Harper is getting a temporary foreign worker to run his campaign.

[Canada_First]

damn, Harper looks like an old man in those ads! Talk about holding office aging someone! When Harper says "we balance the budget", that's excluding those 7 years in a row with deficits, right?

Throw a pic or video of yourself up here so we can see how perfect you look.

[waldo]

6

purrfect! 6 straight deficits and one 'smoke & mirrors' one! When Harper says "we balance the budget", that's excluding those 6 years in a row plus the 'smoke & mirrors' one... with deficits, right?

[waldo]

Throw a pic or video of yourself up here so we can see how perfect you look.

why so sensitive chum?

[Derek 2.0]

damn, Harper looks like an old man in those ads! Talk about holding office aging someone! When Harper says "we balance the budget", that's excluding those 7 years in a row with deficits, right?

I think the dog whistle was too high a pitch for you........The theme of the Wizard, Tories are the ones protecting hard working Britons/Canadians, with sound management and low taxes and the other guys are not, stated namely by implication only.....simple and to the point, without appearing negative.....

[waldo]

I prefer this one: still fresh/new... hasn't quite made it to youtube yet... since MLW has chosen to limit direct video to only youtube:

https://benjamindickerson.wistia.com/medias/9jht8ireni

[Derek 2.0]

I prefer this one: still fresh/new... hasn't quite made it to youtube yet... since MLW has chosen to limit direct video to only youtube:

https://benjamindickerson.wistia.com/medias/9jht8ireni

Honestly, its disjointed, too long, lacks meaning to the majority that don't follow politics and its production value appears of something cobbled together by a couple of community collage video arts program drop-outs.......who's add is it? Greens or Commies? (I assume the Liberals and NDP can afford better)

[cybercoma]

I like how one of those Harper ads is titled "a long term economic plan" and points to the surplus they posted by raiding EI and selling off GM shares. That's not a long term plan. That's pawning your stuff for a payday loan.

[Smallc]

I like how one of those Harper ads is titled "a long term economic plan" and points to the surplus they posted by raiding EI and selling off GM shares. That's not a long term plan. That's pawning your stuff for a payday loan.

Before the global financial crisis, EI was put in its own account. That account needed general revenues dropped in because of the crisis. EI owes the treasury money.

[Not Yet]

Harper is his own worst enemy friends. This election is his to lose. See here http://www.opnlttr.com/letter/open-letter-queen-elizabeth-about-canada-prime-minister-steven-harpers-secrets

[cybercoma]

Before the global financial crisis, EI was put in its own account. That account needed general revenues dropped in because of the crisis. EI owes the treasury money.

What are you talking about? That's paid off as of this year. The federal forecasts dip into the EI surplus to balance the books. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/2-7b-employment-insurance-surplus-balanced-joe-oliver-s-books-1.3057261

This disregards the fundamental function of EI. It's supposed to accumulate a surplus during the good years, which goes towards funding itself in the bad years. EI should be protected just like CPP, so these crooks can't go stealing employers and employees insurance funds for themselves. Chrétien and Martin did the same damn thing and it completely undermines how EI is supposed to function. In fact, had Chrétien and Martin not raided the accounts, it may have never gone into deficit.

Edited September 15, 2015 by cybercoma

[Smallc]

I agree with you, and I think it's wrong that they're doing it. I just thought that there was still money to be paid back.

[ToadBrother]

What are you talking about? That's paid off as of this year. The federal forecasts dip into the EI surplus to balance the books. http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/2-7b-employment-insurance-surplus-balanced-joe-oliver-s-books-1.3057261

This disregards the fundamental function of EI. It's supposed to accumulate a surplus during the good years, which goes towards funding itself in the bad years. EI should be protected just like CPP, so these crooks can't go stealing employers and employees insurance funds for themselves. Chrétien and Martin did the same damn thing and it completely undermines how EI is supposed to function. In fact, had Chrétien and Martin not raided the accounts, it may have never gone into deficit.

Raiding EI is hardly new.

[cybercoma]

Raiding EI is hardly new.

And hardly acceptable. It pissed me off when the LPC did it too. EI should be a protected fund that's not allowed to be used for other purposes. They see that surplus building up and it's too tempting to dip into it. But the surplus serves the function of padding it for economic downturns when less people will be paying into it and more people will be drawing from it. It should be handled like CPP.

[ToadBrother]

And hardly acceptable. It pissed me off when the LPC did it too. EI should be a protected fund that's not allowed to be used for other purposes. They see that surplus building up and it's too tempting to dip into it. But the surplus serves the function of padding it for economic downturns when less people will be paying into it and more people will be drawing from it. It should be handled like CPP.

I agree that it should be ring fenced, but really what does that mean? The EI fund is created by Parliament, and should Parliament decide it wants to dip into that fund, then that is Parliament's prerogative.

[cybercoma]

I agree that it should be ring fenced, but really what does that mean? The EI fund is created by Parliament, and should Parliament decide it wants to dip into that fund, then that is Parliament's prerogative.

Frankly, it should be managed by a tripartite commission that has members from the labour community, employer community, and government overseeing its management. I get that it doesn't function that way now, but it shouldn't be up to the whims of parliament. Especially because the temptation to grab at the surplus is far too great.

[ToadBrother]

Frankly, it should be managed by a tripartite commission that has members from the labour community, employer community, and government overseeing its management. I get that it doesn't function that way now, but it shouldn't be up to the whims of parliament. Especially because the temptation to grab at the surplus is far too great.

EI is far too political to ever be devolved that much. EI has long been as much about regional politics as about a national unemployment insurance program.

Complicating this are all the devolved Labour Market Development Agreements, which see very large portions of the EI Fund's labour market development dollars sent to the Provinces and Territories to fund their own regional employment programs. So not only is it a complex political concern at the Federal level, a large chunk of the EI Fund is now handed to the Provinces, making it a complex multilateral government concern.