Beyond The Commons

 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 endless feedback loop

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, June 2, 2010 1:53pm - 100 Comments

Jack Layton, asked during a post-QP scrum yesterday, comments on recent government moves in response to the likes of Graham James and Clifford Olson.

Well, it does seem to be policy-making by headlines and sensationalism.  Of course a lot of Canadians I’m sure would have trouble with Mr. Olson getting payments while he’s in prison and so do we.  But the bill has got to be looked at very, very carefully to see exactly what the Conservatives are up to here but they do appear to be making headlines by making policy based on headlines.

Tags: , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • Orson Bean

    Politicians have been "making headlines by making policy based on headlines" ever since there have been, umm, headlines. Wishing that we could do away with that is like wishing that we could do away with bad weather, death or taxes. Whatever.

    And BTW the only reason Jack hasn't joined in in implementing bad policies based on headlines is because he's never held power and thus never had the opportunity to implement bad policies.

    • Andrew (not PorC)

      He was a councilor in Toronto.

      • Orson Bean

        Yes, luckily he didn't have the power to affect my life in that capacity.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

          Oh, it's certainly irrelevant, then.

          • Orson Bean

            I'm not saying it's irrelevant. I'm just saying I'm happy not to have lived in a jurisdiction where wielded power.

          • Orson Bean

            I should add, though, that although I don't generally like Layton or the NDP, I admire Layton's guts and integrity in this instance in bringing up this point — because it's certainly not a politically popular point to bring up. Of course, we can't see into his soul to determine whether he's bringing this up out of a genuine desire to make good policy or out of a knee-jerk partisan inclination to characterize anything the Tories do as awful . . .

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

      So you think it is a good practice then?

      • Orson Bean

        Sorry tb I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to — what the govt did here, or generally the practice of doing policy based on today's headlines.

        Re what the govt did, obviously it was pure retail politics. I was concerned about the apparent lack of consultation. I'd be interested in hearing contrarian views about it (e.g., The John Howard Society's views would be interesting). Though I do note that apparently ex-cons will have the right to apply for benefits on being released, which may make the measure less draconian.

        As for policy by headline generally, sometimes it's ok, sometimes not. There's a long list of policies and laws that were done on this basis that are flawed, that's for sure — The Sarbanes-Oxley Act in the US is a classic example.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/tedbetts tedbetts

          Didn't mean to sound like I was picking on you, but based on your original comment – and not your follow up response to be sure – it sounded a heck of a lot like "it's ok because someone else did it" and I am so sick of that response. It really has become the mantra of this government and certainly its supporters.

          You've certainly clarified your point and added to the discussion.

          I just have a general frustration with the lame attempt by so many at deflecting a discussion on substance and proper standards we can set and expect from our government regardless of party by claiming someone else did it too.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

    Harper makes policy from the headlines. Layton surfs on them while trying not to get wet.

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

      One particularly amusing example of Layton's headline-surfing: The NDP called for a royal commission on "violence in sports" following the Patrice Cormier incident.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

        Ya know, that's actually not a bad idea. Violence in hockey is a serious problem – especially head trauma amongst teenage players. Perhaps he was "headline-surfing", but it's a worthwhile idea.

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

          Really? You think that a royal commission is needed?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

            What would be another option? Outside of doing nothing I mean, I ask honestly.

            I don't think it's entirely crazy to try and do something about the sky-rocketing levels of head trauma in an activity that hundreds of thousands of Canadians engage in.

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

            Do you have any evidence that levels of head trauma in hockey are skyrocketing? I'd read somewhere that the trend is actually in the other direction, but I can't remember where I read it. I'll look around.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

            "Reports of injuries involving youth and adult hockey players show that, despite advances in equipment design, the number of concussions is increasing"
            http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/169/2/124

            It's a few years old now, but I've also found numerous articles stating that the number of emergency room visits caused by hockey related concussions is on the rise. Everything I've read for at least the last 10 years has claimed that head injuries are rising – I'm curious about where you read otherwise. (Don Cherry surely doesn't have a blog now does he? :)

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

            It certainly sounds like there's good evidence out there to make the connection between contact in youth hockey and concussions. I'd prefer to see additional robust studies (though the one you link to is convincing), as opposed to a Royal Commission.

            Something tells me, though, that there will be a powerful backlash against anyone moving to protect children from their parents' hockey bloodlust (or some less loaded term that escapes me right now).

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

            Well yes, there's a broad group of people who still adhere to the Don Cherry "Rock 'em, Sock 'em" brand of hockey and anything outside of putting a STOP patch on the back of a child's jersey will be further evidence of the "pansyfication" of the game.

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

            I still haven't seen any recent evidence that head traumas in hockey are "skyrocketing". My impression was that rates have actually decreased since that 2003 medical essay, but maybe I'm wrong. Could you link to one of those articles you mentioned?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

            I don't want to think you're being deliberately obtuse, but I think you might be the only person I've ever heard say that head trauma is decreasing.
            http://www.thestar.com/sports/gthl/article/735113…

            But data obtained by the Star show youth hockey is also struggling to contain ferocious head hits that threaten hockey's most vulnerable brains.

            There were more than 400 penalties last year for serious checks to the head in the GTHL that warranted a minor-plus-10-minute penalty. That's double from one year earlier.

            Add to that another 71 checking-to-the-head penalties that triggered major penalties plus a suspension and two more head-checking incidents that prompted league investigations.

            A penalty related to head injuries – "checking from behind" – was assessed more than 2,300 times last year, far beyond any other offence. The previous year, officials called the penalty more than 3,000 times.

            "The magnitude of the problem shown by that data is more than I had anticipated even though I see these kids every week in my office," says Dr. Charles Tator, a Toronto brain surgeon who has specialized in hockey-related head injuries.

            "The sheer number of times kids are hitting each other to the head really bothers me."

            No one is sure how many players in the GTHL – the biggest competitive minor hockey league in the world with more than 500 teams and 8,000 players – suffer serious injuries because of all of those head shots.

            The league requires concussed players to submit a physician's letter clearing them to play before they return to the ice. Two years ago, 51 such letters were filed with the league. Last year there were 55. There have been 22 so far this season.

          • Crit_Reasoning

            Thanks for the link.

            Just to be clear, I'm not saying that head injuries in hockey aren't a serious problem. I happen to think that head injuries are very serious. I'm simply taking issue with your claim that head injuries have "skyrocketed". I still haven't seen evidence to justify this claim. From the article you cite:

            "A penalty related to head injuries – "checking from behind" – was assessed more than 2,300 times last year, far beyond any other offence. The previous year, officials called the penalty more than 3,000 times."

            This would actually represent a decrease between last year and the year before.

            There were more than 400 penalties last year for serious checks to the head in the GTHL that warranted a minor-plus-10-minute penalty. That's double from one year earlier.

            This is probably because there is a growing awareness that serious checks to the head are a real problem that needs to be curbed.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

            Fair enough, I perhaps wasn't as concise with my language as I should've been. I apologise.They are on the rise though. From the same article (and probably more salient):

            The league requires concussed players to submit a physician's letter clearing them to play before they return to the ice. Two years ago, 51 such letters were filed with the league. Last year there were 55. There have been 22 so far this season."

            But those cases are likely the tip of the iceberg, league officials admit, because so many go unreported or undiagnosed.

            Anne Hunt, who managed last season's North York Knights minor peewee AA team in the GTHL, said seven players on her team of 11-year-olds – nearly half the team – suffered medically confirmed concussions.

            —————-

            So you agree that head injuries are very serious and that many young Canadians (500,000 seems to be the figure I see most) are playing a game that puts them at heightened risk for head injuries, yet also think that a politician seeking to ameliorate the situation is worthy of derision?

            That's a curious position to take.

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

            yet also think that a politician seeking to ameliorate the situation is worthy of derision

            I provided the NDP "Royal Commission" proposal as an example of headline surfing. It wasn't about hockey head injuries specifically, but about "violence in sports", and it was the direct result of the Patrice Cormier headlines. The NDP had never talked about it before, and they don't seem to have paid much attention to the issue since.

            I also agree with Sean that a Royal Commission is not the best mechanism to address this problem.

          • Gary

            The problem is that now that the injury is more fully understood, the number of occurances has increased because more players are more cautious in seeking medical aid. In the old days, they just played through it.

          • Orson Bean

            Exactly. These days, we're obsessed with the perfection of the human condition. As that guy on Strombo's show pointed out last night, this is what happens when we no longer have to spend time finding enough food to eat.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok Sean

            That's probably part of it, but bodychecking for those as young as nine only began about a decade ago (after a few decades of being restricted to those 12 and older.

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

            I thought I read it in a "Dan Gardner"-style piece talking about real vs. perceived levels of risk in an article that discussed media sensationalism (e.g. falling crime rates despite public perceptions that crime is on the rise). Can't find it, but I only had a quick look.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

            Columnists (like "regular" folks, it seems) have themes that they like to return to from time to time….here are two different Dan Gardner pieces that I believe brush up against the topic you have in mind. Even if they aren't exactly the columns you were thinking about, they are still interesting.

            This one is about crime stats, and this one is about risk and perception of risk, I believe (I only skimmed them).

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/janicemaerose Janice Rose

            Richard, I agree; there's also clear evidence that soccer needs to change. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1439395

            As cool as it looks to use your head to 'kick' a ball, it's another example of some sport practices that should be outright eliminated.

  • Boogard

    I agree with Layton on this one. Incident-Specific Legislation is what we call it, and it is a bad thing. Imagine paying into the CPP plan for 40 years and then being denied its benefits, I can't see how that would hold up in court. One option is to still pay them but deduct 100% of it to defray the costs of incarceration. Re: Graham James, if it comes as news to anyone that we have pardons in this country that person should not be allowed to vote. We have sex offender registries and dangerous offender legislation already to deal with the Jameses of this world.

    In both cases, it suggests a media and populace that haven't been paying attention to their country and, suddenly confronted with the consequences of their indifference, overreacting.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

      The legislation will not affect CPP payments.

      It is aimed at Old age pension and guaranteed income supplements. Since the purpose of guaranteed income supplements is to ensure a person is able to provide for housing and food, that requirement is met by the prison system. Hence we are only eliminating a double dip situation.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

        Interesting distinction.

        Do you suppose most people who are applauding the move to cutoff benefits to prisoners are aware of that distinction?

      • Boogard

        Wasn't aware of the info you added, thanks.

    • http://twitter.com/Akiracee @Akiracee

      Incident-specific or not, Clifford Olson both doesn't need any money and doesn't deserve any. We already spend enough money on him – a guy who'll never be a productive citizen (if he ever was).

      The money we spend on him could be going to help actually redeemable inmates. Or into foreign aid for Africa. Or nearly anything.

      What principle is so important that we have to continue to throw good money after bad apples?

      • Boogard

        What principle is so important that we have to continue to throw good money after bad apples?

        Funny you ask that immediately after suggesting we should spend more money on government to government foreign aid, which has been proven well beyond any doubt to actually harm the recipient nation. In Haiti, the people threatened to riot if governments gave any more to the Haiti government because they know that money will inevitably disappear. Haiti has taken the remarkable step of asking donors to please stop donating because it is ruining their economy.

        That's the thing about standing up for rights: you spend most of your time defending the rights of scoundrels, as Chesterton once noted, free speech being the most notable example. Next thing you know they'll be yanking the pensions of people who oppose gay marriage, or abortion, that's why I speak up now.

        • http://twitter.com/Akiracee @Akiracee

          Well, I'm not actually a huge fan of foreign aid either, actually.

          But I contend that humoring Clifford Olson diminishes the nobility of humanity.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

    On the surface the idea holds merit but upon just a little thought the holes begin to show. What about the spouse of the senior in jail who had nothing to do with the crime, should they be punished as well by having there household income reduced? Is the solution to create another victim?

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

      The proposal, as I understand it, wouldn't affect the dependents of persons who are incarcerated.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

        Yet.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

          Halo-Override is concerned we are this close to cutting off income support to relatives of convicted felons just for being relatives of convicted felons. Well, that's that, then. Best to keep sending bonus cheques to the felons' spouses instead. Let's call the whole thing off.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

            Also, if we quit beating up gays now, some day they'll expect to marry each other.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            Your bizarre analogy would work better if you would argue against cutting everybody's federal tax dollars' subsidy of the Toronto Pride Parade because it is such a short step from there to bashing queer heads against brick walls. Not that I am saying that such an argument makes a whole lot of sense, either. Just that it would be a better argument than the one you just offered.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

            I was actually admitting that conservatives were right about the slippery slope argument, but nobody ever appreciates my gloriously self-deprecating sense of humor.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            Well, I got the slippery slope point you were making, but I could not fathom how there was a slippery slope argument to be made in the case of removing an undeserved reward for being temporarily single.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

            Seriously though (because you're one of the "opponents" I like), what happens when there's some case — and cut me some rhetorical slack here, I don't know exhaustively know all the benefits the governments of Canada offer — what happens when a spouse of an incarcerated and rightly-maligned villain shares a benefit (or is dependent on their spousal status for a benefit), and for whatever reason the spouse isn't much of a sympathetic public figure, and some MP has a speeding ticket they need to distract everyone from that week, and it's a slow new cycle…

            It's easy for anyone here (ie. people who have seen how it works now, and almost invariably agree it's getting worse) to know that one case that leaves a bad public taste can be used to wedge in a full legislative shift on an issue, if played correctly. And these events generally do not address real, pressing problems, they're just footballs to keep people occupied.

            Meanwhile, sound operating principles are compromised due to the momentary convenience and a concern with optics, with little or no thought to the long term consequences.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            Halo, it's the OAS and the GIS: Means to ensure that senior citizens don't suffer in miserable deprivation of abject poverty in their sunset years. There are lots of single seniors out there on OAS and GIS. They shouldn't dip into the income support for couples if they are not, in fact, couples. That's all. Really. That's all.

    • Gary

      The spouse, if old enough would have their OWN old age pension, which would not be affected. Kinda like when one spouse dies, the benefits CONTINUE to flow to the survivor.
      A little MORE thought into this question by you would yield less holes! Do you know how many holes it takes to fill the Albert Hall?

      • ChrisWPG

        4000.
        Sorry for thinking out loud Gary, didn't mean to offend you with my simpleton thoughts. But let me address what you've said.
        So, if the survivor receives the benefit once the spouse dies, are they not entitled to it while they are in gaol as well? The legislation as suggested would stop the spouse from receiving the benefit, in effect creating another victim.

        • Gary

          Not offended. Just trying to make sense of what you are arguing??? My argument is that if a senior guy is in jail, and dies, his senior wife would recieve HER pension benefits regardless. Are you looking for her to cash in on his (hopefully no longer available) pension as well? They should also loose the right to vote as well while in jail, but that's a WHOLE other argument. But Liberals need all the help they can get! LOL!

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

            Ok, I'll try to make myself clear.
            If I understand correctly, government funds would be cut off for the person incarcerated and the spouses would not be. But by doing this you are reducing the household income of spouse probably by half, in effect punishing the spouse who may not have even been aware of what was happening.
            What if the guy is in jail for spousal abuse, should we still cut her household income in half for his deeds?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            Is there a reason you think her income as a senior living alone with a husband in the clink should be higher than the income of a truly single senior? Should the wife of a jailed criminal be paid more than an elderly spinster, or widow, or divorcée? If so, why?

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

            The widow and the divorcée would be entitled to survivor benefits and what was settled in the divorce. Spinsters can't lose what they don't have, kind of a mute argument. What did the senior whose spouse in gaol do to deserve to have their household income cut? I believe the spouse shouldn't be the one being punished.

          • madeyoulook

            The spouse has one less mouth to feed, one less bum to wipe with TP, one less collection of clothes to launder…

            If you think of OAS and GIS as the prevention of homelessness and starvation for our senior citizens (and you should, to avoid confusing it with the CPP-QPP and private pensions and RRIFs and TFSAs), then you have NO CASE to make for extra payments to a senior citizen with an incarcerated spouse.

            Either she shouldn't be spending his money, or, if she has been saving it for him, he shouldn't be entitled to the pot-of-gold upon release.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

            Unfortunately the cost of food, TP and laundry are usually quite low in comparison to the cost of housing.
            The OAS and GIS were created to do exactly that provide security and guaranteed income to seniors.
            I agree that there shouldn't be a pot of gold waiting for them at the end of incarceration, what I am saying is this is more complicated than just ending the payments. It needs a good look to make sure we are punishing the right person.

          • madeyoulook

            If a senior's mortgage is not paid off by now, maybe she shouldn't be in that house? If a senior's rent is a bit much, maybe she could move to a smaller apartment or find a roommate? The taxpayer does not owe this spouse the continued lifestyle of a couple when she is not presently a couple.

            What you call punishing, I call withdrawing of a reward.

            It is NOT the pension. It is NOT confiscating the couple's existing property. It is a sensible reduction of an income supplement that seeks to avoid the ravages of abject poverty. And, thus, it is not any more complicated than just ending the payments for the guy who is not incurring any expenses.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            Spinsters can't lose what they don't have, kind of a mute argument.

            With that, you have confessed that you well and truly do not understand the purpose of the OAS and the GIS. It is NOT to maintain the lifestyle of a criminal's wife at the level to which she has become accustomed. It is to make sure she doesn't starve. She does not deserve any more starvation-prevention benefits than the spinster just because she is married to a convicted criminal behind bars.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

            To further my argument and perhaps show some common ground, I agree that inmates should not be allowed to vote, or have an income, or see sunlight or have any benefits afforded to Canadians. They are in gaol for a reason, if they are not in a treatment plan they, in my opinion should be in there cells. But that said I do not think the punishment should extend to the family of the guilty party, ie I do not think its fair to reduce the household income of the innocent family.

          • Gary

            If the spouse TRULY was not in the know of the misdeeds of the other, I can see your point.
            Having said that, if the spouse WAS in the know, they probably were comfortable living off the proceeds of those crimes committed and should loose said benefits.

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            The income is being reduced to that of a single senior citizen. Which is a pretty good description of the actual state of affairs.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/tobyornotoby tobyornotoby

        "The legislation does not take away any rights of prisoners. Rather, it would suspend the taxpayer-funded payments while an individual is serving their sentence. Spouses and common law partners of inmates would not be affected."
        http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/otta…

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

          I'm quite a distance from receiving CPP, OAS, or GIS or any of that alphabet soup, but it's my understanding that a spousal benefit – and a survivor benefit – is linked to the "primary" benefit. If there's no primary benefit, would the spousal benefit or survivor benefit thereby no longer exist, and would these individuals be transferred to an individual benefit instead? How much of a headache does that create for…whomever doles out these funds at Canada Central?

          Also, payments are based on one's income through retirement…if my income exceeds a certain amount, I don't get GIS. If we amend existing legislation to remove that clause, don't we open up a whole can of worms?

          Layton's right, we need to look at this carefully. Perhaps not because of the intent of the bill, but because of its peripheral impacts.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisWPG ChrisWPG

          except the spouses household income is reduced….

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

            So is the household: by one person. As I asked above: why do you think this particular person deserves more each month than her next-door neighbour who is also a senior living alone?

  • http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/ Open_Democracy

    And now they are amending the Copyright Act to reflect what the United States Trade Representative wants. In April 2009, the Trade Representative released the Special 301 Report. The Special 301 Report lists countries that the U.S. believes need to reform their intellectual property laws. Canada has been included on that list for the past 15 years, in fact, Canada was added to the Priority Watch List in 2009 (along with China, Russia and India among others). The recording industry in the United States has been lobbying government and threatening consumers with legal action for years in attempts to end the practice of uploading and downloading digital copies of recorded media; now they are trying to export their efforts into Canada.

    That's why Tony Clement announced changes to Canada's Copyright Act today. He threw Canadians a bone about being able to legally copy CDs to their iPods (which he admits to doing) hoping that we wouldn't notice the rest of the restrictions that are about to be imposed.

    http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/

    • http://twitter.com/Akiracee @Akiracee

      If we align our Copyright Act with what the US Trade Rep wants, can I finally watch shows on HULU?

      • Charles H.

        The answer is almost certainly "No." It tends to be distribution rights issues, not simply local copyright laws, that cause problems with websites and cross-border streaming of media.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

      Is the new bill available yet?

  • John D

    What we really want to know: If someone goes to jail for, oh I don't know, refusing a subpoena from a Parliamentary committee, will they lose any benefits?…

  • chet

    In other words,

    Harper's enacted a policy that's popular with Canadians, he's getting attention for it….and Layton doesn't like that.

    I'm sure Layton would be acting the gentle little lamb if Harper enacted something which angered Canadians.

    Sour grapes from an opposition that sees nothing but CPC rule for as far as the eye can see.

    Perhaps they can also complain that "Harper's just trying to get headlines" for presiding over one of the stongest gains in economic growth (6% annualize….wowza) in the history of Canada.

    • Wallace Cleaver

      I wasn't aware that Prime Ministers "presided"…

  • chet

    Then again, perhaps John D's sentiment is bang on,

    that the auto workers in Ontario actually gaining in jobs, and the millions of others experiencing what the rest of the world can only dream of, a sigh of relief that there'll be bread and butter on the table,

    pales in comparison to the petty partizan parliamentary committee gamesmanship and Bonnie and Clyde "gotcha" moments.

    History suggests otherwize….and I'll have to go with history on this one.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    This may be the second time in my life that I come to Mr. Layton's defence. The first was when I slapped right-wingers for smirking that he had better not pay a single penny to obtain better care for his prostate cancer. The second is below:

    Aaron, it is no doubt clever fun to catch his speech mangling a phrase a little ("endless feedback loop"), but I defy anyone to "think on his feet" over and over and over again to have something good (or at least unremarkable) to feed the scrums, and never come up with occasional phrases that stumble over themselves.

  • Milly Molly Mandy

    And then Macleans rewards this kind of bad behaviour by these conservative politicians by giving a man like bully Baird an award. What on earth is this country coming to with this band of thugs in charge and people and businesses that should know better actually rewarding them for their bluster and bullying tactics.

    Shame on you Macleans magazine. You just made a mockery of your award.

  • rick

    Well done Jack!
    prejudices cannot control policy and parlament!

  • Emily

    I'm glad somebody noticed it's the first chip out of our wall of 'universality'.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/danby danby

    the bill has got to be looked at very, very carefully to see exactly what the Conservatives are up to here

    Mr Layton doesn't question the need to address the problem or enact legislation, but he does not seem to trust Stephen Harper whatsoever.
    Even though they are colleagues, and share a commitment to work towards a better Canada, Mr Layton is essentially saying I just don't trust him
    I'd say the well is truly poisoned, wouldn't you?

  • Andrew (not PorC)

    Can you blame him? Harper has repeatedly shown himself to be a snake.

  • The Real Jan

    Next up, anyone with a criminal record losing their pension? Certainly plausible with this government. I'm sure they could fire up the pitch fork crowd and then accuse anyone who opposes as taking the side of criminals.

  • LiveBloggin Junkie

    Old Age Security is not the Canadian Pension Plan. OAS only goes to low income seniors and is not universally available.

  • Emily

    An argument could then be made that the rich don't need it either….and little by little….

    The US rightwing is trying to do the same with their Social Security

  • John W.

    Great point. Harper is using Olson to remove the first and most important social program in Canada the Old Age Pension it was called and it was universal. It is no longer universal under these measures, and can be removed from anybody. Historic legislation. This not a clawback.

  • madeyoulook

    Psst! Emily! You wanna know a secret? There is no US Social Security. All the money the US government confiscated from pay checks over the last decades? Some of it was paid out to retirees. You wanna know where the leftovers went? Uncle Sam's mattress? Nope. Gold reserves? No. Shares of stable corporations? Nunh-uh. Where did the leftover wealth go? US federal government bonds.

  • The Real Jan

    Harper counts on the hatred of Olson to gain acceptance for this and score a few political points.
    tis is no way to govern,

    Harper relies on the universal dislike of Olson in order to slide this through. People need to wake up.

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

    John W…..tinfoil hat anyone? It is quite a leap even for Liberals to suggest denying lifers old age security is the beginning of dismantling OAS. Get real will you.

  • Orson Bean

    Once again, civility reigns in the blogosphere . . .

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    John, wasn't the point of OAS & GIS not to have starving golden agers? It seems the Correctional Service of Canada has that covered for incarcerated seniors. Is there a reason the incarcerated should be able to squirrel away their monthly benefits to enjoy upon release? Is there a reason the elderly spouse of an incarcerated senior should enjoy the double-dip since the spouse in jail won't be needing to spend it anyways?

    Yes, it's retail politics and yes, it's probably peanuts in the grand scheme of things. But maybe, just maybe, it's also the right thing to do.

  • The Real Jan

    Before you fire up the talking points cannon Hollinm, I don't know of anyone who is sympathtic towards Olson.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/novagardener novagardener

    You're mostly wrong. You're thinking of the GIS – Guaranteed Income Supplement. I took the CPP at 60. At the time I was advised the break even point was 76 or 77 . I attended a coupleof pre retirement seminars and we were advised that, unless one thought they would live beyond those dates, it was better to take CPP at 60. It has since changed. As I have a prov. govt. pension plan, when I reach 65, my prov. govt plan will be reduced by whatever I receive from OAS.

    Check out http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/eng/isp/oas/oasove…

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/TwoYen TwoYen

    You have this wrong. The legislation does not apply to the CPP.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

    I'm kind of okay with this if the law states payments of OAS will be suspended while a person is incarcerated. What I do not want is someone who stole money, was arrested and convicted, was required to pay it all back plus a hefty fine, turned 65 and lost his OAS and is then released. With nothing whatsoever–no home, no savings (ill-gotten or otherwise) no realistic chance of finding a job paying a livable wage, and the only skill how to steal money. Gee, what do you think this fella will do?

  • madeyoulook

    turned 65 and lost his OAS and is then released.

    I am not following. Once released, he is no longer incarcerated. So if he's over 65, he enters the bureacratic maze of federal income support for seniors. No?

    Are you suggesting that the OAS will be forever denied a released convict? I have not heard that anywhere else.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

    Well, I don't know. I haven't read the bill (is it even available yet?) and so don't know exactly what they are proposing. I have no problem with the incarcerated criminal not receiving more support from me and us than he already is in terms of food, housing and the like. Nor do I buy the "what about the family" argument because the OAS isn't meant to be a family allowance-type thing.

    However, I am concerned the Conservatives will turn it into some kind of "merit" pay rather than its current intention of keeping seniors from starving to death on our streets. It is a reasonable tactic to take, I think, if you think like a Conservative. Or to put that another way, it is just one small step more.

    So, if we are talking about suspending OAS during the time of incarceration, fine. If it's anything more than that, not so fine.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook
  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

    Hey Jenn….you may want to review your reply from an hour ago

  • Jenn_

     Thanks. I have to say I find it funny (strange) that an inmate must tell the Minister when he is released. Like, don't they keep records of that sort of thing

  • Jenn_

    Thanks, Phil! Oh man, I must have been tired to just fire off an email reply. Sorry, Maclean's, for the unintended promo.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

    No problem if it was inadvertent promo stuff.

    I only mentioned it to cover off the 10% probability that you are living a secret double life that you wouldn't want to share here. ;-)

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

    Thanks, that is a valid point. Or it would be if I hadn't blown my own cover about two years ago. If you want to know who I am, you can find out. On the other hand, I don't have to make it any easier, do I?

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

    I suppose we will have to excuse you, as a Liberal, for your genuine belief that one branch of government can keep track of what it is doing itself, let alone keep track of what some other branch of government is up to.

    That was the snarky answer. A less snarky one would probably involve some mumbling about the government respecting its obligations towards the privacy of Canadians, etc., etc.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

    Yeah, the privacy angle occurred to me this morning. But I think that's a crock since I'm fairly sure everyone would give the prison permission to forward their name to the OAS guys in order to have their monthly stipend resumed. I mean, it would be a fairly simple procedure for each prison to print out a monthly list of who left their hospitality over the age of 65. But yes, sure, that would probably cost us a couple of thousand a year, in that strange way bureaucracy has of increasing the cost of anything. It does encroach slightly on the otherwise "universal" aspects of the thing (basically having to apply twice), although I can't find any energy to get upset about it.

    Note to self: do not respond to comments past bedtime!

Previous

Next

From Macleans