Canadian Parliamentary Crisis III

[Seeker]

On the positive side this means no government 'solutions' to macroeconomic problems for a while...

I think the GG should just lock them out when they come back, until they promise to play nice and not hit their sisters.

[Asher]

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/552046

Harper will fill all 18 Senate vacancies before the end of the year.

[KrazyHorse]

Oh well. There goes any chance of getting rid of it by attrition.

[Asher]

I'm just thrilled we're not going to have a Senator May...

[Asher]

And the Liberals are shown to be criminals. Again.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081211.weisurplus1211/BNStory/National/home

Ottawa broke law in financing EI

OTTAWA — The Supreme Court of Canada says the federal government broke the law in financing the employment insurance system by transforming premiums paid by workers and employers into an unconstitutional tax.

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

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.

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 Confederation des Syndicats Nationaux, one of Quebec's leading labour organizations, had demanded that $54-billion in allegedly diverted premiums be returned to the EI system and used to fund future benefits to jobless workers.

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.

The confederation also contended that federal jurisdiction is strictly limited to providing such benefits, and that any training, placement or other social services should be left to the provinces. The court rejected that claim, as well.

The dispute has its roots in the deficit-fighting efforts of Mr. Martin as finance minister under Mr. Chrétien. Critics have long maintained the strategy amounted to balancing the federal books on the backs of the unemployed.

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.

Critics say the government then went on to set the premiums charged to workers and employers at higher rates than were necessary to fund the reduced benefits and new programs.

The result was a ballooning surplus in the EI fund — a revenue windfall critics said could be used first to balance the budget and later to support other Liberal initiatives that had no connection to EI.

Opposition MPs, labour unions, business groups and Auditor General Sheila Fraser all complained repeatedly about the new regime but to no avail.

The current Conservative government promised earlier this year to set up an independent Crown corporation to run EI on a break-even basis. But the Tories didn't offer to restore the $54-billion diverted in the past.

The confederation, backed by an aluminum workers union in the northern Quebec town of Arvida, launched a legal challenge to the system in 2003.

Their claims were rejected by both Quebec Superior Court and the Quebec Court of Appeal, but for different legal reasons in each case.

The Canadian Labour Congress intervened at the Supreme Court to back the demand for repayment of the $54 billion in diverted premiums.

The CLC balked, however, at the idea of leaving training and other programs solely to the provinces. It urged the high court to maintain the federal ability to run such programs across the country.

Federal lawyer James Mabbutt argued in May that the rules advocated by the unions would put future governments in a “constitutional straitjacket” in managing the system.

Much of the dispute hinged on the interpretation of a 1940 constitutional amendment that first gave Ottawa the power to set up a national employment insurance system.

The case also raised a host of related questions about federal taxation and spending powers and whether Ottawa had been poaching on provincial turf.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher
Harper will fill all 18 Senate vacancies before the end of the year.

As a side-note to that...

John Tory, the Ontario Conservative leader still doesn't have a seat and seems unlikely to find one without some help.

Ontario PC leader John Tory has made a commitment that he will announce which Ontario seat he will run in by the end of 2008, which of course leaves him 21 days to go - tick-tock.

To date, every single PC caucus member has rejected Tory's request to step aside and open up a seat for him.

Just when it looked as if all hope was lost, news comes down that Stephen Harper will be breaking his word (again) and filling all of the senate vacancies.

Essentially Harper has Tory's future as leader in his hands; if he wants to save him then watch for Bob Runciman or one of the other Ontario PC MPPs to get an appointment.

On the other hand, Harper being the sweet-heart that he is, I wouldn't be surprised if he likes having Premier McGuinty in office just fine and does not lift a finger to help Mr. Tory out, leading to a PC leadership race in 2009.

In either case, Mr. Tory's political career is now firmly in Harper's hands - which means no matter what Harper decides, his political career is over no later than October 2011.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081211.WBSilverPowers20081211103916/WBStory/WBSilverPowers

Will Harper use one of the appointments to help John Tory?

[Fake Boris]

Their claims were rejected by both Quebec Superior Court and the Quebec Court of Appeal, but for different legal reasons in each case.

I find it strange that Quebec's courts could rule on this. I would have thought that the normal course for this case would have been Federal Court -> Supreme Court.

[Victor Galis]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris

Their claims were rejected by both Quebec Superior Court and the Quebec Court of Appeal, but for different legal reasons in each case.

I find it strange that Quebec's courts could rule on this. I would have thought that the normal course for this case would have been Federal Court -> Supreme Court.

Because Quebec secretly controls everything.

[snoopy369]

So, the Tories might lose Tory? What would they be called then? Anti-Whig ... which is to say, Whigless. Which is a short step from Wiglaf.

Interesting, isn't it.

[Supr49er]

Originally posted by snoopy369
So, the Tories might lose Tory? What would they be called then? Anti-Whig ... which is to say, Whigless. Which is a short step from Wiglaf.

Interesting, isn't it.

Wiglaf Party or Whigless Party

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Victor Galis


Because Quebec secretly controls everything.

My roommate -who is a lawyer- just told me that provincial courts are funded and administered by the provinces, but that the judges are appointed by the federal government, and that they have jurisdiction over federal matters.

The Federal Court only has competency over matters specifically determined by law.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by snoopy369
So, the Tories might lose Tory? What would they be called then? Anti-Whig ... which is to say, Whigless. Which is a short step from Wiglaf.

Interesting, isn't it.

Tory does have the perfect name for the party he leads. Sadly for him, that is all he has.

He is so unpopular within his own party that none of his party members will give up their seat for him.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


My roommate -who is a lawyer- just told me that provincial courts are funded and administered by the provinces, but that the judges are appointed by the federal government, and that they have jurisdiction over federal matters.

The Federal Court only has competency over matters specifically determined by law.

This is all quite true. My only question is why this was not handled by the Tax Court of Canada instead of the provincial courts.

[Asher]

Does anyone think this EI Scam **** will hurt the Liberal in the next election?

There seems to be an undeniable pattern of the Liberals illegally ****ing around with Canadians' money over the past decade. Who is to say it will stop? It's a party who thinks they have a God-given right to lead this country, and they constantly abuse their power as a result.

[Fake Boris]

Give us a break.

Basically, what they did is that they cut unemployment benefits in order to manage the deficit and pay off the debt.

It would be simply awesome if Harper started venting against that.