Ignatieff's shrinking ambition

By Paul Wells - Friday, October 8, 2010 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments

Chris Wattie/Reuters

“Have you seen our home care package? It’s being unveiled as we speak,” a Liberal party guy told me outside a Starbucks in downtown Ottawa. He showed me his BlackBerry, which was displaying something official-looking. “Focus groups are jumping up and down over this.”

That wasn’t hard to believe. That morning in Gatineau, Michael Ignatieff had announced a $1-billion program to help people care for aging relatives at home. More and more of us have aging relatives, so the Liberal plan addresses a real concern. The Liberal plan would use Employment Insurance to give caregivers half a year off work with modest pay. That’s the way parental leave benefits already work. Another element in the program would pay a tax benefit of up to $1,350 a year to people providing home care. That’s how the Canada Child Tax Benefit works.

So: a program designed to address a perceptible need in an aging society. Proven delivery mechanisms. Modest cost. (No, really: on $280 billion in program spending, $1 billion is modest. It cost a lot more than that to hold a summit meeting in Toronto this summer.)

Continue…

Idea alert

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 5, 2010 at 11:47 AM - 0 Comments

Michael Ignatieff proposes new home care benefits.

At present, home-care providers in Canada can only obtain six weeks of EI benefits—and only then if they can prove that the person in their care is expected to die within 26 weeks. Liberals say that if they’re elected, those benefits will be expanded to six months and the terminally-ill condition will be removed … Liberals estimate that about 30,000 people in Canada will take advantage of their proposed improvements to EI benefits, compared to approximately 5,000 who are now using the six-week provision to stay at home with ailing relatives … The cost of expanding these EI benefits would be about $250-million a year, Liberals say.

At a cost to the federal treasury of about $750-million a year, Liberals are proposing to send monthly cheques, totaling up to a maximum of $1,350 a year, for people who are caring for sick or elderly relatives at home. As many as 600,000 people could be eligible for these cheques, Liberals estimate.

The Commons: Does anyone here know how to balance a cheque book?

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, May 13, 2010 at 6:05 PM - 58 Comments

The Scene. Bob Rae opened this afternoon’s session with a vigorous display, lecturing the government on the need to reconcile environmental and economic policy and even thumping his desk with his right hand—his flare seemed to ignite a certain passion on all sides. So this last afternoon before a blessed break week was full of vim, most notably on the matter of our overdrawn national bank account.

“Mr. Speaker, it is the wrong choice to cut taxes for the largest and wealthiest corporations while the global economy remains fragile,” Bonnie Crombie cried from the back row of the Liberal side. “It is the wrong choice to cut taxes for the largest and wealthiest corporations while a debt crisis rages in Europe. It is the wrong choice to cut taxes for the largest and wealthiest corporations when markets fluctuate at the drop of a hat. Why does the government plan to borrow money and mortgage our children’s future to pay for its reckless corporate tax cuts?”

The Finance Minister did not have an answer for this one, but he did have aspersions (and in this place that’ll do). Continue…

A Charter case over EI benefits

By Colby Cosh - Thursday, May 6, 2010 at 11:20 AM - 22 Comments

Getty Images

In 2007, Sabrina Prokopiuk, 32, was laid off for four months from the Gap in Winnipeg’s Polo Park Shopping Centre while the store underwent renovations. Prokopiuk, who has Down’s syndrome, had worked at the store tidying changing rooms since November 1999. As far as her bosses were concerned, she was like any other employee. But when it came to collecting Employment Insurance, her Down’s had left her at a small disadvantage.

Prokopiuk had only been able to work 574 hours in the 12 months before the store went into mothballs. In Corner Brook, Nfld., or some other place with high unemployment, that would have qualified her easily for EI benefits. In Manitoba, it wasn’t quite enough; she needed 700. Manitoba’s Public Interest Law Centre is helping Prokopiuk appeal that EI board decision on the basis of the anti-discrimination provisions in the Charter of Rights. They have filed a memorandum with the Federal Court, which will designate an umpire to hear her Charter case, probably this fall or next spring.

Continue…

'Hold to clarify my amended response is the one I want used no figures'

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, March 29, 2010 at 1:37 PM - 7 Comments

Ministerial aide Ryan Sparrow helpfully suggests a new slogan for the next Conservative re-election campaign.

Bureaucrats calculated the value of the advertising campaign and prepared an answer the same day. Before making it public, however, they consulted Mr. Sparrow and other political officials on the proposed response. “The ad appeared on national networks, aboriginal and ethnic networks. The total TV media buy was approx $4,536,000. The Olympics package had a net cost of $1,849,829.00,” the chief of media relations, Patricia Valladao, said in an e-mail to Mr. Sparrow and two other ministerial aides, Michelle Bakos and Ana Curic.

Mr. Sparrow answered by telling the bureaucrats to “amend the response,” to simply say: “One 30-second TV ad was created in support of Canada’s Economic Action Plan. The ad started running the week of January 18th and will end with the Olympics. The ad highlights key government programs available to Canadians who have been affected by the economic downturn: extended EI benefits, retraining opportunities, apprenticeship grants and self employed EI benefits.”

Hard right? Hardly

By Andrew Coyne - Monday, March 22, 2010 at 7:28 PM - 115 Comments

Just so we’re clear: I don’t really care whether the Harper government conforms to one definition of conservatism or another. Neither do I carry any brief for conservatism, as such, though I might hold conservative views on specific issues. When I say that conservatism is dead in Canada, I am not mourning or despairing. I am merely stating a fact.

The reason that’s worth stating is that there is a party that continues to carry on as if it were conservative, though it conforms to no known definition of the word. And all right, yes, I’d prefer that people should be who they say they are and do what they say they will do, and that things should be called what they are and not what they are not.

So I suppose in that sense I should be delighted to find, via my friend Paul Wells, that I’ve got it all wrong: that the Conservatives are in fact robustly, unabashedly conservative, that indeed conservatism is “on the march across Canada.” Why, it’s the biggest swing to the right in “half a century.” It’s Harper’s hard right turn.

This is contrarian analysis at its finest. Under the Conservatives, spending, which conservatives once promised to cut, has been growing at a rate of 8 per cent a year. The budget, which conservatives once aimed to balance, is now in deficit to the tune of $54-billion, with literally no end in sight. Corporate subsidies, which conservatives once vowed to eliminate, continue to be doled out by the billions every year; much of the auto industry has been nationalized; the number of regional development agencies has increased by one. Conservative MPs now run around the country boasting of the pork they are bringing home to their ridings, complete with novelty-cheque signing ceremonies.

The top marginal rate of income tax remains where it was a generation ago, while the tax system has been further complicated with the addition of a slew of special credits for children’s sports, transit passes and other good causes. Employment Insurance has been larded up with supplementary payments that make a return to insurance principles more remote than ever. The Canada Pension Plan has been allowed to swell to Caisse de Depot-like dimensions. The great statist vehicles of the 20th century — Canada Post, Via Rail, the CBC — likewise continue to stalk the land, subsidies and privileges intact, while private oligopolies in air travel, finance and telecommunications remain largely protected from foreign competition. All were once the objects of conservative reform efforts. No longer.

The political reforms that were the bedrock of democratic conservatism in the age of the Reform party, aimed at giving more power to ordinary MPs and, via referendums, to the citizens at large, are now but a memory, replaced by a PMO whose all-controlling zeal exceeds even previous records. The philosophy that distinguished the conservative approach to constitutional matters — decentralizing power to the provinces, commitment to the equality of provinces and citizens — has been replaced by massive increases in transfers to the provinces generally and a raft of special concessions — powers, money, an ill-defined “national” status — to Quebec.

But that is to look at the matter through the narrow lens of fiscal, economic, democratic and constitutional conservatism. Rather than obsessing on such arcane matters — you know, the whole size and role of government thing — friend Wells encourages us to see the glass as socially full. Because even as it was giving ground on every one of all those other fronts, the government has been delivering for social conservatism. Why, “look at the victories” social conservatives have won, Wells suggests, “in just the past few months.” Yes, let’s.

Continue…

BUDGET 2010: The unemployed, youth, and families

By Philippe Gohier - Thursday, March 4, 2010 at 4:45 PM - 2 Comments

Ottawa plans to lean on changes to the Employment Insurance system to help Canadians cope with a job market that remains tough in several sectors. The government most notably expects manufacturing job losses to keep mounting, albeit at a slower pace, due to weak U.S. demand and the rise of the Canadian dollar. So in addition to previously announced reforms that extended the length of time unemployed Canadians could remain on EI by five weeks, the government is now expanding its work-sharing program, at a projected cost of $106 million over the next two years.

Under the work-sharing program, employees whose workweeks have been cut are entitled to collect EI payments to make up the shortfall in income. Thursday’s budget extends the amount of time individuals can take part in the program to 78 weeks from the previous maximum of 52 weeks. The move is a temporary one, though, and will be eliminated on March 31, 2011. The government estimates its combined EI-related measures will create or maintain 24,000 jobs by then end of 2010, at a cost of $2.7 billion over two years.

Thursday’s budget will also facilitate access to EI for workers who take a leave of absence from work after losing a family member as a result of a crime. The cost of the program is pegged at $6.6 million over two years.

Investments targeted at youth job creation include a one-time contribution of $10 million to the Canadian Youth Business Foundation aimed at young entrepreneurs, and $30 million to encourage businesses to hire recent college and university graduates. At-risk youth will benefit from an extra $30-million committed to skills development programs.

Meanwhile, single parents of children under six can expect to see their tax bill cut thanks to changes in the way $100 per month Universal Child Care Benefit is taxed. Under the current system, the benefit is added to a single parent’s income and taxed at their marginal tax rate, meaning single-income two-parent families, who are allowed to add the benefit to a non-working parent’s income, may pay less tax than their single-parent counterparts on identical UCCB payments. Ottawa now plans to allow single parents to add the income from the UCCB to that of their child, effectively eliminating the tax on UCCB. The change is expected to cost the government $5 million a year.

After much public deliberation over the value of Canada’s Own the Podium Olympic program during the Vancouver Games, the federal government has announced it will top up funding for elite athletes by $44 million over two years. The new funding is part of an overall boost to federal sports programs, such ParticipACTION and the Paralympics and Special Olympics, worth $62 million over two years.

While increases to benefits for families, youth and the unemployed are meager, they appear to be safe from the government chopping block. The budget includes an unequivocal pledge not to cut them in the future. The federal deficit fighting plan, the budget documents promise, will include no cuts to “major transfers to persons” nor will it feature cuts to transfers to other levels of government.

'Dear Minister Flaherty'

By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, February 16, 2010 at 3:06 PM - 22 Comments

The NDP files its suggestions with the Finance Minister, including pension reform, EI reform, municipal funding, an extension to the home renovation tax credit and a repeal of planned corporate tax cuts.

In addition to job creation measures, the Government must address the looming structural deficit, as identified by Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page. The deficit was caused, in part, by previous reckless reductions in corporate income tax rates. Like most Canadians, New Democrats recognize that in the long term, we cannot spend more than we collect. Yet your government has not only attempted to deny the existence of the structural deficit, it has aggravated the imbalance by reducing revenues despite the absence of any evidence that those tax savings have led to investments in jobs for Canadians. Your unbalanced corporate tax policy is exacerbating our overreliance on oil extraction, and contributing to a high dollar, which in turn hampers job creation and exports in the value-added sectors of manufacturing, forestry, aerospace and others. We propose that you announce the government will not proceed with additional cuts to the corporate tax rate in 2011 and 2012.

The Commons: Jack Layton doing as Jack Layton does

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, February 8, 2010 at 5:01 PM - 24 Comments

It was perhaps a bit odd that Jack Layton’s disclosure last week that he has been diagnosed with prostate cancer would be cause for consideration of his political career and public life to date. He is by no means doomed and is entirely likely to make a full recovery. But perhaps we in this culture crave any opportunity to pause for reflection.

As it is, Mr. Layton seems more inclined to carry on, showing up this afternoon to explain how and why the next session of Parliament should be dedicated, sort of like the Titanic, to putting “women and children first.” Here was Jack Layton as he is, and seemingly as he always has been: insistent and demanding and righteous and demanding, for the most part, to be greeted without irony. Continue…

A labour economist, a bureaucrat and a cabinet minister walk into a room … – Liveblogging the EI reform bill at HUMA

By kadyomalley - Thursday, October 8, 2009 at 3:36 PM - 11 Comments

It’s no blue-ribbon panel, but at least they’ll let us watch, right? Join ITQ as she liveblogs the gang over at Human Resources, where they’re about to kick off what could be a short and sweet — well, short, at least — review of the government’s proposal to tweak the employment insurance system to provide a few more weeks of coverage for long-term workers. On the witness list today is the minister herself, as well as Canadian Labour Congress president Ken Georgetti, United Steelworkers economist Erin Weir and Rosalie Washington.

Check back at 3:30 pm for all the action.

3:20:30 PM
Good afternoon, committeephiles, and welcome to what is, ITQ has just been informed, the *second* meeting on the EI bill. The minister is here, surrounded by the usual throng of serious-faced officials, as is her erstwhile fellow blue-ribbon panelist Mike Savage, who will be leading the charge for the Liberals. Also up for the red team: Maria Minna and Raymond Folco; Yves Lessard and Josee Beaudoin are here for the Bloc Quebecois, and Yves Godin – of course – for the NDP. As for the government — well, just as ITQ was about to do a nameplate check, the chair gaveled down, so that may have to wait for a minute or two so she doesn’t miss a second of the minister’s scintillating testimony.

3:30:57 PM
Okay, maybe “scintillating” isn’t quite the right word. Honestly, all she really has to do is recap the press release, but she has ten minutes to do so, and ITQ has every confidence that she’ll not only rise to the occasion, but work in at least one reference to the Economic Action! Plan, and possibly a warning to the opposition against bringing on that Unwanted Fall Election.

Continue…

The Commons: A difference of realities

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, October 7, 2009 at 6:24 PM - 46 Comments

The Scene. Michael Ignatieff stood and, perhaps feeling a bit parched, took a sip of water. Putting down his glass, he proceeded with his supposition.

The Prime Minister, the Liberal leader said, was planning to increase employment insurance premiums. This, he said, will deter employers from hiring. And this, he explained, would add to the tax burden. Across the way, Conservative MP Dean Del Mastro was loudly displeased.

“Will the Prime Minister admit,” Mr. Ignatieff finished, “that he is raising taxes and that tax increases will kill jobs?”

Shaking his head and shrugging, the Prime Minister stood with his version of events.

“Mr. Speaker, on the contrary,” he said, “this government has frozen premiums for employment insurance for this year and next. In the long term, these rates are determined by an independent commission.”

Mr. Ignatieff listened to this response, then stood with a conclusion.

“Mr. Speaker,” he explained, “this means that ‘Yes, we’ll raise taxes.’” Continue…

It's not about him, but now that you mention it…

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, September 28, 2009 at 1:26 PM - 9 Comments

I try again to explain Jack Layton.

This seemed a terrible day for the leader of the NDP. But if you were thinking Jack Layton had just turned himself inside out, that the unrelenting opponent of this government had just debased himself for the purposes of political expediency, you would be wrong. At least so says the NDP.

“Canadians are fair-minded and want their politicians to use common sense,” Brad Lavigne, the party’s national director, said over coffee a few hours after the vote. “And what you’ve seen is probably Jack Layton’s best week of his leadership.”

Really? “Absolutely,” Lavigne confirmed. “I’d say it’s one of his best weeks by far. In terms of seizing the opportunity, sticking to the principles, recognizing that it actually takes strength to get things for the people that sent us here. I think what Jack Layton has done this week is give a voice to the millions of Canadians who want to see this Parliament work and don’t want to go to an election.”

It's not me, it's you

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, September 28, 2009 at 10:27 AM - 22 Comments

Jack Layton tries again to explain himself.

In the end, as we debated whether we would support the $1 billion for the unemployed or give Harper the election only he and Ignatieff seem to crave, I kept coming back to the faces of the many people I’ve met who asked me to help them. For them, the financial support will make a big difference.

I feel anguish right now, but it has nothing to do with the criticism that has been levelled at us. No, it is that we haven’t been able to help more hard-working Canadians who are in need. It’s going to be a hard, hard winter for far too many of them.

'The choice before New Democrats is simple'

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, September 21, 2009 at 11:07 AM - 38 Comments

Jack Layton explains himself.

This new reform falls far short in many ways. It doesn’t cut waiting periods, increase benefits or create uniform access across the country. We are under no illusions that this bill fixes the major problems in the EI system. We will continue to work for further changes to EI. In fact, we have a dozen proposed laws before the House that would improve other elements of the existing system.

But my party cannot, in good conscience, vote down legislation that is a step in the right direction.

Mind trap of the day

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, September 17, 2009 at 4:33 PM - 38 Comments

From Question Period this afternoon.

Hon. John McCallum (Markham—Unionville, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the finance minister. Does the increase in employment insurance premiums beginning in 2011 constitute a tax increase, yes or no?

Mr. Ted Menzies (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance, CPC): Mr. Speaker, the simple answer to that is no. Let me remind Canadians what happened to the notional surplus that was in the EI fund years ago. It is gone. Those people who paid into it never got it back. We provided an arm’s-length board to manage that, so that can never happen again.

UPDATED AGAIN: Hark! Is that the rare, sweet sound of parliament working?

By kadyomalley - Thursday, September 17, 2009 at 2:38 PM - 100 Comments

According to the Globe and Mail, peace may be about to break out in the House of Commons:

The four parties in the House of Commons are nearing a deal to fast track the government’s new employment-insurance legislation and put it to its first vote as early as Friday.

Government House Leader Jay Hill invited his Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québécois counterparts to a closed door meeting just after noon to discuss the government bill, which was officially introduced in the House of Commons Wednesday afternoon.

The Liberals announced Thursday morning that they are offering to pass the bill quickly, in the hope of taking away the NDP’s stated reason for keeping the Conservatives in office for the short term.

“We don’t want to give Mr. Layton any alibis,” Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said.

Following the meeting, NDP House Leader Libby Davies told The Globe and Mail that all sides are close to a deal and that negotiations are expected to continue throughout the day. [...]

Will the much-anticipated EI reform bill make it through the House in time to allow the NDP to vote its conscience on the next confidence motion to come before the House? Tune in later today to find out!

UPDATE: No deal — yet. During his traditional response to the Thursday question, Jay Hill told the House that he had called a meeting of house leaders following the motions from the Liberals and the Bloc Quebecois earlier today, and had been “hopeful” that they would have worked something out by now, but “one of the parties” is still looking at the offer currently on the table, which would send the bill to committee by Friday afternoon.

WHEELS-WITHIN-WHEELS-UPDATE:

Okay. so here’s what I was able to glean from a brief post-QP foray to the foyer: The party holding up the deal to finish up with second reading by tomorrow afternoon is …. drum roll … the Bloc Quebecois! No, Duceppe hasn’t suddenly been seized with a case of the electoral vapors; it may actually be a very clever move.

If the bill goes to committee next week,  the Bloc can issue an open invite to Quebec union leaders to come forth and voice their near universal outrage over the paucity of the proposed measures, thus fortifying the party against any future accusation that they failed to stand up for unemployed Quebeckers  — and since the House wasn’t scheduled to sit anyway, it’s not like it would drag out the process; the bill could, in theory, be reported back the following Monday, and make it through third reading by Wednesday afternoon, make a brief stop in the Other Place for a sober second look, and be primed and ready for Royal Assent by the end of the week.

Depending on when the government tables the final stimulus update — which has to happen sometime during the week of September 28th, according to the June agreement — that could, in theory, allow the NDP to vote against the government when the Liberal confidence motion drops two days later.

Joe Comartin's straight-talk express

By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, September 17, 2009 at 10:48 AM - 11 Comments

The NDP MP does not sound particularly enthused about the government’s EI legislation.

Windsor-Tecumseh MP Joe Comartin says an Employment Insurance bill tabled by the Conservative government Wednesday doesn’t live up to the way it was characterized by the human resources minister. ”I guess my initial reaction is what’s not in it,” said Comartin of the bill, which was tabled in the House of Commons at around 3:30 p.m. after parliament was disrupted by an anti-seal hunt protest. ”We just don’t see how they claim it will cost $900 million and benefit 190,000 people.”

The Commons: And that's when the nuns started yelling

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 at 7:53 PM - 47 Comments

The Scene. Dominic LeBlanc was speaking in his grand stage voice, the sound of his second question filling the chamber, when the shouting started.

In the first row of the north visitors’ gallery, three nuns, or at least three women clad in the outfits of nuns, were chanting something unsavoury about the seal hunt, each holding a banner that read “The Seal Slaughter is a Bad Habit.” Get it?

The Speaker called for a pause in proceedings and all turned to gape at the spectacle. While security officers struggled to contain the invaders, Conservative Steve Blaney stood and held aloft a binder, apparently wrapped in seal skin. MPs stood to applaud their colleague’s brave choice of office supplies. Liberal Gerry Byrne crossed the floor to happily shake Blaney’s hand.

Security eventually gained control of the situation—the nuns handcuffed and carried away, each still yelping their protests as they were shown the door—and the Speaker called on LeBlanc to continue his casting of aspersions on government efforts to ease trade between Canada and the United States.

It has only been three days and already it has been a fine first week back for our 40th Parliament. Continue…

Ten months in the life of Thomas Mulcair

By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, September 16, 2009 at 1:46 PM - 17 Comments

January 28. The budget we saw yesterday is a fiction, and again we will see the Liberals complicit in it over the next few months. This will make 45 times that they have voted in favour of the Conservatives and expressed confidence in them. We are entering the fourth year in which the neo-Conservatives, the most right-wing government in Canadian history, have been kept in power by a party with the word Liberal in its name. I can, however, assure the members of one thing: the people who voted Liberal last time, thinking—wrongly, as it turns out—that the party would actually stand up to the current Prime Minister, were all mistaken. Now these people have realized that they were conned. We, the members of the NDP, are calling on all those who wish to build a better country. We are urging them to join us, to work with us if they want to see a fairer, more egalitarian society when it comes to women’s rights.

Today. The NDP say they will vote to prop up the Conservative government this week and for some time – probably through the fall – if the Harper government follows through on promises to expand employment-insurance benefits. The New Democrats deputy leader, Thomas Mulcair, expressed his party’s inclination to keep Stephen Harper’s government alive until the employment-insurance money flows.

Making Parliament Work. Maybe.

By Aaron Wherry - Monday, September 14, 2009 at 3:40 PM - 41 Comments

A rough account of Jack Layton’s statement to reporters after Question Period today.

There are now 1.6 million unemployed in Canada. And unfortunately throughout this coming winter many more Canadians will lose their jobs. Most economists agree that the job losses will continue until at least next spring. Those people need help.

I spent the summer visiting ridings across the country. I met many people who had lost their jobs. I heard their stories about how badly they need help. Many of them are coming to the end of their benefits and are going to end up on welfare. Those people are counting on us.

The announcement today appears to be a step in the right direction. There is much more to be done. More workers to help out.

Our preference remains fighting for the unemployed – not fighting a second election within the year. But make no mistake: we have no intention of giving this government a blank cheque, like Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals did.

We will be studying the bill and considering it very seriously. We will evaluate this initiative on its merits, and we’ll do the same with every anything else they bring forward.

Thank you.

Who’s hit hardest by the recession: young workers or the old?

By Rachel Mendleson - Monday, September 14, 2009 at 2:40 PM - 15 Comments

Teaching has never held the promise of riches, but it’s always been thought of as a safe career choice—and with good reason. Aside from full benefits and an enviable pension, it’s a profession with a built-in foot in the door: the supply list. For young teachers awaiting a long-term contract, substitute teaching is a way to cut your teeth, and pay the bills. Or at least it used to be. These days an influx of retirees on the supply rolls—baby boomers supplementing their pensions with part-time work—means that new grads are increasingly competing with veterans. The invasion of so-called “double-dippers” has created a palpable resentment among new teachers, says Barry Weisleder, spokesman for the Toronto Substitute Teachers’ Action Caucus. “They might get their name on the list, but they’re not going to be called for months, if ever,” he says. In Burnaby, B.C., the teachers’ association president Marianne Neill observed last year that thanks to fewer calls*, “some of our members are living in poverty. But I don’t believe retired teachers are to blame, and I question anyone who would draw that conclusion.”

Their circumstances may be unique, but new teachers are not the only ones with an axe to grind. This summer, average unemployment for students aged 15 to 24 hit nearly 20 per cent—the second-highest rate since 1977, when Statistics Canada first began collecting comparable data. And many of those who managed to obtain entry-level positions before the crash have since been shown the door: this June, the year-over-year increase in the number of youths receiving Employment Insurance reached a staggering 108 per cent. At the same time, those aged 55 and over are entering the workforce with renewed vigour: while the economy bottomed out, these older workers saw an increase in employment of five per cent. And it’s not going to change soon: a recent Pew Research Center study showed that from 2006 to 2016, workers over the age of 55 will account for a stunning 93 per cent of labour force growth in the U.S. And the Center for Work-Life Policy now reports that 47 per cent of American boomers see themselves as being “mid-career.”

Continue…

Not a deal, just a meeting of minds

By Andrew Coyne - Friday, September 11, 2009 at 8:41 PM - 141 Comments

The plot thickens…

Tories to boost long-term worker benefits

The federal Conservatives are set to introduce employment insurance enhancements that could change the treatment of severance packages and help laid-off long-term workers find jobs more quickly, The Canadian Press has learned.

Human Resources Minister Diane Finley is expected to table new measures as early as next week, with a package designed to undermine the Liberals’ pre-election campaign to reform EI and burnish the Tory image of being good economic managers.

The Conservatives are eyeing measures that would stop the treatment of severance packages as earnings; extend benefits for those who have paid into the EI system for years; or offer “wage insurance” — a topping-up of benefits for laid-off workers who are reluctant to take a new lower-paid job.

Moving expenses are also in play, in the hope of helping unemployed people relocate easily to find work. Maternity and paternity benefits for self-employed workers have also been under consideration.

Never mind the Liberals. Surely the more interesting question is: how does the NDP react? Conventional wisdom has it that the NDP couldn’t possibly prop up the Tories, having famously voted against them 79 times — and that the Tories couldn’t make a pitch for their support, because that would undermine their campaign against the putative Liberal coalition with the “socialists and separatists.” Besides, didn’t both leaders rule out any “back-room deals”?

So okay, it’s not a deal: it’s just a package of reforms to EI. A package that the NDP would have a hard time voting against. You know, what with the recession and all. It’s not like they’d be supporting the Tories. Just doing what’s right for working families.

UPDATE:

Sources told the CBC the measures are being introduced to woo the NDP in advance of a possible confidence vote. NDP Leader Jack Layton has signalled his party is prepared to work with the Conservatives if Prime Minister Stephen Harper is prepared to compromise…

A senior NDP official told CBC News the party would look closely at the Conservative proposals.

“There needs to be substance behind the EI improvements for NDP support,” the official said. “The unemployed need real help and they need it now. NDP bills and motions on EI point the way to what needs to be done.”

But remember: no deals.

UPPERDATE:

NDP Leader Jack Layton says he doesn’t believe an election is inevitable, despite speculation that a non-confidence vote next week could topple the Conservative government…

Layton said Saturday he would prefer that the parties work together on Employment Insurance reform, a job-creation plan, help for the elderly and consumer protections.

“We’ll side with the Canadian people, that’s who we’ll side with,” Layton told CTV News Channel. “And I guess I’m looking for results for Canadians. And I’m not ready to say that an election is somehow inevitable. We should be trying to make Parliament work.”

Layton called on the party leaders to “put some of these partisan considerations — the focus on how many seats you’ve got, how large your caucus is, and so on — aside and instead get results for people that are in need.”

Freud much?

Pollyanna

By Aaron Wherry - Saturday, September 5, 2009 at 11:56 AM - 32 Comments

Silly Michael Ignatieff, still believing in people and things.

Still, insiders say, Mr. Ignatieff initially wanted to trust Mr. Harper, believing he was sincere that he wanted changes to the system.

“I think Michael genuinely believed that if Harper showed some interest in his employment insurance stuff … Michael’s plans might have looked a lot different,” a senior Liberal strategist said. “There is a Pollyanna quality to Michael that shouldn’t be underestimated.”

'This is not a game'

By Aaron Wherry - Friday, September 4, 2009 at 12:35 AM - 22 Comments

Stephen Harper, Thursday. “This is not a card game … This is not a game.”

Globe and Mail, tonight. This week, on the heels of their new resolve to defeat the government, the Liberals announced they would no longer attend the EI working group … On Thursday, Human Resources Minister Diane Finley decided to capitalize on this and cast the Tories as the party that had been stood up in the affair.

She summoned TV cameras and photographers to take pictures of her meeting on EI without the Liberals and lamenting the rival party’s absence from the talks. Ms. Finley held this event in the same room the two parties had used in past weeks to discuss the now-aborted venture, making chit chat with fellow Tory MP Pierre Poilievre as the cameras rolled.

At one point, journalists there to capture the scene asked Ms. Finley to speak up – but she replied that she had only intended to be seen rather than heard. “I was just trying to mouth it for you,” she said. An artificial dialogue then ensued for the cameras.