Joe Oliver announced cuts to EI premiums for small businesses yesterday – but it’s not quite as easy as it sounds. It’s actually more of a tax credit only on the employer side, and only for two years, which Oliver insists is not a sign of worry, but “confidence” that they’re on the right path. Um, okay. Economist Stephen Gordon, meanwhile, shows that this kind of tax credit is actually more counterproductive because it encourages these businesses to stay small for tax reasons, and that by not actually cutting payroll taxes, they are not actually creating the right conditions for all small businesses to hire.
Tag Archives: Refugees
Roundup: Concern for the North, but not too much
Day two of the big Northern Tour, and Stephen Harper announced $2 million to help set up a Northern Farm Training Institute campus, along with 300 acres of farmland and greenhouses, to help make produce more readily available in the North. That done, he gave dire warnings about the Russian presence in the Arctic and his concerns about the militarization of the North. With this in mind, the Canadian Forces are looking to set up a network of supply hubs in the Arctic in order to make it easier to stockpile equipment and deploy in the case of an emergency, and hopefully reduce the cost of operating in the North. Mind you, the plans for an expanded deepwater port and an air base have both been dramatically scaled back for cost, so we’ll see how much of this plan actually comes to fruition. Elsewhere on the tour, it has been noted – somewhat pointedly – that Harper is just passing through some of these Northern locations and is not actually sitting down to consult with the local government or people to know what they need. Try to look surprised. Michael Den Tandt notes that Harper is looking more energised on this trip than he has in probably a year-and-a-half, what with all kinds of other unpleasant things that he’s had to deal with.
Roundup: Missing the point about parties
In a piece that bothers me immensely, Susan Delacourt puts forward the notion of abolishing political parties, and then applies a bunch of marginal reasons like branding and narrowing voter pools. The problem is that she ignored the whole point of political parties under Responsible Government – to have a group that can maintain the confidence of the Chamber in the formation of government. Which is actually a pretty big deal and why coalition governments don’t really work as well in our system as they might in others. “Oh, but Nunavut doesn’t have parties” or “most municipalities don’t have parties” people – including Delacourt – will cry, but it’s a nonsense argument because they have a small handful of members, and it doesn’t scale up to 308 MPs on any practical basis. You could not adequately run a government or maintain confidence with 308 “loose fish.” Also, the notion that brokerage is “antiquated” is false – otherwise we’d see all kinds of “bridges to nowhere” riders in government bills to get MPs onside to win support – again something that would be endemic with trying to get the support of a chamber of independents. That’s not to say that there aren’t problems with parties right now, because there are, but the solution is to have more people engaging with them so that the power doesn’t remain concentrated – not to simply throw the baby out with the bathwater. Sorry, but Delacourt’s argument has no merit.
Roundup: Conflating sex work with trafficking
The hearings into the prostitution bill wrapped up yesterday, and clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, along with amendments, will take place on Tuesday. Yesterday’s testimony included warnings not to confuse prostitution with human trafficking, which are different and human trafficking already has laws in place to combat it (though there have not yet been many charges). Of course, Conservative MP and booster of the bill, Joy Smith, says that the two are “symbiotically linked,” but again, separate regimes – just like talking about child sexual exploitation has nothing to do with adult sex work, and is a separate provision in the Criminal Code. Amongst the other nonsense that Smith went on Power & Politics to talk about included her assertion that maybe there are “one or two or three” sex workers who do it willingly, despite that being in complete contravention to testimony heard. It just didn’t fit with her established narrative, and as she often does, she rejects it outright. Surprisingly, a group of Anglican clergy have come out against the bill because of the effect it will have on those sex workers when it forces the trade further underground. And then, once the hearings wrapped, Conservative MP Stella Ambler sent out this gem, which pretty much shows you her belief that there is apparently only one side to this whole debate:
Apparently Stella Ambler thinks there's only one side to the debate on #C36. Cripes. pic.twitter.com/pkhcSJGt6m
— Dale Smith (@journo_dale) July 10, 2014
Roundup: Conservative senators see looming crisis
Wouldn’t you know it, but Conservative senators are pressuring Stephen Harper to start making some new Senate appointments as the current number of vacancies is at eleven, and will be at 17 by the end of the year – almost a fifth of the Chamber. The lack of membership means committees are starting to be affected, and provinces are losing a good portion of their representation, which is a problem. And despite what Hugh Segal says, the Prime Minister actually does have a constitutional obligation to make appointments, and if he doesn’t, he risks triggering a constitutional crisis because he would be in breach of his duties. He certainly has options when it comes to how he makes appointments, especially because of the cloud he’s put himself under by making irresponsible choices in the past (because he was petulant and refused to make appointments until his hand was forced, it should be said), but they need to be made, sooner than later. I did hear from some sources that with the Supreme Court appointment issue out of the way, he could spend the summer making Senate appointments, but I guess we’ll see if that bears fruit. I recently wrote about this very looming crisis here.
Roundup: Cruel and unusual cuts
The Federal Court has ruled against the government’s healthcare cuts for refugees, and given them four months to make changes before they are struck down on the basis of being cruel and unusual, and the fact that the government hasn’t offered a good Section 1 defence (reasonable limits within a free and democratic society) for their cuts. The “cruel and unusual” is a fairly novel reading of the Charter, but there does seem to be some possible basis for it. Of course, it will all come out in the appeals, since the government announced immediately that it would be appealing, before trotting out the usual canards that refugee claimants were somehow getting better healthcare coverage than average Canadians (something the judgement itself noted was a falsehood). The judgement also noted that there was no proof that the changes saved taxpayers any money, since these claimants with health conditions would generally wind up in a hospital when their problems became acute, which costs the system even more. Kate Heartfield notes that legal or not, those refugee health changes are still bad policy. And in case you need a refresher, here are some of the other losses the government has had at the courts lately, which will all be the subjects of fundraising pleas. Activist courts! OH NOES!
Roundup: Taking apart MacKay’s assertions
The chair of the women’s forum at the Canadian Bar Association calls Peter MacKay out for the real consequences for women in the profession as they are being overlooked for judicial appointments, and that there is a need for more data on appointments, while Thomas Muclair thinks that this is more proof to demand MacKay’s resignation. Former Liberal justice minister Irwin Cotler, however, does the due diligence and systematically dismantles MacKay’s assertions, from his statements that law schools aren’t playing their role, to the claim that women aren’t applying, and most especially the notion that there apparently aren’t enough women who can be appointed on the basis of merit. Cotler takes MacKay to school over the issue, and it’s great to see a fact-based takedown and not more of this open letter nonsense and weird blaming that has thus far taken place.
Roundup: Sweeping, questionable changes
The House and Senate have both risen for the summer, but as they did, Jason Kenney and Chris Alexander unveiled their massive overhaul of the Temporary Foreign Workers Programme. It proposes to try and make the programme harder to use, with ever-diminishing caps on the number of workers (who were a fraction of one percent of the total workforce in the country, incidentally) with the aim of getting more unemployed Canadians, as well as Aboriginals, new immigrants and people with disabilities into these low-wage jobs. But Kenney seemed tone deaf to some of the massive labour challenges in Alberta, to demographic issues, to incentivising labour mobility, to the problems of aging populations in rural regions that are depopulating, but most especially to the attitude change that needs to happen if they think that university graduates will think that low-wage jobs in the food service industry or even higher-wage jobs in processing jobs like meat packing are going to be the answer to their labour shortages. The NDP condemned the changes without actually reading them, and all of their objections were addressed, not that it mattered. The Liberals made some pretty salient comments about the implausible changes to inspections and the giant loophole going unaddressed through the youth labour exchange programme. The restaurant and small business associations are really unhappy with the changes, which hamstring their ability to find workers in tough markets. John Geddes starts picking out the flaws in Kenney’s case, including demographics and the notion that it’s likely that non-Canadians made for cheaper and more reliable hires. Andrew Coyne says that the changes are simply bad policy, which punishes the service sector where a government goes out of its way to prevent a manufacturing job from offshoring. Coyne notes that if Canadians don’t want to take these jobs, then they shouldn’t be artificially shoehorned into them, but rather to spend their efforts creating value elsewhere in the economy while those who do want those jobs should be made to be Canadians by using the TFW programme as a pathway to citizenship.
Roundup: Peter MacKay’s “special bonds”
Peter MacKay ignited yet another firestorm by making comments to the Ontario Bar Association that there isn’t enough diversity in federal and federally-appointed courts because not enough women are applying since they have a special bond with children. No, seriously. And when called out on it, MacKay insisted that his comments were “misconstrued,” and then went on say law schools need to do better – never mind that female enrolment is already outpacing males. And no, there was nothing in his explanation about visible minorities, just women. Naturally, this turned into a parade of accusations about the regressive social attitudes during Question Period, laced with all of aggravating qualifications from all sides, MacKay included, about being parents. MacKay also gave a litany of appointment figures, all of them out of context, like how there was only one woman out of the thirteen appointments made last week. There was some great fact-checking over Twitter which pointed out just how ridiculous or outright wrong MacKay’s justifications are.
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/479732973470638080
https://twitter.com/cmathen/status/479739582615785472
Stats on women applicants to Ontario Court of Justice available since 1989. There is no shortage of women applicants. pic.twitter.com/yvI26uUzwX
— Erin Crandall (@ErinLCrandall) June 19, 2014
How many women appointed to section 96 courts? Fluctuates by year. Numbers not rising with Harper government. pic.twitter.com/dxNZJhwRQM
— Erin Crandall (@ErinLCrandall) June 19, 2014
QP: No current vacancy
The days on the calendar running down, but crankiness among members ramping up, all of the leaders were present in the Commons, which was a little unexpected. Thomas Mulcair led off, asking about Quebec Supreme Court justice appointments and the possible attempt to use a backdoor to put Justice Mainville on the bench. Stephen Harper insisted that this was nothing to do with the Supreme Court, but about putting a good judge on the “supreme court” of Quebec. Mulcair pressed about whether the intent was to elevate Justice Mainville to the SCC, to which Harper reminded him that there was no current vacancy, nor a process to select a new one once a vacancy does become available. Mulcair then accused Harper of starting a war with the Supreme Court, but Harper mocked him for trying to launch into another conspiracy theory. Mulcair moved topics, and demanded that the Northern Gateway pipeline be turned town, to which Harper said that the NDP were against all resource development while they underwent environmental assessments and went through a rigorous assessment process. Mulcair listed the opposition to the pipeline, but Harper dismissed their opposition as ideological. Justin Trudeau carried on that line of questioning and pointed out the impacts a spill would have on that coastline, to which Harper accused the Liberals of holding a “deep hostility” toward the energy sector (really? Given their it boosterism for Keystone XL?) and insisted that they had a rigorous process.