Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

The gory details

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, June 17, 2009 4:33pm - 32 Comments

The Conservative-Liberal agreement, released just now by the Prime Minister’s Office.

The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition today agreed to form a working group to develop proposals for Employment Insurance eligibility reform that will:

(a) allow self-employed Canadians to participate voluntarily in the Employment Insurance system; and
(b) improve eligibility requirements in order to ensure regional fairness.

The working group will consist of three appointees of the Prime Minister and three appointees of the Leader of the Opposition. The working group will have access to briefings and data provided by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development. It may consult such other sources as deemed necessary. The working group will deliver recommendations to the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and Canadians by September 28, 2009.

The parties will work in good faith to implement any consensus recommendations made by the working group. In addition, the Liberals will support the main and supplementary estimates this Friday. The Conservatives will support the Liberal opposition day motion (a draft copy of which is attached), also this Friday.

The Liberal motion after the jump.

THAT this House recognizes that its constitutional role of holding the government to account requires regular, orderly, timely, and clearly understood procedural opportunities for doing so, while not unduly restricting the ability of the government to manage its legislative program, and therefore, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of this House, when the House adjourns on Friday, June 19th, 2009, it shall stand adjourned until 11:00 a.m. on Monday, September 14th, 2009, whereupon it will commence its fall sittings for the Supply Period ending on December 10th, 2009; provided that:

(i) the House will not sit the week beginning September 21st 2009 to avoid conflicts with G-20 meetings;

(ii) in addition to the accountability reports already required by the Liberal amendment to the 2009 Budget motion, the Government will prepare a further accountability report, meeting all the requirements of that said Liberal amendment, and table it in Parliament during the week of September 28th, 2009, to be followed by an allotted day for the Official Opposition two sitting days later; and

(iii) this House orders that section (10) of Standing Order 81 be amended by adding, immediately after paragraph (c) thereof, the following: (d) In each of the supply periods described in paragraph (a), the first allotted day shall be no earlier than the eighth sitting day and no later than the twelfth sitting day in that period; and no fewer than four nor more than seven sitting days shall be permitted to pass between allotted days within each period, provided that, in any case, the last allotted day in each period shall not be more than seven sitting days before the last sitting day in that period.”

Tags: employment, employment insurance, Michael Ignatieff, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/IanBC IanBC

Wells's First Rule remains unchallenged.

http://prairiewrangler.wordpress.com Olaf

Except by Wells himself, if I recall.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

It's a rule of thumb! They're rules of thumb! But yeah, I'm usually right. It's a curse.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

This time, the least exciting outcome also happened to be the best outcome for Canada.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

"The working group will have access to briefings and data provided by the Department of Human Resources and Skills Development."

huge

normally opposition is left to fly blind
s.

Given the way that this government centralizes things, might PMO/PCO have more and better briefings and data than HRSDC?
John D

Don't parliamentary committees have same?

http://intensedebate.com/people/Geiseric Geiseric

good question

Unless I'm off my game, only AS a committee.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

Huh. Strange. The filter has been giving me a hard time.
Wayne

so early to rise and later to sit as well – way to go PM! me thinks Stevie and Iggy want a nice peaceful summer to raise bucks and tend to their respective bases to which both need to put some energy into at present.
Amateur Hour

No Parliament (i.e. no input from citizens through their representatives) for THREE solid months.
Well, Canadians, you can safely go off to the cottage now and not be bothered by anything affecting your community, health, schools, justice system, economy, employment, trade or relations with the wider world.
I'm sure the mandarins in the ministries — freshly shuffled into new portfolios today, ensuring their maximum effectiveness (groan) — and our little lordlings at the PMO will take care of everything.
Rest your little heads.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

One of those appointees will be Ignatieff's policy chief, Kevin Chan. Mr. Chan is that highly respected policy wonk who used to work for the Conservatives as executive assistant and director to top federal bureaucrat Kevin Linch. He was poached by the Liberals in January. It is entirely fitting that he will play a key role in the bipartisan EI working group.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

The working group will consist of three appointees of the Prime Minister and three appointees of the Leader of the Opposition.

One of the appointees is policy wunderkind Kevin Chan, who formerly worked for the Conservatives in a key position (executive assistant and director to top federal bureaucrat Kevin Linch.) The Liberals poached him in January. His skills are highly respected by both his current and former employers.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

(Note to Jonathan: the filter wouldn't allow me to spell Mr. Linch's name correctly.)

Scott M.

, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of this House, when the House adjourns on Friday, June 19th, 2009, it shall stand adjourned until 11:00 a.m. on Monday, September 14th, 2009,

Uh… Doesn't that mean that the Standing Orders which permit the house to be recalled in the event of an Emergency at the behest of the Speaker of the House do not apply?

I hope they revise that…
http://intensedebate.com/people/MikeD1 MikeD1

I find it shamefully ironic that the 2 parties that raped and pillaged a 57 billion dollar surplus in EI now say it needs fixing .
The Liberals misappropriated 57 billion into General Coffers from the EI fund and the Conservative Reformers helped spend it . If the dam money had been left in the fund that it was collected FOR there would be more than enough to fix any problems that the recession had caused. I find it insulting to hear these people claim that a system that had a 57 billion dollar surplus needed fixing in the first place , it seemed to be doing what it was supposed to be doing by accumulating money to help people in times of need. . Waiting periods could be done away with , more people could be hired to run EI , more money thats needed for increased money could be handed out in benefits . If the fund had not been raped there was more than enough there for it to be self sufficient and I find it equally insulting to hear the 2 Parties responsible arguing over and saying this or that would be too expensive to fix . What was expensive was what they spent the missing money on NOT EI. The Surplus they spent was bigger than the whole deficit they are predicting .
All they did was turn EI into a tax by squandering the surplus and using it for anything BUT WHAT IT WAS COLLECTED FOR.
SOMEONE SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR THIS THEFT.

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

There is no account with $57 billion earmarked for EI. It is a notional account only i.e. an accounting entry. Having said that there was no money to steal it was all in the general revenue fund. However, the Liberal party was chastized by the courts for making changes to the program which the court deemed not in the best interest of the country. Such is the Liberal party of Canada. EI is a complicated program. There needs to be help for unemployed workers but there also needs to be a disincentive for those that would rather sit home and collect pogey. There are many and don't give me the holier than thou response that no Canadian would do that. The Liberals introduced the 58 regional levels in order to disqualify as many applicants as they could. The Conservative government is working with that system. The recession has clearly shown that their are weaknesses in the system which need to be addressed. That will happen over the summer with or without the panel.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

There is no account with $57 billion earmarked for EI. It is a notional account only i.e. an accounting entry. Having said that there was no money to steal it was all in the general revenue fund. However, the Liberal party was chastized by the courts for making changes to the program which the court deemed not in the best interest of the country. Such is the Liberal party of Canada. EI is a complicated program. There needs to be help for unemployed workers but there also needs to be a disincentive for those that would rather sit home and collect pogey. There are many and don't give me the holier than thou response that no Canadian would do that. The Liberals introduced the 58 regional levels in order to disqualify as many applicants as they could. The Conservative government is working with that system. The recession has clearly shown that there are weaknesses in the system which need to be addressed. That will happen over the summer with or without the panel.

Glen

if the working group is reporting on Sept 28th, and the new estimates along with the attached oppo day are also that week, couldn't we see the working group report and then fall into an election with none of the recommendations being adopted?
Stephen

If the Liberals want an election, expect two reports. That Chan is part of it is a good thing, he'll know what they are looking at, not all Parliamentatians do.

Honestly, its an issue thats for show, becuase it really doesnt affect many people. Even if the recommendations are adopted, it isnt like they couldnt have waited.

But I wish them well.

Should the Liberals become the government after the next eletion they are setting a high bar for behaviour. My expectation of them living up to it is close to nil.
Chuck Mire

Harper is slowly sucking the life out of the Liberals as he neuters Iggy's leadership. All the lefty Liberals must be passing kidney stones now !!

http://intensedebate.com/people/CTM CTM

You got that right!!

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

The fact is the Liberal leader lost this showdown and the PM won no matter which way you slice it. No changes to EI, no report on isotopes and no report on how much stimulus money is actually flowing. Instead we get a gabfest over the summer. Iggy tried to bluff the PM and like Dion got suckered punched big time. How many votes supporting the government government's agenda is that now….80. The Count showd his arrogance and his inability to sniff the wind. Threatening the government every other day with defeat is not a winning strategy and shows Iggy to lacks the courage to go to the people. Ignocious one knows that the polls are too close and he is nowhere to be found in the West while have some mometum in Quebec. However there is no certainty that after Duceppe is finished with Iggy in a campaign that Quebecers would abandon the Bloc. The great saviour of the Liberal party should focus on questioning the government and putting forward alternatives of which there has been precious little. Canadians will then make up their own minds not the royal "I".
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

The fact is the Liberal leader lost this showdown and the PM won no matter which way you slice it. No changes to EI, no report on isotopes and no report on how much stimulus money is actually flowing. Instead we get a gabfest over the summer. Iggy tried to bluff the PM and like Dion got suckered punched big time. How many votes supporting the government's agenda is that now….80. The Count showd his arrogance and his inability to sniff the wind. Threatening the government every other day with defeat is not a winning strategy and shows Iggy to lacks the courage to go to the people. Ignocious one knows that the polls are too close and he is nowhere to be found in the West while have some mometum in Quebec. However there is no certainty that after Duceppe is finished with Iggy in a campaign that Quebecers would abandon the Bloc. The great saviour of the Liberal party should focus on questioning the government and putting forward alternatives of which there has been precious little. Canadians will then make up their own minds not the royal "I".
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

The fact is the Liberal leader lost this showdown and the PM won no matter which way you slice it. No changes to EI, no report on isotopes and no report on how much stimulus money is actually flowing. Instead we get a gabfest over the summer. Iggy tried to bluff the PM and like Dion got suckered punched big time. How many votes supporting the government's agenda is that now….80. The Count has shown his arrogance and his inability to sniff the wind correctly. Threatening the government every other day with defeat is not a winning strategy and shows that Iggy lacks the courage to go to the people. The Ignocious one knows that the polls are too close and he is nowhere to be found in the West while having some mometum in Quebec. However there is no certainty that after Duceppe is finished with Iggy in a campaign that Quebecers would abandon the Bloc. Ontario is moving back and forth depending on the poll. No guarantees there. The great saviour of the Liberal party should focus on questioning the government and putting forward alternatives of which there has been precious little. Canadians will then make up their own minds not the royal "I" when it is time for the next election.

Andrew (not P or C)

Hooray. No accountability to Canadians on issues that matter. Chalk one up for the good guys.

Governmentopians

"allow self-employed Canadians to participate voluntarily in the Employment Insurance system; "

Wow, look, we're giving our Canadian subjects "choices".

Ah, not really. If we thought that public freedom was good (for us) then we'd let NON-self-employed Canadians participate voluntarily in the program. But what good would that be? By giving steady, dependable, hardworking Canadians the freedom and responsibility to take care of their own savings and insurance it would completely destroy the purpose of the system. Namely, (1) buy large blocks of regional votes (wholesale, direct federal govt to tax slave without having to share any of the glory with provincial and municipal govts), (2) develop and maintain a huge underclass of government dependents, and (3) provide an excuse to build a gigantic bureaucracy to administer and, you know, study the problem of unemployment.

Actually I think what we're going to do is give self-employed Canadians the "choice" to participate this year, then in a couple of years we'll start crowing about how great it has been for the small number of self-employed who exercised their "choice". But we'll wail and cry about the large number of poor, dumb, unfortunate self-employed who haven't yet seen the benefit of "choosing" government welfare, and then we'll slip in a new law which makes it all but impossible for them to not exercise their "choice". Then we'll PWN the last independent sons of britches in the country. Oh yeah, that should do (us) nicely. Sit back kiddies, and watch how government works.

Andrew (not P or C)

I hear Somalia doesn't have a government. Maybe you'd be happier there.

http://darcymeyers.wordpress.com Darcy Meyers

Responsible government is a nice change, let's hope it's contagious.
Andrew (not P or C)

Like I said, maybe you'd be happier there are a libertarian type. You certain will gain no traction in this country.
KRB

So first week of the fall session is moved up a week, with a break the week after b/c of the G20 meetings in Pittsburgh. There are 10 wks total in the fall session (50 sitting days). 1st opposition day has to be between Sept 30th-Oct 6th, and then one every 4-7 days after, except for the last, to be on or after the 44th sitting day.

There are 7 allotted days in the fall session (it seemed like the media were saying the Libs got an “additional” allotted day, but I see no sign of that in the motion as written), and they have to be crammed into 42 days. That’s one every 7 days roughly. There’s also a Standing Order that restricts the govt’s allocation of opposition days, allowing no more than 4 each calendar year to be held on Wed’s or Fri’s (the two short days in a parliamentary week). I don’t know how many days have already been designated on a Wed or Fri this year. There’s a Friday tomorrow, although the House is scheduled to sit until at least 10 pm, whereas normally they’d be done by 2:30pm. So dunno if that counts as a “short day”.

cont'd
KRB

I’d expect the gov’t to make Tuesdays the opposition day (one/wk) for the fall session.

Anyone know what the breakdown is for the fall Supply period? I’ve yet to read how the SO’s handle that. In the winter, it was Lib 4, BQ 2, NDP 1; in the spring session, it was Lib 3, BQ 3, NDP 2. If it mirrors opposition seat strength, then it would be Lib 3, BQ 2, NDP 2. Perhaps the Official Opposition are treated differently in the allocation though, not sure.