Tag Archives: Pensions

Roundup: Null and void

Posted on by

The results of the last federal election in Etobicoke Centre were declared null and void by an Ontario court yesterday after the judge found there to be enough improper votes cast to overturn the results. The Conservatives have eight days to file an appeal – which would go directly to the Supreme Court in an expedited process – before a by-election needs to be called. While Borys Wrzesnewskyj insists that there was voter suppression in his riding, this was not the basis of the results being overturned, but rather, because Elections Canada officials and the volunteers at the polling stations didn’t follow rules. This does raise the issue of the kind of training that volunteer and scrutineers receive, and what happens when people get lazy, take shortcuts, and don’t follow rules properly. (And yes, the Conservatives have put out talking points that they followed the rules but this is an Elections Canada issue).

While it’s not related to the Etobicoke Centre decision, Elections Canada will soon be receiving a report on the Guelph robo-calls.

What’s that? The Conservatives refuse to release the draft report they prepared in 2007 on pension sustainability? You don’t say! But Finance officials have finally confirmed that the OAS changes are expected to save the treasury about $10.8 billion – even though both ministers refuse to.

Uh oh – it looks like Alberta is going to miss its emissions reduction targets, and that its already dubious carbon-capture-and-storage scheme is falling off the rails. But at least it’s prompting a review of said programmes, right?

Economist Stephen Gordon further problematises the “Dutch disease” rhetoric, and throws in what some of the environmental arguments would mean if they were equally applied to the manufacturing sector. Meanwhile, it turns out that Industry Canada funded their own study into the phenomenon a couple of years ago and found some correlation, but the government of course is distancing itself from it.

There will be another vacancy on the Supreme Court by August. I’m guessing that means September special Parliamentary hearings, unless we’re really lucky and get “emergency” ones in the summer.

The costs of the restoration of buildings in the Parliamentary Precinct continues to rise, but we all know that over time and over budget is part of our proud Canadian heritage.

Here’s a look at the impacts on Canadian archaeology that the cuts to Parks Canada are going to have.

Prince Charles writes about service in a nod to the Diamond Jubilee and his upcoming visit to Canada.

And Scott Brison has a little bit of fun at the expense of the “nude Stephen Harper” painting.

Roundup: Just take the minister’s word

Posted on by

While the issue of missing regulations on EI changes dominates the debate in the Commons right now, it seems that department of Human Resources and Skills Development did conduct a focus group study on what it would take to encourage people from high-unemployment areas to those regions with better opportunities. The minister has tried to distance herself from this study and her comments have consistently been about finding work within one’s region, but without any regulations on offer, we are left to take her word for it.

Seeing as political parties and voter databases exist outside of privacy legislation in this country, you would expect that this might lead to problems. Well indeed it has, with the voters’ list being abused with fraudulent robo-calls, and people being added to databases after contacting their MPs on policy concerns or case files. Who would have guessed?

Continue reading →

QP: Tinfoil hats and telecom trouble

Posted on by

While some MPs may have been a bit bleary-eyed from the previous late night, it certainly didn’t make for a dull Question Period. Or perhaps, that’s why it took such a turn for the worse the longer it continued. Thomas Mulcair was up first, reciting his carefully prepared questions on why the government still hadn’t provided any figures for the planned changes to OAS, to which Harper assured him that there weren’t going to be any actual cuts to benefits. Mulcair then turned to the issue of Chinese telecom company Huawei being granted Canadian contracts after the US and Austraila barred them as security risks. Harper insisted that the US doesn’t dictate our policies. When Randall Garrison rose to keep asking about the same questions, Vic Toews said that the CBC story only told half the tale, and that his officials weren’t in opposition, while Conservative backbenchers chirped about people wearing tinfoil hats. Bob Rae got up to ask about the changes to EI and how worker protections were eroding as their rights would no longer be enshrined in legislation, but rather in regulation. But when he demanded that Harper produce said regulation now, Harper dodged and insisted that the appeals process would remain in place. When Rae turned to the issue that the government wouldn’t produce the data on how much would be saved in the OAS changes, Harper reminded him that the measures wouldn’t be coming into effect until 2023.

Continue reading →

QP: Orwell was not a how-to manual

Posted on by

With the NDP now out to turn public opinion to their side on the omnibus budget bill, one wondered if this was going to lead off QP for the day. And in a sort of tangential sense it did, as Thomas Mulcair asked about Jim Flaherty’s comments that OAS changes could save $10 to $12 billion. Harper insisted there would be no actual pension reductions. Mulcair then turned to Flaherty’s “there are no bad jobs” comments with regards to EI changes – and several times was drowned out by Conservative applause when he repeated Flaherty’s statement. (And yet he kept repeating it and kept getting drowned out). After a warning from the Speaker, Mulcair finished and between that and two follow-up questions about how that also applied to seniors and the disabled, Harper insisted that Canada has a superior job creation record, and hey, they have a disabled member in the cabinet, so there’s nothing that disabled people can’t do. Bob Rae was up next, and brought up George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four and how it shouldn’t be a how-to manual for governments, and he related this to the kind of silencing of critics the government has been engaged in, whether it is with the National Round Table on Environment and the Economy, or any other number of NGOs or data-gathering organisations. Harper insisted that they were interested in administrative savings and doing away with duplication where the information these groups provide could be found elsewhere. For his final supplemental, Rae gave a nod to the Auditor General’s return to the Public Accounts committee and his assertion that the government wasn’t giving accurate numbers on the F-35s. Harper turned to his rote talking points about no contracts signed and no purchase having been made, and left it at that.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Omnibudget off to committee

Posted on by

The omnibus budget bill has passed Second Reading without any procedural trickery, and is off to committee for study, while it also begins pre-study in a number of different Senate committees. The NDP, however, are promising “novel” ways to engage the public on the issue. My question is why it’s taken them two weeks to start engaging the public.

The reaction to John Baird’s outburst in QP yesterday that they were shutting down the National Round Table on Environment and the Economy because they didn’t like their recommendations has largely been “told you so.” (Said outburst included a slip where he said a carbon tax would “kill Canadians” when he obviously meant “kill jobs.”) While some people say that everything Baird says is calculated, I’m not so sure – this had a bit more of a tone of mocking and an attempt to goad the Liberals that may have backfired, and I suspect that he may have been given a stern talking to by PMO, and will be reading his responses during his next turn as back-up PM.

Continue reading →

QP: Confirming ideological cuts?

Posted on by

Without a weekly edition of Monday Morning Sanctimony to set the tone, we waited anxiously to see just how the Official Opposition were going to be holding the government to account. And when the appointed hour came, Thomas Mulcair stood up to denounce the omnibus budget bill and wondered what happened to those principles that Harper once espoused about these kinds of things. John Baird, acting as Back-up PM du jour responded that they were “focused like a laser” on jobs and growth, while the NDP was busy playing procedural games. (Could we please ban “focused like a laser”? It’s not cool or clever). When Mulcair asked about the environmental and EI provisions in the bill that gave the ministers an inordinate amount of power, Baird reminded him of Peter Julian’s 11-hour filibuster on the original budget. Peggy Nash was up next to wonder about the savings that the OAS changes will deliver, but Diane Finely was ready with her talking points about future sustainability. Bob Rae got up and listed off the number of organisations being slashed in the omnibus budget – the Inspector General of CSIS, Rights and Democracy, the National Round Table on Environment and Environment, the First Nations institute, the National Council of Welfare, and so on. Baird insisted that if they didn’t make these changes then the country would become the “Welfare capital of the world,” as Ontario was under Rae’s leadership. Not only that, but NRTEE advocated instituting a carbon tax, which the Liberals obviously were in favour of, which is why they wanted NRTEE kept intact. No, really, he said that. When Rae called him on that, Baird repeated it. Remember that the original reason why NRTEE was being cut was because it was from an era when there weren’t other such research organisations, but there are apparently plenty of them out there now. Now Baird seems to be indicating that the reason they were being cut was over a policy disagreement. Uh oh. (In the scrums after QP, Baird started combining both reasons, for the record). For Rae’s final question, he asked about the growing number of bungled military procurement contracts and wondered if we weren’t headed for a “Decade of Doofus.” Baird returned to an old talking point about how the Liberals oversaw a “decade of darkness.”

Continue reading →

Roundup: Begin budget implementation week

Posted on by

It’s budget implementation debate week in the Commons this week, as Second Reading debate moves ahead under time allocation. The CBC’s Kady O’Malley made a very good point on the weekend that Second Reading debate on this bill isn’t going to matter very much, because it’ll simply be parties reciting their support or outrage into the record, but rather it’ll be the committee where all of the important debate happens. Given that the government has less ability to invoke time allocation on committees, there is still a chance for some more scrutiny and debate to happen there – however they still do have a majority on the committees, so that will be limited nevertheless.

Speaking of committees, here’s a look at the dysfunction creeping into the committee system as a whole – not that anyone can agree as to the causes or solutions. Part of this soul-searching was triggered after Liberal Mauril Bélanger quit the official languages committee after 17 years. Conservative Michael Chong believes there are simply too many committees, so MPs are stretched too thin as they have to do double-duty and are unprepared, and that they do too many studies when not considering legislation. Others, like Ned Franks, think the committees are too large, and that this is part of the symptom of party leaders having too much power over their MPs that said committee members are too afraid to actually speak their minds or have confidence in the expertise they develop. And they’re probably all right, to varying degrees.

The government has signalled that they’re going to put their weight behind a Conservative private member’s bill on banning facemasks during riots. The NDP say they’re supportive in principle, but want some clarification that it won’t muddy the waters with other legal inconsistencies.

It appears that changes to the OAS weren’t in the Conservative platform, because the issue wasn’t discussed until after the election when public servants presented those changes as one of a number of options the government could look at when it comes to addressing the demographic crunch.

Since the Conservatives came to power in 2006 there has been a sharp decline in immigration applications from many Asian countries, due in part to tightening language restrictions. As immigrants can help be bridges between Canada and their countries of origin when it comes to business opportunities, the fact that the world economy is shifting toward Asia means that we could be losing out in the future if this trend continues.

Here’s a look at the examination of protocol at Heritage Committee last week.

And Joe Clark talks about the need for Canada’s foreign policy to innovate as more economic power and demographics shift toward the developing nations of China, India, Brazil, and even Mexico.

QP: The most pressing business of the nation

Posted on by

After a morning of speeches and a whole lot of self-congratulation all around, the NDP decided that the most pressing business of the nation, the one topic to lead off Question Period, for which they are holding the government to account, was that of Conrad Black’s return to Canada. Or rather, as the framing device that they employ says, “notorious British criminal” Conrad Black, or “British citizen Lord Black of Crossharbour” in their subsequent press releases. While this is factually true, it’s still a framing device that they’re employing. And while Mulcair didn’t play the race card today, Harper still called him on yesterday’s usage, and chastised Mulcair for denigrating the work of public servants. Mulcair then moved onto the report about the big bill for the overtime paid to cabinet ministers’ limo drivers, but Harper dodged and touted the country’s economic performance instead. Charlie Angus picked up from here, and yes, Team Decorum still employs the epithets of “Muskoka Minister” when he goes after Tony Clement. Clement, by the way, cited that they were living within the rules and paying out the overtime owed to their drivers per their collective agreement, and hey, these cabinet ministers work long hours. So there. Bob Rae closed off the leaders’ round with a trio of questions about the contradiction in how the Deputy Minister of Defence can dispute the Auditor General’s findings but the government agreeing with the report, but Harper parsed and equivocated, and insisted that Rae was mistaken as to who said what.

Continue reading →

QP: Decisive Action on apples and oranges

Posted on by

Question Period began innocently enough. Thomas Mulcair read out his trio of questions around an admission that Peter MacKay had made that cabinet knew of the alleged two sets of books on the F-35s, and Harper chided him about comparing apples and oranges, and Jack Harris and Peter MacKay had two more rounds of the very same, MacKay asserting that he was talking about the process of decisions flowing through cabinet, but since they AG’s report, they’ve taken “decisive action.” Bob Rae, a bit hoarse, got up to ask about the Deputy Minister of Defence telling the Public Accounts committee that the AG “got it wrong,” and the lingering question about how deputy ministers can disagree with a report that the government says it agrees with, but Harper insisted that Rae was the one getting it wrong, and talked up about how they were proceeding with an oversight committee on the acquisition. Stéphane Dion closed the round by asking the government to withdraw its unconstitutional Senate “reform” bill, but Harper got up and instead of answering the substance of the question, touted the latest Senate “consultation election” in Alberta. Because who needs to worry about the constitution?

Continue reading →

QP: Accepting conclusions but not responsibility

Posted on by

On a day when the government released its first budget implementation bill – an omnibus monster of some 431 pages that amends some 50 Acts, and takes a huge axe to environmental legislation – there was not a question on this bill, or the environment to be found. Instead, Thomas Mulcair led off Question Period with a trio of questions about a possible future Afghan deployment, to which Harper assured him that any deployment would come before the House (see my discussion yesterday about Crown Prerogative and why it’s really a bad thing for Harper to do this), before Mulcair turned to the question of the Woodworth motion – otherwise known as the backdoor abortion debate. Harper assured him that he would be voting against it, but seeing as it’s private members’ business, he can’t do anything else about it, unfortunately. And that’s true. (I wrote a bit more about the issue and the mechanics here). Bob Rae then stood up to ask about the Auditor General’s report on the F-35s – if Harper accepts the report, how can the deputy ministers be writing to the AG to disagree with it, given our system of government? Harper assured him that they accepted the conclusion of the report and were acting on it. Rae then asked if Harper accepts the conclusions, does he not then take responsibility for what happened. Harper, however, wasn’t going to fall for this and instead insisted that wasn’t the conclusion of the AG, but they did accept the conclusion he did draw.

Continue reading →