially had we sued them. The WCB increases the employer's rate by percentage (which will probably cost them in the six digit area) and my wife received the maximum payout per week (which because of the maximum insurable earnings set by the board, amounts to less than 60% of what she makes while working). Lose - lose situation. Unless you're the WCB, in which case you win in a huge way. Well I would say that the problem is not WCB as a concept or legislation, but rather the way its administered? Perhaps an arms length group of unbiased physicians making the decision as to which injuries were compensable or not would help alleviate some of the problems? I mean we all know that there are scammers out there. But there are also legitimate people unable to get their WCB claims handled properly either. And as for the scammers-well thats stealing. From WCB, which is obviously funded by employers, so they are stealing from their work. And the burden of proof should be on the employers, and if that burden is proven, then that employee should be let go. Nobody likes a thief. A few firings here and there might make a few more a bit more honest.