Parliament in Review - April 2, 2012

Monday, April 2 saw the second day of Peter Julian's extended budget speech. And perhaps the point most worth noting is how many Canadians outside of Parliament took the opportunity have their voices heard in the budget debate.

The Big Issue

So let's focus this review on some of the input Julian received from across the country about the Cons' budget, including this on the demolition of the National Council on Welfare:

Another, from Sault Ste. Marie, wrote, “Very sad, as a statement at home and in the world. They also shut down the National Council of Welfare because they do not want anyone reporting on how much poverty there really is. This is amazing, to think they will actually get away with this. First, the dissolution of Stats Canada, then an attack on organizations, both at home and internationally, that actually advocate on behalf of those at risk. Now substantial cuts to aid and the demise of the National Council on Welfare.”

Mr. Speaker, if you are wondering why we are spending hours criticizing the mean-spirited decisions by the government, I think that particular Facebook posting shows to what extent Canadians feel the same way. The decisions are ideologically based. They are not based on the character and values that Canadians share.

That commentary in turn led into Julian's own entirely justified criticism of the Cons' attacks on research organizations.

Another comment focused on the different standard being applied to the oil sector compared to most other parts of Canada's economy:

A person from Ontario says: “Why do believers in free market continue to feel that oil companies need subsidies from their own government? Somehow, I don't think that environmental assessments are going to stop the oil companies from taking their equipment and going home. Let them work on their own dimes and make sure that they are responsible to the environment and there are adequate environmental assessments”.

A couple of correspondents from the Cons' Alberta home base criticized the Harper government, one for its impending cuts to Old Age Security and the other for its poor economic management:

A constituent in Calgary said, “At its worst, this new policy really is a massive insult to seniors. A cynic might even say that the statisticians have crunched the numbers and realized that a few hundred, or even a thousand, people may die between 65 and 67 while waiting for their pension, and they like that idea. Then Canada would not have to pay them pensions at all. It's like saying 'cross my heart and hope you die'. Nobody knows how long they will live, but it is odd to have a government betting on you delaying reaping benefits for all those years of your earnings to the point that maybe you won't be able to reap any benefits at all”.

The actuarial tables show, tragically, the rate of passing on between the ages of 65 and 67 does go up. It is true that as a result of the government's decision for future seniors, seniors who have worked all their lives to retire at 65 will either live in poverty from ages 65 to 67 because they have no other source of funding and cannot get their pension, or they may pass on. That is just the sad reality.

A constituent in Lacombe, Alberta said, “The budget points to the Prime Minister's great fear of anything that looks like work. I can agree with the Prime Minister that Canada may be financially better off than Greece; however, I would temper that joy with the reminder of how far behind we are of countries like Finland, Norway and other involved Nordic countries. We have fallen far behind. Those who voted for the Prime Minister with expectations of the good fiscal management he suggested he possessed must be very disappointed when cutting spending rather than growing the Canadian economy is his answer for the Conservatives to continue to hold power”.

A paramedic expressed disbelief at the expectation that citizens engaged in difficult physical labour could be expected to keep working until age 67:

A paramedic in Ontario, wrote, “I am a paramedic. I serve the public. That's my life, for the good and the bad. I carry sick people down multiple flights of stairs. I get their respiratory illnesses. I put my life in harm's way for Canadians so they may live longer and with less pain and agony. Do you have any idea what I do in an average day of work? I've been in the business for 21 years now. At the present age of 45, I dream of retirement and hopefully may be able to do so with my health still intact. Prime Minister, you have just made that dream slip further into the future, raising the retirement age to 67. So at the ripe age of 66 and 11 months, I will carry many people younger than I down several flights of stairs. I will get ill from them, with less ability to recuperate at that age, and will still put myself in harm's way. Many other public-based occupations of the same nature and some with less adverse outcomes, the police and fire and even prison guards, are the workers who can retire, but I'll work 42 years in my occupation, thanks to you. Before this last budget it was only 40 years. How can I express my gratitude with you?”

He says that ironically. This paramedic knows now that as a result of the government's actions he will be forced to work two years longer. This is the point we have been making all along. The government is forcing those in manual occupations to work longer. Whether they are paramedics, carpenters or manual labourers, they have given for years and years and years. They have given all they can and they are looking to that date when they can finally put their body into retirement and heal from years of manual work.

A Conservative constituent in Nepean-Carlton expressed equal concern about the increased retirement age:

I would like to go to Nepean-Carleton since we are staying in the Ottawa region. A constituent in this Conservative-held riding say this: “OAS will leave me pretty much in the same boat. Not been working and contributing to CPP due to raising children and then due to a disability, I am a person that will need the OAS. My long-term disability through a private insurer will come to an end at age 65. I don't qualify for Ontario disability benefits. I just heard on CBC that I said to contact the nearest NDP MP. My MP is a Conservative. My question is about the delay of CPP. Currently I am receiving long-term disability benefits until I reach 65 but I didn't qualify for CPP disability. Now I won't be eligible for CPP until 67. How am I supposed to live two years with very little income? How many others will be in my situation? Thanks to the NDP for allowing me to reach out to someone other than my own MP”.

Another citizen noted that while the Cons point to increased retirement ages elsewhere, they conveniently omit the fact that Canada's retirement age is set to be pushed far higher than in comparable countries around the globe. Plenty wrote in with their own stories, experiences and discussions as to the impact of Katimavik (which the Cons of course plan to trash). And perhaps the most succinct question about the Cons' overall philosophy can be found here...

Another (person) writes, “Since when do we accommodate poverty as opposed to try to prevent it?”

So what was the point of Julian's extended address, featuring in particular plenty of concerns from constituents of Con MPs who may not see any hope that the government will listen to them? Well, here's his own explanation:

It is no secret that what we are trying to do is to make the case against this budget step by step, brick by brick, by raising constituents' concerns in ridings that are represented by Conservative MPs. I do not think anything could be clearer than to have all of these letters, tweets and Facebook comments flooding in, all of which address Conservative members of Parliament. In all cases, they are saying, “My Conservative MP is not representing me if he or she votes for this budget”. I think that is a very important thing to underscore, that what we are doing through the course of this debate is establishing the case that, effectively, Canadians living in Conservative ridings are making their voices known.

 

If I were a Conservative MP, with a bad budget like this that will guarantee fewer jobs, less growth, less prosperity, I would think twice and say, “Hold on. My constituents are reacting. They are reacting to all of the various components of this agenda. Maybe I have to think twice”. Perhaps we will see, over the course of the debate, Conservative MPs standing and saying, “I'm going to represent my constituents. I'm going to vote against this budget because this budget is not good for families in my riding and not good for the country”.

 

Maybe we will see that. As we read out these letters coming from across the country from Conservative-held ridings, maybe we will see Conservative MPs standing and saying, “We're going to vote for what's good for the country. We're voting against this budget. We're going to vote for a budget that actually creates jobs”.

 

One might say that is absurd and that a Conservative MP would never do that. However, when we think back, a few years ago no one would have said there would be 102 strong NDP MPs representing constituents right across this country from coast to coast to coast. It was not impossible because we believed that we could get things done and represent our constituents strongly.

In Brief

In the other main debate of the day, Elaine Michaud moved a motion on TCE groundwater contamination caused on the Valcartier military base and the municipality of Shannon. Chris Alexander agreed in principle as to the problem while claiming that talking about it made for sufficient action, while Francis Scarpaleggia tied the motion into wider water issues. And Alexandrine Latendresse discussed the history of TCE use - which should serve as a reminder as to why dumping chemicals into the environment without knowing about their potential effects is a dangerous path.

Meanwhile, Thomas Mulcair asked for a yes-or-no answer as to whether the Cons would use what they had said were sufficient tools to save jobs at Aveos; Peter Van Loan wasn't willing to admit that "no" is the Cons' response. Libby Davies criticized cuts to Health Canada, while Helene LeBlanc questioned why the National Research Canada was being turned into a Business Depot. Marc Garneau was incredulous at the Cons' attacks on Elections Canada. Megan Leslie asked the Cons to admit that they have no interest in a real hearing into the Gateway pipeline, while Romeo Saganash pointed out that the anticipated refusal to deal with concerns about development would only create years of litigation to come. Peggy Nash wondered why the Cons lost interest in a non-partisan Public Appointments Commission after having funded it for years, while Alexandre Boulerice noted that the move eases the way for yet more patronage from the Cons themselves. Glenn Thibeault and Pierre Dionne Labelle slammed an anticipated increase in pay phone rates at the behest of Bell. Carol Hughes followed up on Julian's budget speech by questioning why the Cons are determined to hide the findings of the National Council on Welfare showing that investment to reduce poverty would more than pay for itself.

Finally, in response to Peter Kent's claim that we don't need groups like the National Roundtable on the Environment and the Economy due to other groups providing similar services over the Internet, Kirsty Duncan helpfully queried whether Kent could name just one. Needless to say, Kent could not.

Friday Afternoon Links

Assorted content to end your week.

- Jack Knox comments on how the rest of the world sees Canada under the Harper Cons:

A week after bleating about foreign radicals slowing the Northern Gateway pipeline proposal, you have to figure Joe Oliver just wishes he had kept his cakehole corked.

Instead of turning public opinion against the interference of well-heeled American environmentalists, Stephen Harper's natural resources minister succeeded mainly in A) awakening Canadians to the growing extent of Asian influence in the Alberta oil patch and B) alerting the rest of the world that the Canadian cowboy now wears a black hat.

When did the Americans sell us to China, Canadians asked.

When did Canada become a global bad boy, asked the foreign media.

- In "mostly competent government!" news, Jeffrey Simpson notes that the Cons are paying more "information officers" to release as little information as possible. Greg Weston questions the ongoing funding being thrown into supporting a public appointments commission which doesn't actually exist. And most importantly, the Cons are just now backtracking on months of assurances that they didn't need to think about alternatives to spending tens of billions of dollars on F-35s.

- Which is to say that Susan Riley is exactly right in observing that Harper's electoral success looks to be based largely on voters getting lulled to sleep.

- Stuart Trew updates us on the latest developments surrounding the CETA.

- Finally, Christine McLaughlin discusses the dangers of the Cons' bill to criminalize anonymous protesting.

On depoliticization

It may not have made for the most glamorous policy announcement, particularly compared to the free money the Cons and Libs are promising to fling around at some point in the future. But in an election where the question of whether we can expect better government hasn't yet been met with answers as to what one might look like, the NDP's good governance plan is worth some discussion (emphasis in original):

The New Democrat plan will:

1. End partisan meddling in professional public service by establishing a code of conduct for ministerial staff, capping partisan appointments of “special advisors” and establishing merit-based public appointments.
2. Respect Public Service employees by improving legislative protection for whistleblowers and strengthening oversight of the Integrity Commissioner.
3. Create real public service jobs instead of relying on temporary help services; modernize hiring mechanisms in consultation with employee unions and managers.

Of particular note is the fact that even as it's pushing for a place in government (whether on its own or as part of a coalition), the NDP is still raising ideas which would limit the abuse of politically-appointed positions. Needless to say, that stands in stark contrast to the Cons' brand of "accountability", which wound up resulting in closer scrutiny for nearly everybody in the public sector except those actually wielding political power.

Mind you, all parties seem to recognize some need to fix Ottawa - with even the sitting government effectively running on major change in who exercises power and under what terms, while the Libs complain about the Harper government without being able to claim that they'd do anything differently. But the NDP stands alone among the national parties in Parliament in having a plan to do something about it - meaning that the choice should be clear for voters concerned about good government.

Villainous but familiar

There's little reason to argue with Kady's take on the Cons' reported plans for the CRTC - including pushing aside all independent voices in order to put Pierre Karl Péladeau's right hand man in charge of evaluating Péladeau's application to force Canadians to fund Fox News North.

But while it's right to see the mooted elevation of Luc Lavoie as "cartoon villain-like", I wouldn't think the mindset should be seen as anything new. After all, can the idea of Lavoie in charge of the CRTC really be seen as any more galling or flagrantly partisan than, say, the nomination of longtime Con bagman Gwyn Morgan to be responsible for making public appointments non-partisan?

Harper-Proofing Canadian Democracy: Powers of Appointment

Paul Wells is right to note that a government's power to make funding and staffing decisions which may go largely unnoticed makes for one of the ways in which it's most able to alter the fabric of Canadian society - and there's plenty of reason for concern about how the Harper Cons are using that power. So in figuring out how to reform our current system to protect against the likes of Stephen Harper, let's turn next to the question of staffing and appointments.

Needless to say, this area makes for one of the largest disappointments under Harper. On paper, the public appointments commission promised by the Cons and set up under the Accountability Act would seem to have been an effective means of ensuring that public service staffing would be carried out without a partisan slant. But any hope of positive change anytime soon was rlost when Harper announced that a party bagman would be his choice to chair the commission, then decided to throw a temper tantrum when the other parties didn't play along with the appointment - with the result that Canadians are on the hook for the cost of a nonexistent commission, while the Cons turn the public service as a whole into a partisan breeding ground.

Meanwhile, the Cons have similarly abused their appointment powers for other independent offices - rewarding unqualified party hacks for some roles which are supposed to involve actual independent oversight, while simply declining to make appointments to others. So it's worth wondering what can be done to ensure both that independent offices are actually filled, and that their inhabitants aren't appointed purely on a partisan basis.

Fortunately, there's at least some precedent for getting the opposition parties involved in key federal appointments: while the Cons chose not to bother in their most recent Supreme Court appointment, the earlier selection of Marshall Rothstein through a process featuring multipartisan steps appears to have been carried out without a hitch. So why not develop an adapted process to fill independent offices as well?

Ideally, that would involve a list of qualified candidates for each post developed by consensus among the parties in Parliament (or at least the approval of a majority of the parties for each candidate). From there, one would expect a few steps to narrow the field - likely involving a shortlist developed by the government, some elimination of candidates on an all-party or multiparty basis, then a final appointment by the PM.

For now, the opposition parties might be particularly well served to combine statutory proposals to entrench a multi-party process with some work among the opposition parties to develop consensus lists intended to help fill some of the key positions which are currently vacant or occupied only on an interim basis - including the chair of the Public Service Commission, the Information Commissioner, and the RCMP Complaint Commissioner as recent high-profile examples. Once the opposition parties presented their lists of qualified candidates, I'd think that at worst Harper would face pressure to make permanent appointments to the roles - and at best he might well be criticized as obstructing the proper functioning of government if he didn't work with the names provided to him.

Of course, at the end of the day the Prime Minister would maintain the power to make the final appointment even under the proposed changes. And the road to making even those limited amendments would be a long one: it would take a combination of statutory changes and some convention development to formally entrench a process along the lines of the above as the means of appointing independent officers, and Harper might well bristle at any suggestion that he should pay attention to anybody else's list of candidates. But a focus on ensuring that independent officers actually fit the title should at the very least put some serious pressure on the Cons - and may well produce some positive democratic reforms for a long time to come.

Update: Michael Ignatieff is making similar suggestions when it comes to appointing senators. I'd think the independent offices should be a higher priority, but there's no reason the idea couldn't work for both.