Parliament In Review: June 15, 2011

Yes, the spring session of Parliament has come to an end. But with much less news popping up on the political scene, I'll take the opportunity to take a look back at the days I didn't get to through my Parliament in Review posts - starting with Wednesday, June 15.

Theme of the Day

The most obvious theme from the NDP was that of poverty - including both pointed questions from Jean Crowder immediately following Jack Layton's opening of Question Period, and a budget speech from Anne-Marie Day which nicely summarized both the limited progress made in addressing poverty and the long ways left to go:

There is nothing in the government's proposals to improve the living conditions of Canadian families. Poverty exists in Canada and increases every year. All experts agree that, for the past few years, the gap between rich and poor families in Canada has been widening. Inequalities persist rather than diminish.

However, there have been some small steps forward. In 1989, Canada's poverty rate was 10.2%; in 2008, it was 9.4%, a reduction of 0.8% in 20 years. In 1989, the poverty rate for those under 18 was 11.9%; in 2008, it was 9.1%, a reduction of 2.8% in 20 years. Canada can do much better for its people, and we cannot be pleased about such a small decrease in poverty.

Our youth are in a precarious position. In 1981, 31.2% of young workers between 14 and 24 had a low-wage job. In 2000, the proportion had risen to 45%, a sharp increase in 20 years.
...
Poverty in a rich country is not an inevitability; it is the result of poor policies. Therefore, the government must propose a real agenda to eradicate poverty and inequality.

Cold Comfort

In response to Libby Davies' questioning asking why Canada - unlike the U.S. and the EU - doesn't require that drug manufacturers disclose testing results as to the effect of drugs on children, Colin Carrie had this to say:

Mr. Speaker, I can assure the member and Canadians that we are up to speed. We encourage manufacturers to submit pediatric information and to introduce an additional six-month data protection for drugs if they are filed for pediatric indication.

In fairness, I suppose it would indeed be worse if the government were outright discouraging big pharma from providing relevant pediatric information. But Carrie looks to have made it clear that the Cons' plan is to let the corporate sector decide what information should be available about the effect of medication on children - which hardly figures to be reassuring for parents.

Question of the Day

Within the budget debate, Kennedy Stewart raised an issue which cuts to the core of the Cons' economic policy:

Madam Speaker, I have been reading through the budget and paying careful attention, but I have some questions about the base statistics on which your work is done.

Most specifically, I am interested in what is commonly reported in the U.S. as the natural rate of unemployment. The U.S. Federal Reserve says that the current natural rate of unemployment in the U.S. is about 6%. Former finance ministers here have said it is about 8%.

What natural rate of unemployment are you basing the budget projections on, and can you tell me whether that natural rate is increasing or decreasing?

Not surprisingly, Shelly Glover didn't see fit to actually answer the question. But it's well worth pressing the Cons as to how many Canadians they plan to see out of work in the years to come, as well as on how to ensure that workers ticketed for structural unemployment can maintain a reasonable standard of living nonetheless.

In Brief

Dany Morin raised a question about violent hate crimes against the GLBT community - with Peter Van Loan unable to bring himself to even repeat the terms "gay" and "lesbian" in response. And Randy Kamp asked what looks to be one of the more bizarre questions imaginable - in effect using his own government's lack of openness to suggest that the NDP shouldn't be concerned about budget cuts, since when nobody but the Cons can say exactly what programs will be affected.