Given that the government’s EI tax credit actually has the perverse incentive to fire employees or reduce wages instead of hiring new staff as was intended, Justin Trudeau offered up a different solution yesterday, which is to offer employers a two-year holiday on paying the EI premiums of new staff. One wonders why he just doesn’t suggest setting the rate at the break-even rate in the actuarial report, which is a mere 0.02 percent above what the government’s “tax credit” effectively reduces it to, but would be across the board, but hey, he’s putting ideas on the table, right?
Tag Archives: Euthanasia
Roundup: NATO spending commitments
As that NATO summit gets set to get underway in Wales, it looks like the face-saving final communiqué will state that the 2 percent of GDP on defence spending that they hope members will achieve will simply be “aspirational,” since it’s not going to happen with some members like Canada (which would essentially doubling our current defence budget). Stephen Saideman explores why it’s wrong for NATO to focus solely on the spending levels of member countries than it is on capabilities. It also sounds like NATO members are going to discuss making cyberwarfare as much of a threat to member nations as bombs, which is quite true of the modern era. It also sounds like the attention will be split between the threats posed by Russia and ISIS. Michael Den Tandt notes that while Harper keeps sounding tough, there is no escaping that the Canadian Forces are badly under-resourced – possibly as bad as the “Decade of Darkness” – and we can’t have it both ways of doing good work on the cheap. Katie Englehart has more on the broader context of the situation here.
@Murray_Brewster yep 1% of Canadian interoperable, reliable participation >> 2% plus Greece unreliable, sit at home effort
— Steve Saideman (@smsaideman) September 3, 2014
Roundup: The threat of Twitter pabulum
The Language Commissioner’s look into whether or not John Baird’s personal Twitter Machine account constitutes government business and thus possessing a greater emphasis on bilingualism is opening a can of worms, especially because it invites little more than scripted tweets that bureaucrats go through approvals to write rather than the kinds of spontaneous communications that we can now get with ministers that we otherwise can’t. If we clamp down on this medium, we really are dooming ourselves into a political discourse full of nothing but bland pabulum for all time.
Roundup: 18 causes of a disaster
The Transportation Safety Board’s final report into the Lac-Mégantic disaster was released yesterday, and it was pretty damning when it comes to the responsibility that Transport Canada bears for not doing their audits or following up on it with a rail line that was found to be deficient in its compliance several times. (Video recreation of the disaster here). In the end, they came up with 18 different reasons for the disaster, that had one of them been addressed properly, things could have wound up differently. Part of the problem remains the lack of a proper safety culture, which has been criticized by no less than the Auditor General and a Senate committee report, and yet we’re not really seeing movement on it quickly enough. Paul Wells notes the government’s weak response, and asks about just what kind of responsibility they are going to take.
Roundup: Quebec’s “death with dignity” complications
It’s not really a surprise that the federal government is saying that Quebec’s “death with dignity” law is a violation of the Criminal Code, and will likely be challenged in court. That was kind of the point of the way the Quebec law was structured, however – to fit under the rubric of the provincial responsibility of healthcare so as to not trigger the Criminal Code, but it will likely take the Supreme Court to determine if they can justifiably do so. The Supreme Court is already set to hear a case regarding overturning the ban on physician-assisted suicide, so by the time the Quebec law hits the courts, there may already be new jurisprudence that will help to change the calculus around it. And yes, all parties are divided on the issue. Predictably, opponents of the law insist that euthanasia cannot be medical care, and want more palliative care instead. Administrative law professor Paul Daly puts this new law in the context of yesterday’s Supreme Court ruling on a case involving judicial discretion, and how prosecutorial may wind up filling the gap between the Quebec law and any decision to charge anyone who makes use of it.
QP: Strong-arming the Supreme Court
It being a Tuesday, all of the party leaders were in the House today, which is of course a rarity these days. Thomas Mulcair led off by asking which story was true — whether Harper had no idea that appointing a Federal Court justice would be a problem, or whether it was likely to be an issue before the courts. Harper equivocated, didn’t really answer and tried to say that nobody had a problem with Nadon during the process (which isn’t really true if we read between the confidential lines). Mulcair wondered why Harper didn’t get a Supreme Court reference before they appointed Nadon if they knew it would be an issue, but Harper insisted again that the NDP said good things about him. Mulcair asked why they didn’t try to change the appointment rules before appointing him. Harper responded by quoting Françoise Boivin’s praise of Nadon. Mulcair accused Harper of trying to strong-arm the Supreme Court into accepting the appointment, but Harper muttered about independent legal advice. Mulcair said that the appointment process clearly wasn’t working and needed to be changed, but Harper yet again repeated that Boivin praised Nadon, and characterized the SCC decision as “changing the rules,” when they absolutely did not. Justin Trudeau led off for the Liberals, and asked about the wage-suppressing effects of the mismanaged Temporary Foreign Workers programme. Harper batted back that the Liberals kept changing their position, and then changed topic, bringing up the PBO’s report on tax changes and how they benefitted mostly lower-income Canadians. Trudeau changed topics, and asked about the delays in filling that vacancy on the Supreme Court bench, and if it would be filled before the House rises for summer. Harper insisted that the Liberals didn’t object to Nadon’s appointment, but wouldn’t promise when a new name would come forward.
QP: Asking about the SCC appointment process
It was a rare Monday appearance in QP for the prime minister, given that there is a Maternal, Newborn & Child Health summit in Toronto later in the week that he’s hosting, not to mention that the premier of Turks & Caicos was also in attendance in the Speaker’s gallery. Thomas Mulcair kicked things off by asking why the PM changed his version of events around the call with the Chief Justice. Harper, sounding a bit hoarse, insisted that he had no idea what Mulcair was speaking about, but he knew that there was a potential issue that could go before the courts, so her consulted with independent legal experts. Mulcair tried again, and got the same response. Mulcair asked again, this time in French, and Harper reiterated that they always thought Federal Court judges would be eligible. Mulcair brought up the list of six judges published in the Globe and Mail, but Harper reiterated that they were under the impression that those judges were eligible, and with the Supreme Court having decided otherwise, they would respect that decision. Mulcair then demanded that Harper promise that he would not try to appoint a Federal Court judge for a Quebec seat, and Harper repeated that he wouldn’t. John McCallum led off for the Liberals, and brought up abuses to the Temporary Foreign Worker programme, but Harper insisted that he couldn’t decipher just what the Liberal position was on the issue. McCallum cranked up his rhetorical fire for an English supplemental, demanding that the government adopt his party’s five-point plan. Harper repeated that he couldn’t tell what the Liberal position was, but real job shortages should create an upward pressure on wages which is good for all Canadians. Scott Brison was up for the final question of the round, asking about the numbers of Canadians who have given up trying to even find work, but Harper said that Liberal plans would raise taxes and lose more jobs.
Roundup: Victoria Day and the Canadian Crown
Given that yesterday was Victoria Day, here is a look at how it’s a particularly idiosyncratic Canadian holiday, which combines the celebration of the monarch who founded our country along with the official birthday of the reigning monarch, and has a history wrapped up in things like Empire Day, but remains uniquely Canadian all the same.
Roundup: Mulcair goes off on reporters
Today is the big day, as Thomas Mulcair goes before committee to defend his party’s use of “satellite” offices and staff doing supposedly “parliamentary” work in provinces where they don’t have MPs. And it could get really testy, given that Mulcair went off on reporters yesterday and was pretty much mansplaining to CTV’s Laurie Graham during caucus outs yesterday. CBC’s leak/counter-leak story is updated with more counter-leaks from House of Commons finance who did have a problem with people being in Montreal, but were still trying to figure out how to deal with it when everything blew up. But there was no problem and this is just the Board of Internal Economy being partisan! Oh, and in case you were wondering, he still plans on hiring someone to work out in Saskatchewan – just not co-locate them with party staffers. Okay then! The NDP also appear to be gearing up for a legal challenge if the committee decides to delve into the matter further, and have sought a legal opinion by the former Commons law clerk to back them up.
QP: 39 options!
Every leader was finally present in the House today — promised to be the only day that will happen this week. Go grand inquest of the nation! Thomas Mulcair started off by reading an old Stephen Harper quote about using time allocation on an electoral reform bill. Harper, unfazed, noted that the NDP opposed the bill without reading it. Mulcair wanted to know if Harper still stood by those sentiments of old, but Harper refused to take the bait and insisted that the current elections bill was subject to ongoing debate and that they would all eventually arrive at the conclusion that it was a good bill. Mulcair asked if Harper could yet name any expert who supported the bill. Harper insisted that the NDP had nothing on offer in the next election. Mulcair wondered if Harper stood behind some of Pierre Poilievre’s questionable assertion that the Chief Electoral Officer made false statements. Harper insisted that the NDP were not focused on the substance of the bill, even when pressed on the matter. Justin Trudeau got up for the Liberals, and after denouncing the elections bill and the government’s tactics, demanded that Conservatives be given a free vote on the bill. Harper dodged, and said that 99 percent of Canadians produced ID at the last election and needed far more rigorous forms of ID for the less important activities. Trudeau asked again in French, got the same answer, and in English once again, listed the groups concerned about the changes. Harper stuck to that same answer, and brought back his “secret votes, not secret voters” quip.