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 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.

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.

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

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.

C-38: What it is and where this is going

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 18, 2012 at 1:26 PM - 0 Comments

In this week’s print edition, I write about the budget bill and its various ramifications.

“The best thing for government is a budget that goes through unnoticed and unreported. And the worst thing is when a budget lingers,” says Brad Lavigne, a former adviser to Jack Layton, the late NDP leader. “Every day the NDP can keep the budget and what they’re trying to ram through, the policy changes in the budget bill, every day that they can keep that in the news, in front of Canadians, is a good day for the Opposition and a bad day for the government.” The public’s interest in parliamentary principles is demonstrably limited—after the Conservatives were found in contempt of Parliament last year, the electorate punished them with a majority—but issues like environmental regulation and employment insurance might play to the NDP’s goals of courting the 60 per cent of Canadians who aren’t inclined to vote for the Conservatives. “If Thomas Mulcair and the team are fighting for those issues, then those people will look to the NDP to be the non-Conservative alternative,” Lavigne says.

The budget bill is officially called the “Jobs, Growth and Long-term Prosperity Act” and on those terms the Conservatives are likely willing to continue debating. The most controversial aspects of the bill, those related to environmental assessment and resource development, might provide an opening for the NDP, but it might also set up an economic debate of the sort the Conservatives are willing to have. “I think the key debate is actually one that’s going to continue from now until the election, which is, what are we going to do about our energy resources here in Canada?” says Jason Lietaer, a Conservative strategist. “Are we going to use them and try to use them to be prosperous? Or are we going to take a different approach?”

OAS: Show your work

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, May 18, 2012 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

While the projected savings from raising the age of eligibility remain unexplained, the Parliamentary Budget Officer again says Old Age Security is currently sustainable and the Harper government is refusing to disclose a 2007 draft report into the policy implications of demographic changes.

In his March 20, 2007 budget, Flaherty promised to release a report later that year that would “provide a broad analysis of current and future demographic changes and the implication of these changes for Canada’s long-run economic and fiscal outlook.” … However, Flaherty did not release the report when he issued his fiscal and economic update on Oct. 30, 2007. Since then, it has never been clear what happened to the report.

Earlier this year, Postmedia News requested a copy of a draft or final version of the report. The department said it has three documents, totalling 211 pages, in its files. But the department refused to release them, citing sections in the Access to Information Act which allow the government to deny public release of information involving “advice or recommendations” to a minister, and materials involving cabinet confidences which are excluded from disclosure under the Act.

Line?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 1:54 PM - 0 Comments

Three cabinet ministers appeared, under debatable circumstances, this morning before the finance subcommittee studying C-38. Afterwards, Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield attempted to explain himself.

When asked when he first leaned that he would be appearing at the sub-committee, Mr. Ashfield replied: “I think it was the day before yesterday.” His aide interjected to say he was not sure. “I’m not sure,” the minister added.

C-38: What it means for health care

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 17, 2012 at 1:13 PM - 0 Comments

The New Democrats held their second hearing on C-38 this morning. Among those who made presentations was John Haggie, president of the Canadian Medical Association.

Below, the prepared text of his remarks.

Thank you for this opportunity to meet with you today. Bill C-38 covers a lot of ground and we welcome the occasion to discuss it.

Right at the outset, let me remind you that the Canadian Medical Association has a long tradition of staunch non-partisanship. Our mandate is to be the national advocate for the highest standards in health and health care.

In a bill as wide-ranging as this one, there is a great deal I could talk about. In the time allotted, however, I am going to frame my brief remarks around three themes… namely: First, what is very clearly in the bill; Second, what is lacking in the bill, and Third, what I would characterize as a general lack of clarity and consultation on certain aspects of the federal government’s actions on health care.

Continue…

Media speculation

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at 1:09 PM - 0 Comments

Appearing before the finance committee yesterday, the Finance Minister attempted to clarify what he’d “heard” about the savings created by changing the age of eligibility for Old Age Security.

Peggy Nash: The information for Canadians to be able to have this debate about these major changes is not available to people. You, yourself, yesterday said that you speculated the changes to OAS would mean a change of about $10 billion to $12 billion that seniors would not get. That’s what the savings would be.

Jim Flaherty: No, no, that’s not what I said. There was speculation—

Peggy Nash: You said that’s what the change would mean.

Jim Flaherty: There was speculation about those numbers by the media.

Peggy Nash: What are the numbers, then?

Jim Flaherty: In fact, there are no cuts to OAS in the budget, period.

Peggy Nash: What was the $10 billion to $12 billion?

Jim Flaherty: The media was speculating about later on, would there be any savings? As I told them, there are no cuts to OAS in the budget.

Peggy Nash: You said you had heard the $10 billion to $12 billion figure. What was that figure?

Jim Flaherty: I heard it from the media. That’s the figure they were using. They asked me about it.

‘We want to make sure the legislation gets through first’

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, May 16, 2012 at 8:30 AM - 0 Comments

In an interview with the CBC yesterday, Human Resources Minister Diane Finley was pressed again about what the government intends to do with the Employment Insurance powers provided for in the budget bill.

“We haven’t announced those details yet. We want to make sure the legislation gets through first.”

Later in the interview, she said “regulations have to be developed after legislation.”

The Commons: More than 400 pages and still short on details

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 15, 2012 at 6:16 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. For all of the budget bill’s pages and clauses—more than 400 of the former and more than 700 of the latter—opposition MPs seem strangely at a loss. So very many pages and yet still they cry out for more.

“Mr. Speaker, until now the Conservatives had refused to come clean on how much they plan to cut from old age security,” Thomas Mulcair reported this day as if reading the evening news. “Finally yesterday, when asked whether the Conservative cuts would take about $10 billion out of the pockets of Canadian seniors, the Minister of Finance said: ‘I’ve heard that number. I’ve heard $12 billion also, something in that area.’ ”

Staring across the aisle at one minister in particular, Mr. Mulcair moved for the quip. “I guess,” he said, “it is not just the Minister of Defence who has arithmetic problems.”

Peter MacKay nodded mockingly.

“Would the Prime Minister refresh the memory of his Minister of Finance,” Mr. Mulcair finally asked, “and table the full cost of his Old Age Security Cuts?”

The problem here was apparently one of wording. Continue…

Jim Flaherty’s philosophy of employment

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 15, 2012 at 12:18 PM - 0 Comments

While deferring to Human Resources Minister Diane Finley for further details of what the government plans to accomplish with its unexplained budget bill amendments to employment insurance, Jim Flaherty hints at new expectations for the unemployed.

“There’ll be a broader definition and people will have to engage more in the work force,” said Mr. Flaherty, who then pointed to his own résumé from his student days at Toronto’s Osgoode Hall Law School. “I was brought up in a certain way. There is no bad job. The only bad job is not having a job. So I drove a taxi. You know, I refereed hockey. You do what you have to do to make a living.”

Immigration Minister Jason Kenney offered similar sentiments last month.

The federal government wants to reduce disincentives to work and create a “greater connection” between the EI program and the temporary foreign worker program, Immigration Minister Jason Kenney told the National Post editorial board this week. ”If you don’t take available work, you don’t get EI,” he said. “That’s always been a legal principle of that program.”

Under the proposed reforms, unemployed Canadians who are receiving EI would be required to accept local jobs that are currently being filled by temporary foreign workers … ”Nova Scotia provincewide has 10 per cent unemployment, but the only way Christmas tree operators can function in the Annapolis Valley is to bring in Mexicans through this agricultural worker program,” Kenney told the National Post.

The budget bill includes a reference to “suitable employment,” but the definition of suitable has not yet been explained. More from the Star.

C-38: The NDP’s response

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, May 15, 2012 at 10:41 AM - 0 Comments

The official opposition has launched a three-part response to the budget bill, including public hearings in Ottawa and across the country, a website and a social media campaign. The first hearing will be tomorrow on Parliament Hill. Hearings in Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Regina and Vancouver. The New Democrats say these meetings will invite public comment, but also include those with expertise or connections to the area of public policy affected by the budget bill.

Sayeth Opposition House leader Nathan Cullen in the official news release: “If the Government won’t let us do our job in parliament then we have to take it outside.”

The official hashtag is apparently #harperbudget.

C-38 goes to committee

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, May 14, 2012 at 7:21 PM - 0 Comments

The budget bill has passed at second reading by a vote of 149-132.

It will now be studied by the finance committee, with a sub-committee of the finance committee assigned to study aspects of the bill related to environmental regulations.

The Commons: John Baird saves your family

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, May 14, 2012 at 6:56 PM - 0 Comments

The Scene. Thomas Mulcair challenged the government side to live up to the principles Stephen Harper once championed and so John Baird stood and claimed a different high road altogether.

“Mr. Speaker, this Prime Minister, this Minister of Finance and this government are focused like a laser on the economy,” he assured the House. “They are focused on economic growth, job creation and not on partisan games.”

The Foreign Affairs Minister proceeded then to lament that the NDP’s Peter Julian had spoken for too long in response to the Finance Minister’s budget speech.

A moment later, Bob Rae stood to review the budget bill one clause at a time. “Mr. Speaker, under these proposed budget changes, the Inspector General of CSIS will be gone,” he reviewed from a piece of paper he held in front of him. “The Centre for Rights and Democracy will be gone. The National Round Table on the Environment and the Economy will be gone. The First Nations Statistical Institute will be gone. The Governance Institute will be gone. The National Aboriginal Health Organization will be gone. The National Council of Welfare will be gone, environmental assessment will be gutted, Parks Canada will be gutted and old age security will be gutted.”

There was some degree of mumbling and grumbling from the government side. Mr. Rae proceeded to his point. “These are basic protections for Canadians. These are basic ways in which Canadians have rights and governments do not have all the rights,” he explained. “When will the government learn it is taking the wrong path?”

The question was rather rhetorical and the answer surpassed the question in this regard. Continue…

Tony Clement responds

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, May 14, 2012 at 1:10 PM - 0 Comments

To John McCallum’s challenge, the President of the Treasury Board tweets a citation.

Section 81(7) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Thx.

Section 81(7) reads in its entirety as follows.

(7)  When main estimates are referred to a standing committee, the committee shall also be empowered to consider and report upon the expenditure plans and priorities in future fiscal years of the departments and agencies whose main estimates are before it.

Mr. McCallum is unconvinced. Mr. Clement stands by his interpretation.

Challenging Tony Clement

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, May 14, 2012 at 11:31 AM - 0 Comments

Seemingly in response to a column by the Globe’s Barrie McKenna on the government’s reluctance to detail budget cuts, Liberal MP John McCallum challenges Tony Clement via Twitter.

Minister, could you please tell us which rule you believe prevents you from providing this info to the HoC.

The Parliamentary Budget Officer reported last week on his efforts to obtain information from 83 departments. At the time, Mr. Clement responded as follows.

There’s a process in place and the Parliamentary Budget Officer knows full well what the process is. We report to Parliament. We report to Parliament in quarterly reports, we report to Parliament in estimates, we report to Parliament in due course in reports on plans and priorities, consistent with parliamentary rules and requirements. So the fact of the matter is we also have an obligation to our employees, that we inform them first. So we’re being consistent with our collective agreements, we’re being consistent with the rules of Parliament. So when things are announced to employees, then of course that becomes public information and the parliamentary budget officer will have that information at that point.

C-38: The government’s arguments

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, May 14, 2012 at 8:45 AM - 0 Comments

Courtesy of YouTube, a selection of budget bill speeches from Conservative MPs.

Pierre Poilievre

James Bezan

Patrick Brown

More from Ray Boughen and James Lunney.