[andyt]

Quote:

If the Harper government is serious about cutting 'the waste' in Ottawa, here's a good place to start.
According to a CBC News exclusive story, a federal agency ironically created by the fiscally conservative Harper government in 2008, is costing taxpayers millions of dollars and is pretty much achieving nothing.
The Canada Employment Insurance Financing Board (CEIFB), which reports to Parliament through the Minister of Human Resources, was conceived to set EI premium rates, to manage EI surpluses, and to oversee a $2 billion contingency fund.
But as CBC reports, government policy has made the CEIFB redundant.
In all three years the CEIFB has been in existence, the Harper government capped EI rates in 2009 so the Board hasn't had to set EI premiums.
There have never been any EI surpluses so the Board hasn't had to do any work there.
And the government never did set-up the $2 billion cash reserve, as they promised.
The chair of the agency, Toronto lawyer David Brown, admits the organization isn't exactly overwhelmed with work.
"We haven't had to do nearly as much as our original mandate intended us to do," Brown told CBC.
"So we've slowed down on some of our development activities until it is clear that we are going to be able to do some of the things that we will be asked in the future."
CBC notes the Board spends some of its time working on internal processes such as developing HR plans and measures of corporate performance.
So ultimately, the Board does very little but costs taxpayers a lot of money.
How much money?
According to CBC's Greg Weston - $3.3 million in the past two years.
"The agency's executive director, retired senior public servant Phil Charko, is being paid about $150,000 a year to work part time," notes Weston.
"The budget provides another $200,000 to pay an investment manager if the agency ever has any money to invest. Another $300,000 is budgeted for "additional corporate services such as IT management, human resources management, and translation services."
Weston says a spokesperson for Human Resources minister Diane Finlay told him the government has no plans to scrap the agency.
It is, she says, a prudent use of taxpayers money that will someday be fully operational.
In response to the CBC story, the NDP released a statement, Thursday lambasting the government for this "$3.3 million boondoggle."
"According to documents obtained by the Globe and Mail, in October 2011 there were 360,481 people waiting for EI," the release stated.
"Once again the Conservatives make their priorities plain: leave out-of-work Canadians waiting while Ottawa insiders and their well connected friends get all the breaks."

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/canada-p ... 48938.html

[DrCaleb]

Only one agency is useless? I don't think they were looking hard enough.

[andyt]

But, but, Diane Finlay said it's "a prudent use of taxpayers money that will someday be fully operational." The Reformacons are just being prudent here. And the board "spends some of its time working on internal processes such as developing HR plans and measures of corporate performance." So it's not all a waste.

What is it with these govts that try to avoid their responsibilities? The govt should be setting EI rates, not some board of their cronies.

[BartSimpson]

andyt wrote:

But, but, Diane Finlay said it's "a prudent use of taxpayers money that will someday be fully operational." The Reformacons are just being prudent here.

Don't throw stones in a glass house. Need we remind you of the gun registry that was going to end violent crime and only cost maybe two million dollars and then it incurred a modest 50,000% cost overrun?

[Lemmy]

Actually, Bart, that was never the purpose of the gun registry. That's a common misunderstanding. The reason it was created was to prevent people with gun licenses from selling or lending a gun to someone without a licence. It was also never intended to be a tool for police. It was meant to make licenced gun owners accountable for the guns they own. And yes, it was a colossal white elephant.

[bootlegga]

BartSimpson wrote:

Don't throw stones in a glass house. Need we remind you of the gun registry that was going to end violent crime and only cost maybe two million dollars and then it incurred a modest 50,000% cost overrun?

Sorry, but you're wrong - the LGR was never intended to cost only $2 million dollars. It was projected to cost about $119 million per year and that registration fees would generate about $117 million.

It was a boondoggle to be sure, but that $2 million dollar figure is nowhere near accurate when describing the real cost of the program.

[andyt]

It's the old "the Liberals did it too," so it's OK for the Rerformacons to do. I thought they were all about cleaning up the Liberal bullshit?

[Regina]

It's just a moronic opinion blog.........nothing to get the knickers in a knot for.

[andyt]

So you think this agency is a good idea?

[OnTheIce]

bootlegga wrote:

BartSimpson wrote:

Don't throw stones in a glass house. Need we remind you of the gun registry that was going to end violent crime and only cost maybe two million dollars and then it incurred a modest 50,000% cost overrun?

Sorry, but you're wrong - the LGR was never intended to cost only $2 million dollars. It was projected to cost about $119 million per year and that registration fees would generate about $117 million.

It was a boondoggle to be sure, but that $2 million dollar figure is nowhere near accurate when describing the real cost of the program.

He is correct.

The program was to cost Canadians 2 million dollars.

That's what Parliament approved. 119 on the program, 117 in revenue with 2 million left over for taxpayers to cover. The program was touted as being almost "revenue neutral"

By 2004, only 99 million were collected in fees and the program cost over 1 billion leaving taxpayers with a bill for 900+ million.

[Macguyver]

I worked for an agency like that once! It was one of the most boring job experiences of my life. We sat around and the head cheese kept coming up with make work projects...go visit these people, go to this training, develop bullshit frameworks and try to guess what we'll actually be doing once we start doing something.

I got promoted fast though, turns out doing next to nothing is something I'm really good at! But you can only milk it for so long and all we really had to do was get under each other’s skin...

I was dismissed for reporting one of the VP's for feeling up one of the admin girls while we were on a "training course" , but hey, it was a nice severance package...if you can get paid for doing nothing the only thing better is getting paid out several thousands and thousands lol.

Actually I have to admit, doing nothing is actually quite a bit harder than having real work to do. Days and weeks go by slow, all on the taxpayer dime.

[PimpBrewski123]

Bureaucrats are useless.

[Gunnair]

andyt wrote:

So you think this agency is a good idea?

Quote:

It's just a moronic opinion blog.........nothing to get the knickers in a knot for.

Yeah, that's exactly what was said.

So, if I get this straight, unless you demonstrate an acceptable level of toadying cheerleadership to another one of Andy's interminable thread bitch sessions, you must somehow support that bad thing that Andy doesn't like.

Huh...

[andyt]

So if I get this straight, if you read about this in the Rightie Review, why then it's an outrage, outrage I tell you. But since it's from a moronic blog, meh? Or what did he say exactly?
What's the source got to do with whether this is something to get your knickers in a knot for?

[Gunnair]

andyt wrote:

So if I get this straight, if you read about this in the Rightie Review, why then it's an outrage, outrage I tell you. But since it's from a moronic blog, meh? Or what did he say exactly?
What's the source got to do with whether this is something to get your knickers in a knot for?

Blogs are like angry forum missives.