Standing in politics

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 25, 2012 at 4:04 PM - 0 Comments

This speech is a few months old—it was delivered in March—but it has only recently appeared online in video form (and I’ve been interested to find a recording of it since reading Joe Brean’s report in the Post). Michael Ignatieff begins speaking around the 3:40 mark.

See previously: ‘I didn’t get there’

C-38: Repealing the Fair Wages Act

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 25, 2012 at 3:18 PM - 0 Comments

Pat Martin is concerned about clause 441 of the budget bill.

One of the measures is so sneaky, says NDP MP Pat Martin, nobody seemed to notice the line buried deep in the 452-page Bill C-38 that simply states, “The Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act is repealed,” giving no explanation. With those 10 words, Ottawa intends to wipe out a 1985 law compelling contractors bidding on federal contracts to pay “fair wages” and overtime.

“I would have missed it and I’m from that industry. It was number 68 of 70 bills that they changed,” said Martin, a former journeyman carpenter and construction worker. Martin notes that unlike most measures in the budget bill, there was no prior discussion of the measure or even a signal such a change was contemplated. ”It’s a solution without a problem. The only conclusion I can come up with is that it’s a war on labour and the left. It’s what the Americans did with the right-to-work states and the end result is $8 or $9 an hour is now the average wage in places like North Carolina.”

The act is not referenced by name in the budget plan tabled by the Finance Minister in March. In an interview with As It Happens this week, Labour Minister Lisa Raitt was asked about repealing the legislation and dismissed the act as “unnecessary red tape.” Merit Canada has praised the move.

Mr. Martin addressed the change at length in the House here.

‘Wanton or officious intermeddling’

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 25, 2012 at 12:08 PM - 0 Comments

Under attack from the Conservative party, the Council of Canadians maintains its perspective.

Council of Canadians executive director Garry Neil joked the Tories let his group off relatively lightly. “Unlike the epithets thrown at their political opponents, we aren’t being accused of being Nazi sympathizers, or terrorists, or being on the side of the child pornographers,” he said.

See previously: Redo the election, What happened in Thunder Bay? and A study in voter suppression

‘Basic rights for all’

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 25, 2012 at 11:44 AM - 0 Comments

Foreign Affairs has posted the text of John Baird’s speech in Washington yesterday on the topic of religious freedom.

Canada has a tradition that some in our country seemed to forget during the latter half of the last century: a tradition of standing for freedom and fundamental rights, a tradition of standing against oppression. We did so in the earliest days of World War II … And yet, after the Second World War, some decision makers lost sight of our proud tradition to do what is right and just. Some decided it would be better to paint Canada as a so-called honest broker. I call it being afraid to take a clear position… even when that’s what’s needed.

So I’m proud to say Canada no longer simply “goes along to get along” in the conduct of its foreign policy. We will stand for what is principled and just, regardless of whether it is popular, convenient or expedient. We do so as part of our commitment to basic rights for all.

Laura Payton notes that the event was sponsored by a church that opposes same-sex marriage and “homosexual practices.” Four months ago, Mr. Baird championed gay rights in a speech in London.

However much the ideas of religious freedom and gay rights are actually in conflict, here is how Hillary Clinton reconciled the two in a speech last December. Continue…

Trying to make sense of the EI changes

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 25, 2012 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

Reaction to yesterday’s announcement from Windsor, Cape Breton, Regina and Prince Edward Island. Farmers and fishermen have questions and concerns. Nova Scotia Premier Darrell Dexter is unsure.

Elizabeth May recalls her own experience.

Ms. May said that from 1975 to 1980, she received what was then called unemployment insurance during the off-season while working as a waitress and cook at her family’s restaurant and gift shop business in Cape Breton, she says. Labelling regular users of EI, such as herself, as lazy or abusing the system is unfair, she said.

“I paid into employment insurance. When I needed it, I used it. When I didn’t, I didn’t. I raise my personal experience because I don’t think anyone should be ashamed that seasonal businesses in this country that are big, or small, have benefitted from a legal system of insurance that pays for itself.”

Frozen pizza economics

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 25, 2012 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments

Yesterday, the Harper government announced $12 million in funding for Dr. Oetker to help the German food processing company set up a frozen pizza factory in London, Ont. The Canadian Restaurant and Food Association, while also noting the effects of the supply management system, is displeased.

We create jobs and play a key role in the economy in every community across Canada.  We do this without handouts or special assistance from government.  Our members are deeply troubled that your government is using tax dollars, paid by our members, as a direct subsidy to their competitors who threaten their market share and ongoing businesses viability.  This is on top of the $7-million subsidy this same pizza manufacturer received from the Government of Ontario last year. 

Your government’s announcement today may be good news for this foreign-based multinational, but it is precisely the opposite for CRFA members.  They are asking why is your government so ready to give multi-million-dollar taxpayer handouts to their competitors, while a “Made in Canada” policy penalizes them. 

The Conservatives say the new plant will create over 300 jobs. (When the Ontario government made its announcement, the math was a bit different.) For 300 jobs, a $12-million investment works out to $40,000 per job.

Meanwhile, in Washington…

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 4:09 PM - 0 Comments

One of this month’s debates in Congress may sound familiar.

One casualty of the sweeping budget bill that passed the House on Thursday was an annual survey conducted by the Census Bureau, a rich source of data that social researchers say is critical to modern demography. The elimination of the American Community Survey from the bill surprised researchers, who say they depend on it for data on everything from race to migration and poverty. It is also critical to state and local governments, which use it to decide how to spend federal funds…

Congressman Daniel Webster, a Republican from Florida who voted to eliminate the survey, argued that it “tramples on personal privacy,” and that spending taxpayer dollars on it was “wasteful,” according to a statement provided by Kelly Kwas, a spokeswoman. The statement cited questions about how long it takes to get home from work, and whether the respondent needed help to go shopping.

Catherine Rampell explains the dispute. More from Matthew Yglesias and Business Insider. The Wall Street Journal is unimpressed.

In fact, the ACS provides some of the most accurate, objective and granular data about the economy and the American people, in something approaching real time. Ideally, Congress would use the information to make good decisions. Or economists and social scientists draw on the resource to offer better suggestions. Businesses also depend on the ACS’s county-by-county statistics to inform investment and hiring decisions. As the great Peter Drucker had it, you can’t manage or change what you don’t measure.

The ACS costs about $2.4 billion a decade, which is trivial compared with the growth it helps drive. National statistics are in some sense public goods, which is why the government has other data-gathering shops like the Bureaus of Economic Analysis and Labor Statistics. The House action is like blaming the bathroom scale for your recent weight gain.

The American Community Survey is what replaced the long-form census in the United States. (Two years ago, Ken Boessenkool and Jack Mintz invoked the ACS as an alternative to our long-form census.) If you’d like to recall the demise of Canada’s long-form census, you can review the back-and-forth here.

Explaining the new EI

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 3:06 PM - 0 Comments

The New Democrats and Liberals are displeased. Rona Ambrose attempts an easy-to-understand explanation.

New EI changes are like ‘E-Harmony’ for job seekers and employers: matching Cdns looking for work with available jobs, data, support.

During this morning’s news conference, Diane Finley was asked specifically about the ramifications for seasonal workers.

Reporter: How does this impact on seasonal workers … if you take a fish plant worker, for example, works six months for the season. Then there’s a job at McDonald’s available. It’s deemed similar in terms of working around the kitchen. What do they do? They work six months at the fish plant, go to McDonald’s, say to the employer I’m here for six months and then I’m back? So how does this impact seasonal workers?

Diane Finley: Well, this is going to impact everyone because what we want to do is make sure that the McDonald’s of the world aren’t having to bring in temporary foreign workers to do jobs that Canadians who are on EI have the skills to do. It’s about taking advantage of the labour and skills that we have in this country, putting them to productive use and doing it in such a way that the employers are better off but the employee and his or her family is always better off. And that’s why we’ve made other changes leading up to this announcement to make sure that the worker is always better off taking work that’s available than not. And also it means that that money is here in Canada and not going to outside workers unless absolutely necessary.

The Commons: Smiling Diane

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 2:52 PM - 0 Comments

Diane Finley entered the room smiling. The Human Resources Minister is seemingly a firm believer that—as the lyric goes—when you smile, the whole world smiles with you. Or at least that the whole world is less likely to hear what you’re saying as threatening. Furrowing of the brow is to be avoided. Bright eyes are the order of the day.

“Today, I’m pleased to announce improvements to employment insurance to make it work better for Canadians,” she said with a smile.

“Today,” she added a bit later, “I’m pleased to provide details on our plan.”

The centrepiece of this plan: more e-mails.

Canadians, it would seem, are apparently at a loss. Some are unaware of where to find work. Others do not realize that their skills match job openings in other industries. But soon, through the wonders of modern communication, the unemployed will be more deeply and frequently enlightened.

“Currently, Canadians receiving EI benefits are only sent three job alerts every two weeks. These alerts come from the job bank, which only has about 20% of the jobs that are available. And we believe that this must change. As I said, we must help Canadians who want to work get back to work,” Ms. Finley explained. “As part of our announcement, we will be sending job alerts twice a day to Canadians receiving EI. And the job alerts will come from many sources, including the job bank, but also from private sector sources.”

Some significant portion of the $21 million set aside for improving the EI system will be spent on these emails. Though presumably these new expenditures will be easily covered by the billions saved from consolidating the government’s computer systems. Perhaps the consolidated computer systems will even make sending these emails that much easier. Continue…

David Wilks clarifies himself

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 1:21 PM - 0 Comments

Before releasing his official statement yesterday, David Wilks apparently clarified himself to an audience in Cranbrook.

“I support the budget, I support what’s in the budget, and I believe we should move forward with it,” he said. However, he soon tempered that statement by saying he didn’t agree with every one of the 60 items in the 400-page document, referring to the duty-free limits specifically. ”I may not agree with everything in this book. I can say I don’t like the tax exemption, but it’s irrelevant because it’s in the book. Taking it out of here is not happening,” said Wilks.

He admitted that he had heard from the Prime Minister’s Office after making the comments in Revelstoke, which were captured by a reporter at the Revelstoke Times Review and by a spectator who recorded video of Wilks’s statements and posted it to YouTube. ”You may not agree with all the policies but you have to pick and choose your battles. This is one I choose not to pick,” he said.

And what of how Ottawa works?

“Ottawa is run by a ton of 20-something bureaucrats who know that in three years my term is up and they will still be there,” he said.

He explained to the gathered business owners that MPs are expected to vote as a party rather than as an individual. ”If you don’t vote the way the party votes, you will be an independent the next day,” said Wilks. ”When you tell me to vote against it, I can’t unless you want an independent MP.” He also said that he would quit rather than vote against the budget. ”We do things to piss off the NDP, and they do things to piss us off. Because it’s a bloodsport. Is it right? No, but that’s the way it is,” he said.

‘The deficiencies of the power structure’

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 11:35 AM - 0 Comments

One thing that might create greater independence for the likes of David Wilks is a relaxation of the confidence convention: the understanding by which a government is said to be defeated. On April 18, 1994, Daphne Jennings, a Reform MP, presented the following motion to the House.

That, in the opinion of the this House, the government should permit members of the House of Commons to fully represent their constituents’ views on the government’s legislative program and spending plans by adopting the position that the defeat of any government measure, including a spending measure, shall not automatically mean the defeat of the government unless followed by the adoption of a formal motion.

In her opening speech, she made a general appeal for greater independence and freedom in voting.

There is a feeling that if members are suddenly freed from party discipline there will be chaos with complete unpredictability in the system. Members will be voting every which way and Parliament will become unworkable and the country ungovernable. This is not where this motion leads at all. It simply recognizes that on occasion members without fear of retribution from party leadership may vote against the party line. The government will not fall. The sun will still rise in the east and I believe the interests of Canadians will be better served by their elected representatives. Is that not what we are all here to do, serve the Canadian public to the best of our abilities?

Enough about the content of my motion. Now I would like to deal with the history of this matter, a history which began long before most of us got here. It began with a feeling of dissatisfaction among the Canadian people which was detected by the Canadian Study of Parliamentary Group in a Gallup poll it commissioned in 1983. A question was asked as to how MPs should behave when voting. The response was that 49.5 per cent felt members should vote according to their own judgment. By way of contrast the view that the member should vote as the party wishes received very little support. The national average in the survey favouring the MP as party loyalists was only 7.9 per cent.

The motion was debated in the House over the ensuing weeks. And you’ll never guess who stood up to announce his full support for it.

We have suggested from time to time that the Prime Minister could rise and suggest to the House that there be the freedom to vote more freely. It is true, but in and of itself it is not adequate. It suggests that the Prime Minister possesses such power that he or she could simply determine whether or not votes were free and, that raises questions about whether votes really are free.

There are a number of mechanisms in other countries; the three line whips in Great Britain, the fact that political parliamentary parties are organized on a more bottom-up basis in countries like Australia. This allows a very different style of leadership to emerge whereby it is not just the formalities of practice that apply but there are real issues of diversity of power within political parties that give members greater say and a greater ability to represent their constituents, particularly where those conflict with more broad party interests that are not necessarily representative.

There is a lot I want to say on this issue of how we should examine the deficiencies of the power structure. Unfortunately, I do not have the time. I appreciate the Chair’s patience and I will terminate my remarks now.

The new EI

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 11:15 AM - 0 Comments

Diane Finley has just now explained how the government plans to reform employment insurance. The official news release and backgrounder is here.

Early reviews are in from the Globe.

The Conservative government unveiled a sweeping overhaul of Canada’s Employment Insurance system, creating three new tiers of job hunters that will most directly affect repeat users of the program. The new rules will mean less generous terms for frequent users of EI, while giving Canadians who rarely use the program more leeway to look for jobs in their field.

The Star.

Unemployed Canadians will face tougher requirements to hang on to their Employment Insurance benefits under a new crackdown by the Conservative government. The intent of the changes is to push unemployed Canadians off the insurance rolls and into the workforce, even if it means they must accept lower-paying jobs or work they might not want.

And the CBC.

The longer and more frequently someone is claiming employment insurance, the broader their job search will have to be and the lower the wages they must be willing to accept, according to proposed regulations outlined this morning.

The meaning of David Wilks

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

Sonya Bell draws five lessons.

Stephen Harper gives his backbenchers less face time than his soon-to-be-published hockey book — he reportedly worked on it 15 minutes every day. When asked about the opportunity to raise his concerns with his party and the prime minister, Wilks explained: “We can do that at national caucus, which is every Wednesday from 9:30 until noon. We have about a 10 minute period in which we can speak to the prime minister.”

Mr. Wilks’ 12 minutes in front of a video camera are remarkable: a fascinating little moment in our democracy.

As it pertains specifically to C-38, the situation is complicated. On the one hand, the case of Mr. Wilks raises a legitimate conundrum. A budget is so fundamental to a government that a government backbencher would certainly have to divorce himself from his caucus to vote against it. And if, this long after an election, a budget was defeated—if a sufficient number of government backbenchers voted against it or skipped the vote—the government would fall and we would proceed to an election. A vote on a budget bill is unlike a vote on almost any other bill.

But the House is not faced with merely a budget. Continue…

An explanation for EI?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 24, 2012 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments

Human Resources Minister Diane Finley has scheduled an announcement for 10:30 this morning at which she might explain what the government plans to do with employment insurance. In the meantime, Jason Kenney invokes the one-hour rule.

“I think the idea is, that within your own local community, within say an hour’s drive or so, if there are unemployed workers receiving EI and they’re not applying for jobs that are available at their skill level then there’s a mismatch,” he said, “And we want to solve that problem.”

David Wilks becomes a headline

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 5:18 PM - 0 Comments

As a result of this story and these videos, the Conservative backbencher gets noticed by the Globe, Star, CBC, Canadian Press, Postmedia and Global.

Bob Rae tweets.

David Wilks reflects a genuine and deep concern among Canadians – his recantation is canned and fake – the real voice should re-emerge.

Dan Arnold considers Mr. Wilks’ options.

If he truly supports the budget - as he now claims to do - he should have thanked his constituents for their feedback, said he’d consider what they said, then explained to them why he supported the budget.

If he truly opposes the budget - as he said he did yesterday - he should vote against it. Wilks is wrong when he says one MP can’t make a difference. John Nunziata and Bill Casey brought more attention to the budgets they opposed than they ever would have by meekly supporting them. Michael Chong’s opposition to the Quebec Nation resolution may have prevented Harper from going further down that road. I also like to think that the more acts of defiance we get, the more likely we are to see an attitudinal change in Ottawa that gives a greater say to individual MPs. Some may disagree with me, but I think that would be a welcome shift.

Bill Casey famously voted against the Conservative budget in 2007. After being ejected from the government caucus, he was reelected in 2008 by a larger margin. Mr. Casey though had a long history in his riding—he’d first been elected in 1988. Mr. Wilks was first elected last May.

Today’s generalities

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 2:03 PM - 0 Comments

Bernard Valcourt becomes the latest cabinet minister to try to explain what will come of the unexplained employment insurance reforms in the budget bill.

“I guess it is particular to each region. I mean, you know, I don’t think that it would be proper or it would be reasonable to expect someone from Fredericton or Saint John to commute to Moncton for a job daily,” Valcourt said. “You know it doesn’t make sense. So we’re talking communities and surrounding communities. What is reasonable? The details are not out yet.”

It’s about a two-hour drive from Fredericton or Saint John to Moncton.

Valcourt said he knows many people in the northwestern city of Edmundston, who commute about 30 minutes to St. Leonard for work. But he said he wouldn’t expect people to travel to Woodstock, which is about two hours south of Edmundston.

“It’s the custom and if the economic fact of life of the region is for people to work in their community and the surrounding communities. I don’t think it would be proper to force people to travel to other areas in the province to get a job,” he said. “There are hundreds of small- and medium-sized business be it in Fredericton or Moncton or Saint John as we speak that are looking for employees. i think what is aimed and the objective here is to connect those people that want to work with available jobs in their communities and the surrounding communities.”

See previously: Explaining EI and Help Wanted

‘I wish to clarify my position’

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 12:38 PM - 0 Comments

And now a statement from the office of David Wilks.

I wish to clarify my position with regard to Bill C-38, the Jobs, Growth and Long-Term Prosperity Act. I support this bill, and the jobs and growth measures that it will bring for Canadians in Kootenay-Columbia and right across the country … I look forward to supporting the bill and seeing it passed.

‘One MP is not going to make a difference’

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 11:57 AM - 0 Comments

Here is video of Conservative MP David Wilks speaking with his constituents about the budget bill and “how Ottawa works.”

David Wilks Maverick Watch

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 11:34 AM - 0 Comments

The Conservative backbencher is sort of maybe willing to vote against the budget bill.

Kootenay-Columbia MP David Wilks said he will vote against the Conservative government’s omnibus budget bill, but only if 12 other government MPs vote with him. ”I will stand up and say the Harper government should get rid of Bill C-38,” he told a gathering of about 30 constituents at the Best Western Hotel in Revelstoke Tuesday morning.

However, he added that he alone couldn’t stop the bill and 12 other Conservative MPs would have to vote against the government bill with him for him to do so. And that, has zero chance of happening, he said after the meeting.

Mr. Wilks spoke in support of the budget two weeks ago.

Back to work

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 11:13 AM - 0 Comments

Labour Minister Lisa Raitt is threatening back-to-work legislation if Canadian Pacific and its workers can’t come to some agreement by next week when the House reconvenes.

If such legislation makes it to the floor of the House, it would be the sixth such bill—and fourth in the last two years—that the Conservatives have introduced since forming government in 2006. For the sake of comparison, the House saw nine back-to-work bills in the 1990s, six in the 80s, 10 in the 70s, four in the 60s and two in the 50s.

Here is what I wrote about the Harper government, the NDP opposition and labour unrest last October.

Spending, cutting, voting and chicken analogies

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

The Agenda convenes a panel—including Brian Topp—to discuss austerity and democracy.

The quiet cuts

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 23, 2012 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments

Scientists are upset that the Experimental Lakes Area program will be cut. The benefits for RCMP officers will change. Lower Fort Garry will lose costumed interpreters. Funding for regional development groups in Atlantic Canada will be eliminated. Scientists within the Department of Fisheries might be laid off.

Meanwhile, CMA president John Haggie talks to Postmedia about his speech to an NDP hearing last week.

“Ideally, I would like to think my oratory would spur the government to change its direction and reconsider and perhaps alter its approach,” he said. ”Realistically speaking, the other alternative is to mobilize everybody else on the basis that at some point, even if it comes to the ballot box in 2015, they will have to listen on the issue of the federal role in health care.”

See previously: The quiet cuts

Unanimous agreement, at least in principle

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 5:23 PM - 0 Comments

As noted earlier today, Thomas Mulcair is keen on the principle of “polluter pay.” In principle, he is not alone.

Stephen Harper, February 7, 2007. Mr. Speaker, this government is clear: our system will be based on the principle that the polluter will pay.

Stephen Harper, February 8, 2007. We will continue to pursue the principle of polluter-pay.

Stephen Harper, February 21, 2007.  We think the basis of regulation of greenhouse gases and air pollution should be the polluter pay principle, and this will be the basis of the plans we bring forward.

Stephen Harper, June 11, 2007. We are also committed to respecting the polluter pay principle. This principle is part of our plan.

John Baird, June 19, 2007. We believe in the fundamental principle that the polluter pays…

John Baird, March 11, 2008. Mr. Speaker, polluter pays is one of the principles of our plan.

John Baird, May 5, 2010. Mr. Speaker, this government has two important tenets with respect to its environmental policies: first, we support strong and effective environmental legislation that protects the great country that we know as Canada; and second, this government strongly supports a polluter pays principle. Those have been the hallmarks of our policies.

Explaining EI

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 22, 2012 at 2:12 PM - 0 Comments

Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield attempts to explain what the Harper government’s unspecified EI reforms will mean.

Ashfield said people will no longer be able to turn down job opportunities within an hour’s drive if they expect to collect benefits. “It’s not to force people to go to Alberta, it’s not to force people to, you know, drive for four hours, or move away from their home community. That’s not the intent at all,” Ashfield said.

Alas, Mr. Ashfield may have again been speaking without first checking with his assistant.

Setting a clear geographical rule of a one hour’s drive would bring clarity to one of the most debated and subjective section of the current EI rules. However Conservative officials told the Globe and Mail that the minister was only speaking in general terms to make the point that Canadians on EI will not be expected to move.

John Ivison still seems to think an hour commute will be the rule.