Molly

To and from ridings is about $26 million, Alta. There's another $100,000,000 to account for. That's still $325,000 apiece for every lowly opposition backbencher, and noname who lives in the shadow of the parliament buildings to explain. Considering that many of them couldn't possibly use that much money, that means quite a few are spending a lot more than that.

Whoa. Everyone seems to be talking generous amounts of money to be paid through a variety pack of alternative methods..... but did anyone actually do the math on this? $127,000,000 divided by 308 MPs is over $400,000 apiece!!!!!!!!!!! in 'exenses'... $1100+/day in expenses, for every last one of them, every single day, even the lazy Sundays spent laying around in their underwear... that doesn't appear to include the $157,000 salary and/or 25,500 expense allowance they all get (or the bonuses if they get titled the assistant to the assistant deputy minister without protfolio in charge of tiddlywinks). Go get 'em, Shiela!

This is a new thread to me, too.... but what strikes me about the commentary is the apparent belief that being a TA is some sort of professional career. It pays about the same as being a sandwich artist, and requires about the same level of professional credentials. It was an asinine, utterly outrageous thing to do-- a disgrace. So... who was directing and supervising her work?

The process stinks more than the leachate.

http://www.lfpress.ca/newsstand/News/Local...01/6329436.html That's just last year. Searching back to 1980 or so would provide a string of similar initiatives. BTW, that's quite a bit more money than the $75 million presently offered to hog farmers. $211 million more, to be exact.

Law rarely leaves enough wiggle-room... people write it in by pretending that nothing has happened. People know, even if law can't offer its blessing, that there really is such a thing as a fate worse than death.

A shudder ran up my spine at the thought of federal administration. The first thought to mind was the insistence of provincial health authourities that everyone should be following the same rules and procedures--so rural ambulance services had to follow the same highly restricted protocols as those that would be appropriate in the cities... The problem was that the hospitals, with their more active care, were hours instead of minutes away.... The bigger the administrative unit, the less responsive it is to local needs.

LOL This is a fascinating (and hilarious) peek into differing cultural perspectives! Whowhere describes anyone self-employed as a loser-- and my own homeys would save their disdain for folks who offer their time and effort (and their soul) to someone smarter than they are to organize profitably. A lunchbucket and regular paycheck is a very low aspiration... a choice to be a lifetime dependent! What one admires, the other pities.

Buddy.... that post leaves me a little lost for words. There just aren't enough of them to fill the chasm. Let's just say: the one with the oddball understanding of the meaning of self-employment (and 'business') is you. Without intention of being unkind ..... that's is a deeply lunchbucket perspective, so incorrect in nuance as to be incorrect in the whole. Businesses rarely leap from nothingness to wholeness in a single bound. Many (on all levels of 'becoming established') are formed or continue to exist solely to service a single client. The only serious difference between the kid who mows lawns and the sole owner of Largecorp is scale. There is no separation at all between being in business and self-employment. The most signifigant parameter of difference between emplyment and self-employment is the description of what the buyer (employer/client) is purchasing, and the level of freedom the employee/contractor has in providing that good or service. Are they renting you, personally, or are they giving you money to see that something specific is, by hook or crook, provided? Rent-boys are employees; providers of goods and services may or may not be. The line between is wide and grey, not narrow and black.

Implying that I have committed fraud; telling me I'm whining because I finally corrected Dancers misinformation after he's repeated umpteen times; saying that you don't mean me, just 'the likes of ' me; and then going back to the implications of fraud again, only this time, likely out of ignorance? I'm going to try to take that with some semblance of good will, Whowhere, but I hope you realize how difficult that is becoming! The subject at hand is not the details of my finances, or of the status of the self-employed in general. It is fairness to part-time workers. I believe they have plenty of good reason to complain. ( 'whine', if you prefer that term.) They pay a far greater portion of their working income to EI than others do, with little realistic expectation of recieving the insurance benefits they are paying for when they need them. It's a big hole in the system as I see it- a serious unfairness. As to the self-employed, yes, generally they know exactly what they are getting into-- and as you describe your own circumstance and investigations, I have to believe that you were looking for a way to circumvent your obligations... but that still is no good reason to assume everyone else is. There are a great many people just beginning new enterprises, striking out on their own with half or less of the information they need, launching nickle and dime businesses as a direct result of current economic pressure. Many will screw up the paperwork- that's a given- but there is no dishonourable intent in failing to have a steep enough learning curve.

"Number of hours of work required to qualify Most people will need between 420 and 700 insurable hours of work in their qualifying period to qualify, depending on the unemployment rate in their region at the time of filing their claim for benefits. To find out this number... In some instances, a minimum of 910 hours in the qualifying period may be needed to qualify. For examples : if you are in the work force for the first time; if you are re-entering the work force after an absence of two years. *However, if you have received at least one week of maternity or parental benefits in the 208 weeks preceding the 52-week period prior to the qualifying period, you will require between 420 and 700 hours to qualify for regular benefits. violations from previous EI claims may also increase the number of hours required to qualify for EI benefits. Particular situations: Effective December 11, 2005, if you are living in one of the 23 participating economic regions, you could qualify for regular benefits with a minimum of 840 hours instead of 910 hours. To know more... When you show that you have at least 490 hours related to employment in the labour force during the labour force attachment period you will need between 420 and 700 insurable hours to qualify for regular benefits. Otherwise, you will need a minimum of 910 hours to qualify regular benefits. See examples 1 and 2..." From HRDC , Dancer. That's your cite. By switching over to payroll, rather than continuing to provide a service under contract, I 're-entered the workforce' after an absence of nearly 30 years, during which time I was self-employed. The self-employed are not eligible for EI on income so earned. I daresay my circumstance is fairly typical of those who might hold a part-time job: unwilling or incapable of working full-time; having a very short or highly interrupted work history, whether interrupted by school, self-employment, child-rearing, poor health... Part-timers are the young, the old, the infirm, and folks who have very important obligations outweighing the immediate servicing of long-term careers. As such, they are the likliest, in the entire labor force, to run afoul of that 910 hour prequalifier. While it is possible to qualify for EI as a part-time employee, it is far, far less likely that one will manage it, even while the job one has lost may have been held much longer than that of full-timers who easily qualify, be much more difficult to replace than a full-time job would be, and be every bit as important to ones solvency. Part-time employees represent smaller numbers than full-time- fewer bodies, less money, tiny claims- but dollar for dollar, pay a great deal more for EI than do full-time workers, while recieving much less in return. Part-timers are subsidizing full-time employees. They deserve something better than your belittlement, and dismissal of the problematic nature of that situation. ........... And thanks a whole bunch for the implications, Whowhere, but self-employment hours are not eligible for ei, and business relationships other than empoyee/employer do not automatically equate to fraud. (Does your presumption say something about your own inclinations?) Revenue Canada and I are on good terms.

No, you do NOT! 780 hours is 130 hours short of the 910 hour threshold -- which is the pre-qualification. How do I know this for a certainty? Because I fell into that 130 hour window. I worked a casual schedule for the same company for 6 years. At the beginning of the 6th year, switched from contract basis to payroll. My hours on payroll exceeded 780, but were too few to qualify me for EI! That 910 hour prequalification was the reason why I was refused, and frankly, Rosebud, a careful reading of the 'usually' reference of the HRDC site would have saved me the PITA paperwork, and you the embarrassment of having been rudely, and repeatedly wrong.

Well... this is the third time, I'm telling you to go back and read the rest of the page at the HRDC website, to find out what 'usually' means.... Qualifying isn't anything close to as easy as you say, and the folks who make up the part-time pool are those most likely to be in a position that 'usually' disqualifies them.

Actually, Bill, it IS entirely true. You are free to buy all of the insurance you want, and you can access the American, or the European or the Mexican systems at will. It's all right there, and demands only money... claims that it is illegal for us to access that opportunity are false. You want to buy insurance equal to that of Bill Gates, go ahead and buy it. If you want to drive to Buffalo for your healthcare, the only things stopping you are your wallet and your own good sense..but if you can't afford the gas, then you likely can't afford the insurance, or the care, either. What you can't do in Canada is a buy place in the line here ahead of someone who needs the service more... and frankly, I figure it's a good thing that need, rather than wealth, is the most important healthcare criterion. No one has ever actively prevented you from seeking out alternative care, or additional insurance to cover the deficiencies in the (extremely high) minimum that is treated as your right as a citizen. ............................................ How is it that so many just don't get that socialized single payer healthcare is just one form of healthcare insurance that covers the vast majority of our important needs-- not a limitless artesian fountain of love. The complaints I hear are primarily based in bizarre expectations, rather than in a realistic grasp of what is doable/ a bizarre understanding of their own rights, responsibilities, freedoms and options.

Sheesh! If it was all a Liberal conspiracy, who the heck did they get to act the role of Harper in the video?

They are sure enjoying the free pass to run a deficit! When all those prokbarrel chickens come home to roost, I can just hear: "The (Liberal) Devils made us do it!" Another 'dirty trick', no doubt.

Goggle all you want, guys, but I get to compare the Saskatchewan attitude to insurance vs. the Ontario attitude. Here, insurance is a total scam, because for anything less than a complete wreck, you'd have to be nuts to make a claim. Nobody wants their insurance company to find out if they've been in a fender bender. Everybody eats costs well beyond their deductibles.

Hey! Bob Fife might get his appointment after all!

There's absolutely no reason to make it illegal. There are even good reasons to buy it, for some people. (The insurance industry, at the time, did 'go batshit crazy', in more than just those two provinces. They weren't the only ones who got in a pretty tight twist. There was even a doctors strike.)

And excessive party partisanship is one of those things that desperately needs tuning, ASAP. There really does need to be a shift of authourity away from the parties and back to the individual representatives, and I'm all for almost anything that will accomplish that.

You speak as though it is against the law for you to purchase supplementary health insurance. You have all of the same freedoms here as you do there. The real deciding difference is that here you have an extremely high level of minimum coverage that cannot be denied, even if you are out of a job, or have a 'pre-existing condition'.

I repeat, Dancer, read the fine print. 'Usually' is the word they use to suggest the qualifiers. Look a little farther and learn that 780 hours is 130 hours short. 15 hours times 52 weeks qualifies you for 'Better luck next time.' And that's all.

Oogabooga! Now the Liberals (with their horns and those teeth) are responsible for sloppy, tasteless journalism? Get real, people!

Actually, Dancer, that's not so. You should probably read the fine print. In order to qualify based on 15 hrs./week for a year, you firstly have to have worked for more than a year, at more than 15 hours per week.

No. That doesn't differentiate them at all. 'Other types of familial violence' are also often percieved as justified where they occur, and also remain supported by altogether too many within the broader community. That's why it is such an intractable problem to solve.