Tag Archives: EI Reform

Roundup: Aspirational job targets

Posted on by

Stephen Harper’s election pledge du jour was a target of 1.3 million net new jobs by 2020, which sounds terribly impressive, but if you listen to the economists talk about it, there are a few caveats. Of course, we should note first that really, government’s don’t create jobs as such, but they can provide the environment that is conducive to investment and hiring. The question for Harper really is a) how many of these jobs would be created regardless of whatever you do, and b) what measures exactly are you proposing to create these jobs, considering that it’s becoming ever more clear that we’re moving into an era of really low growth. And no, just signing trade agreements isn’t enough, nor is just lowering taxes and calling it a day. The Conservatives asked Mike Moffatt and Kevin Milligan to check their figures, and both say that sure, it’s plausible – but it’s going to depend on strong global growth, immigration, and older workers staying in the workforce longer (as in not retiring). Mike Moffatt gives his analysis here, while Milligan (and others) have tweeted their comments.

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/646353978452668416

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/646354120912187392

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/646357137124257792

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/646359832807649280

https://twitter.com/kevinmilligan/status/646360403753041920

https://twitter.com/lindsaytedds/status/646347682307411968

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/646347416493363200

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/646355410262323200

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/646355705893662720

https://twitter.com/mikepmoffatt/status/646360723707293697

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mulcair’s Senate delusions

Posted on by

It was Thomas Mulcair’s turn to talk to Peter Mansbridge, and it was a bit of a doozy. Not only because he too insisted that whoever wins the most seats should form government (with a bunch of “it’s a really complex constitutional question but…” thrown in), but rather because of his continued wilful ignorance about how he proposes to deal with the Senate. It’s not just about his fantasy notion that Senate abolition could ever happen (which it won’t), or that he’ll somehow be able to sit down with the premiers and make it happen right away (even if he brings the federal cheque book to the table, it’s still not going to happen). No, it’s his attitude for how he would deal with it should he form government. Not only are vacancies mounting, but he told Mansbridge that he wouldn’t even appoint a Government Leader in the Senate. This is actually a Very Big Deal. Why? Because if legislation is to pass the Senate, it needs to happen according to proper procedure, and proper procedure requires a government voice – particularly one from cabinet – to be in the Chamber to shepherd government bills through, an to answer questions on behalf of the government in Senate Question Period. Now, Harper has already been petulant about this when he refused to make his current Senate leader a member of cabinet (even though he still gets PCO support, and as we’ve learned, PMO handlers to deal with messaging), but there is still a government leader in there to do the things that he’s supposed to do. If Mulcair would be so completely cavalier as to further break an already damaged institution by refusing to let it do its job properly under the pretext of daring them to vote down bills passed by the Commons, it’s unconscionable. We have someone campaigning to be the leader of the country on a platform of thumbing his nose at the constitution, whether that’s around a refusal to make appointments, or in ensuring that it can do its job. And this is more than a question of “democratic expression” of a government that has won an election, as Mulcair phrases his bullying tactics – it’s about process. And what is democracy? Democracy IS process. Process matters, just like the constitution. Why are we giving him a free pass when he seems to be of the notion that the constitution and the institutions of parliament don’t matter?

Continue reading →

Roundup: The slippery slope of civic ignorance

Posted on by

With Justin Trudeau adding his voice to those of the other leaders in completely misreading how a Westminster democracy works with the formation of government (albeit acknowledging that the incumbent does get the first crack), I think it’s quite apparent we’re in a crisis of civic literacy in this country. While Kady O’Malley gives a refresher here, there was an interesting idea posited by Leonid Sirota that we may be witnessing the birth of a new convention. I’m a bit sceptical about that, and would agree more with Emmett Macfarlane that it may be a political convention as opposed to a legal one, but it should also be a warning signal to our political actors that ignorance of the system, whether genuine or deliberate, does have broader repercussions. The system works the way it does because, well, it works. That’s why it evolved the way we did. To try and move it past that for crass political purposes demeans it, and opens a number of cans of worms that will do nothing more than create problems down the road that will be even bigger headaches. Better to learn and apply the system as it exists, rather than try to change the rules for petty reasons. Also, we need to stop dismissing these kinds of conversations as boring or pedantic because they matter. The rules matter. If we don’t point out what the rules are and that they matter, then it makes it easier for people to break them without anyone raising a fuss.

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/641312992257277953

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/641313435049959424

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/641313802944946176

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/641314338674974720

https://twitter.com/pmlagasse/status/641314592094822400

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/641228423038238720

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/641228866099417088

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/641229200544808960

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/641230837434855424

https://twitter.com/emmmacfarlane/status/641231352986124288

Continue reading →

QP: One last scattershot attempt

Posted on by

It was likely the final Commons Question Period of the 41st Parliament (but it looks like not), and not a moment too soon. Not unsurprisingly, most of the leaders have already fled for the pre-writ campaign trail, with the exception of Elizabeth May, who dutifully remains at her desk until the bitter end. Megan Leslie led off, raising the moral issue of climate change per the Pope’s encyclical, but turned it into an NDP pitch instead of a question. Leona Agulkkaq chose a climate change talking point and recited it dutifully. Leslie then moved to the issue of sexual harassment in the military, to which James Bezan rose to denounce the comments made by the Chief of Defence Staff and to note that the wheels were already in motion for a change of command. Leslie asked for an inquiry into missing and murdered Aboriginal women, to which Kellie Leitch insisted that they were taking action. Niki Ashton picked up, denounced the government and raised a report on the wage gap between First Nations and other Canadians. Bernard Valcourt noted the measures the government has taken to improve the lives of First Nations. Ashton then raised a plethora of social issues faced by First Nations children and asked a rhetorical question about the government discriminating against them. Valcourt insisted that they were taking action to improve their lives. Ralph Goodale led for Liberals, decrying the government’s economic performance to which Kevin Sorenson read some talking points about lowering taxes and the Liberals raising them. Goodale dug in, but Sorenson repeated his usual talking points about how great ever high was. Dominc LeBlanc took the final slot to further the condemnation in the other official language, to which Candice Bergen stood up to defend the government’s record of keeping promises.

Continue reading →

QP: Senate versus satellite offices

Posted on by

With Harper off in Europe, and both Mulcair and Trudeau at Parizeau’s funeral in Montreal, it was going to be a mediocre day. Megan Leslie led off listing some expenses flagged in the Senate AG report, and asked if the PMO had contact with any of those senators before it was tabled. Paul Calandra responded that the senators were responsible for their own spending. Leslie tried to draw links to PMO involvement — the evidence around it sketchy at best — but Calandra wouldn’t budge. Leslie pressed again, and Calandra noted that the NDP were looking to re-open the constitution before reminding them of their satellite offices. Alexandre Boulerice gave another try in French, got the same answer, and for his final question, demanded an oversight body for the Senate, to which Calandra said he expected the Senate to follow the AG’s recommendations. Dominic LeBlanc led for the Liberals, asking about inadequate pensions. Pierre Poilievre insisted that the Liberals would just raise payroll taxes. Ralph Goodale asked the same again in English, to which he got the same reply from Poilievre. Goodale quoted the finance minister in refuting that pension payments are income taxes, but Joe Oliver didn’t take the bait, and Poilieve repeated his same talking points.

Continue reading →

QP: Repeated questions about sick mothers

Posted on by

Monday, and the only leader in the Commons was a sheepish Elizabeth May, fresh from her morning apology tour after her off-the-rails speech at the Press Gallery Dinner on Saturday. The NDP chose their other, other deputy leader, David Christopherson, to start things off by shouting out a pair of questions regarding the PMO trying to whitewash the Duffy audit. Paul Calandra said it was before the court. Christopherson shouted a question about Senate residency rules for appointments, to which Calandra reminded him of their satellite offices that needed repayment. Christopherson changed topics, and shouted about a mother who couldn’t get sick benefits while on parental leave, while Pierre Poilievre, calmly, said he couldn’t comment on a specific case, but noted they had sympathy for people in cases like that which was why they tabled legislation in 2013, solving it for future cases. Sadia Groguhé asked the same question in French, got the same answer in French, and then Groguhé asked it again, getting yet the same answer. Ralph Goodale led for the Liberals, asking about the trade deficit and job numbers, and wondered why the government would use income splitting to help the wealthy instead of single mothers. Despite Joe Oliver being present, Poilievre responded with talking points about things the Liberals would supposedly do. Goodale gave some talking points about the Liberal plan, Poilievre responded with some fabrications about the fictitious Liberal plan, and when Goodale hit back, Joe Oliver finally stood up, and read some talking points off a cue card.

Continue reading →

QP: Assistance for Nepal

Posted on by

As Mondays are the new Fridays, there were no major leaders in the Commons for QP, leaving the more unusual choice of Hélène Laverdière to lead off, asking about the humanitarian assistance for Nepal, and asked if the government would match donations as they have done with disasters past. Christian Paradis assured her that there was, and noted the $5 million fund they just announced. Megan Leslie was up next, and asked for a further update on assistance being provided to Canadians in the region. Paradis repeated his previous response, but didn’t tough on the actual questions. Leslie then turned to the budget, and the lack of action for climate change therein. Pierre Poilievre insisted that the NDP considered anyone making less than $60,000 per year are wealthy. Nathan Cullen then asked about tax breaks for the wealthy, to which Poilievre repeated the same answer. Cullen gave a rambling repeat of the question, and got the same answer. David McGuinty led off for the Liberals, asking about partisan advertising — not coincidentally, the subject of his opposition day motion. Poilievre insisted that they were informant families of tax decreases and benefits available to them. McGuinty pressed, wanting all government ads to be submitted to a third-party vetting. Poilievre instead plugged the benefits to parents who were not yet signed up to them. McGuinty then moved onto the lack of job creation figures from the budget, but this time Kevin Sorenson stood up to deliver the good news talking points on all the jobs the government allegedly created.

Continue reading →

QP: What about those Syrian refugees?

Posted on by

Despite it only being Thursday, and with the debate on the Iraq going on throughout the day, it was perhaps strange for none of the major leaders to be present. Sadly, it’s no longer surprising. That meant that Megan Leslie led off for the NDP, to which she asked about the inaction on asylum requests from Iraq and Syria. Chris Alexander insisted that they have hosted the largest number of resettled refugees from Iraq and Syria. Leslie pointed that the government only met their 2013 promises for Syrian refugees, and wanted the plans to ensure that the current promises will be kept on time. Alexander responded with bluster about goals having been fulfilled and promises made. Leslie asked why the mission extension motion doesn’t have any new money for refugees, but Alexander’s bluster in response increased in volume and exasperation. Jack Harris was up next, and noted that the government has admitted that the mission will likely take years, and that the one-year extension was only a first step. Jason Kenney insisted that the terms of the motion were clear based on the current number of forces deployed. When Harris asked about the legal justifications given, Rob Nicholson raised Iraq asking for international help. Stéphane Dion led for the Liberals, asking about the huge job cuts at CBC. Rick Dykstra responded that CBC was responsible for their own operations, and to put on programming that people want to watch. Ralph Goodale noted that the Alberta and Saskatchewan were able to table budgets despite oil price uncertainty, and wondered when the federal government would do. Andrew Saxton responded with some pro forma talking points about the low-tax agenda. When pressed, Saxton read praise for the government’s plans.

https://twitter.com/inklesspw/status/581160408360173568

Continue reading →

QP: OMG Jihadi Terrorists!

Posted on by

Monday after a break week, and attendance was pretty scare, particularly among the leaders. In Mulcair’s stead, David Christopherson shouted a denunciation of Bill C-51. In response, Stephen Blaney calmly explained that terrorists were targeted by the bill, not lawful protesters. Christopherson shouted about the Canadian Bar Association opposing the bill, to which Peter MacKay assured him that they were listening to experts, and touted the provisions for judicial warrants in the bill. Christopherson then changed topics, and shouted a question of when the Iraq mission extension motion would be tabled. Jason Kenney said that a motion would be tabled “soon,” and then denounced ISIS. Nycole Turmel asked the same again in French, got the same answer in French, and for her final question, Turmel noted the opposition of the government of Quebec to C-51. Blaney responded that he had already met with his counterparts. Marc Garneau led off for the Liberals, and noted the weak job numbers and wondered where the plan for permanent job creation was. Pierre Poilievre insisted that the only job plan the Liberals had was to raise taxes. Ralph Goodale asked about the cuts to infrastructure funds, but Candice Bergen gave a non sequitur response about family tax cuts. Goodale demanded more money for Build Canada, to which Poilievre repeated his red herring about higher Liberal taxes.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Mandating bilingual tweets

Posted on by

The Official Languages Commissioner has decreed that cabinet ministers should tweet in both official languages, which seems like a fairly concerning decree when you look at how some of those ministers are using the Twitter Machine to engage in some actual dialogue with actual Canadians (and some journalists too) about issues, without it all being canned statements and talking points. The caveat to the Commissioner’s statement is that they must use both official languages when communicating “objectives, initiatives, decisions and measures taken or proposed by a ministry or the government.” In other words, those canned links to press releases. The thing is, those are already being tweeted out by the official department accounts, whereas the ministers tweeting – at least for the good ones – are more “personal” and less filtered. Those are where the value in Twitter lies, and if the objective is to simply turn ministerial Twitter accounts to official releases, then what’s the point? I think this may be an instance where the Commissioner needs to perhaps re-evaluate social media and the engagement that happens over it.

Continue reading →