 EI investigators' controversial Pilot ProjectPolitical | 207075 hits | Mar 01 9:17 pm | Posted by: BeaverFever  "The Conservatives are sending inspectors into peoples' homes, asking women whether they are in fact pregnant; asking to see peoples' bank accounts; quizzing them, pushing them, asking them questions," Opposition Leader Tom Mulcair said Friday, speaking aCommentsview comments in forum You need to be a member of CKA and be logged into the site, to comment on news. |
Share
|
Mobile
All logos and trademarks in this site are property of their respective owner.
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
The comments are property of their posters, all the rest © 2025 by Canadaka.net
Why not just make it so that anyone claiming EI unemployement, maternity/parental, compassionate care or sickness benefits is tagged with a radio collar so we can track their movements? Also, women claiming maternity benefits should be forced to allow EI inspectors to examine their vaginas of for wear-and-tear, that's really the only way you can tell she's not a fraudster.
As much as I'd like to see some EI reform, this is not quite the route I'd like.
As good socialists they probably figure that any well run Government organ would wait till these people were denounced by their family or neighbours before hauling them in.
Bad management.
Same government who thought the anonymous long-form census was intrusive?
Bad management.
© 2013 Authorized by The Federal Liberal Agency of Canada, registered agent for the Liberal Party of Canada.
Same government who thought the anonymous long-form census was intrusive?
Bad management.
Ha Good one
Same government who thought the anonymous long-form census was intrusive?
Bad management.
© 2013 Authorized by The Federal Liberal Agency of Canada, registered agent for the Liberal Party of Canada.
Two peas in a pod.
Same government who thought the anonymous long-form census was intrusive?
Bad management.
© 2013 Authorized by The Federal Liberal Agency of Canada, registered agent for the Liberal Party of Canada.
The child's identity and parentage.
In some cases, "the maternal relationship to the claimant."
Proof of the child's birth, a date that can be compared to the "maternity window."
© 2013 Authorized by the Registered Agent of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Oh yeah, this is going to go over real well with Canadians. More oil subsidies and corporate tax breaks, more action plan advertising for programs that don't exist anymore. But we'll put the screws to expecting mothers to tighten up the EI program which just paid them 57 billion dollars in dividends.
Same government who thought the anonymous long-form census was intrusive?
Bad management.
© 2013 Authorized by The Federal Liberal Agency of Canada, registered agent for the Liberal Party of Canada.
The child's identity and parentage.
In some cases, "the maternal relationship to the claimant."
Proof of the child's birth, a date that can be compared to the "maternity window."
© 2013 Authorized by the Registered Agent of the Conservative Party of Canada.
Oh yeah, this is going to go over real well with Canadians. More oil subsidies and corporate tax breaks, more action plan advertising for programs that don't exist anymore. But we'll put the screws to expecting mothers to tighten up the EI program which just paid them 57 billion dollars in dividends.
Yea, who cares about fraud eh?
Let's just ensure we don't hurt people's feelings.
Funny thing is, if the auditor came forth with a report showing rampant abuse of the EI system with no accountability what would you say?
"Bad Management"
It's a lose-lose situation for Harper and you. He could hand you $10,000 in $20's and you'd complain they weren't in sequential order.
First off, only repeat claiments should be eligible to be checked on. And they should pretty much just restrict themselves to ensuring that anybody claiming benefits is actually actively searching for a job.
I do wonder thoug, how much of what was described is actually happening? And how much is just in the reports as a sort of attempt to cover all bases, just in case? Ie. are we missing the part where it says "in the event that fraud seems likely, these are other avenues of inquiry to attempt to make sure"?
Funny thing is, if the auditor came forth with a report showing rampant abuse of the EI system with no accountability what would you say?
"Bad Management"
Well it is bad management. Examples:
The Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board has just about everything a budding government agency could want.
So far, it has spent over $3.3 million for new offices, computers and furniture, well-paid executives and staff, travel budgets, expense accounts, board meetings, and lots of pricey consultants.
All that's missing is a reason for it to exist at all.
Canadians will see more money taken off their paycheques in 2013, with the federal government increasing Employment Insurance rates for both employees and their bosses.
That means the maximum annual EI premium you’ll pay will increase to $891.12 this year, up from $839.97 in 2012.
As a small consolation, the maximum weekly EI benefit will rise to $501 in 2013 from last year’s $485.
Meanwhile, the maximum annual EI premium for employers will rise to $1,247.57 in 2013 from $1,175.96 in 2012.
What's the expected savings from eliminating EI fraud, and interrogating mostly innocent people? And the justification for raising premiums when EI is continually in surplus?
What's the expected savings from eliminating EI fraud, and interrogating mostly innocent people? And the justification for raising premiums when EI is continually in surplus?
Ah, not a big fan of accountability are you? Not really surprising considering your political stripes.
You seem to want to hold the government accountable for money it spends but for the money we hand out? Guess not.
Perhaps you need to brush up on Canada's EI program and why changes are being made. You often jump into topics just to take a partisan dig and have zero knowledge of the topic at hand.