# Budget 2012



## GAP (9 Mar 2012)

Conservatives counting on ‘breathtaking’ budget to put end to recent troubles
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/08/michael-den-tandt-conservatives-counting-on-breathtaking-budget-to-put-end-to-recent-troubles/
Postmedia News  Mar 8, 2012 

In a sharp break from their first two mandates, the Harper Conservatives are preparing to unveil a budget that is revolutionary rather than evolutionary, one that will introduce sweeping structural changes in key areas of federal policy. Politically, from the government’s standpoint, that won’t happen a moment too soon — even if the budget provokes great controversy, which it most certainly will.

Whether in trade, immigration, retirement benefits, resource development, innovation or fiscal policy, Conservative insiders say, the years of plodding, minority-era “incrementalism” are over. Indeed, there’s a sense within Conservative ranks that their moment of truth, a chance to distinguish themselves from the other parties in stark terms and establish a lasting legacy, has arrived.

“Everybody’s going to be busy for a long time reporting about it,” said one insider, speaking of the coming budget, to be handed down by Finance Minister Jim Flaherty on March 29.

The subtext: Unless the robocalls scandal mutates like a super flu into something as-yet-unseen — specifically, unless evidence emerges that the Conservative Party or its national campaign knew about or participated in electoral fraud, something the prime minister and campaign chair Guy Giorno have categorically denied — it may soon be knocked off front pages by more wrenching debates.

Government sources characterize the coming shift as moving from day-to-day governing, extracting successes wherever possible, to making fundamental changes that correct big, underlying problems in the economy, or open up new opportunities in broad areas, such as resource development or trade. In a sense the Tories are adopting something closer to the style of earlier Conservative governments, such as the Brian Mulroney regimes that introduced North American free trade: Go big or go home.

These changes, and the strategy underlying them, were first flagged by the prime minister in his “OAS shocker” speech in Davos, Switzerland, in January. At the time most attention focused on Stephen Harper’s revelation that the government was considering a fundamental overhaul of retirement benefits, in order to make them sustainable long-term, despite the aging baby boom. That might even include a rise in the age of eligibility for Old Age Security from 65 to 67, Harper indicated.

The Liberals and New Democrats, too predictably, immediately cast this as an attempt by the harshly cold, callous Conservatives to seize income from silver-haired widows and hand it over to weapons manufacturers. That debate, callow as it was, was swept aside by the backlash over Bill C-30, the online access bill, then Vikileaks and then robocalls, which continues to dominate political discussion in Ottawa.

What’s interesting about the government’s intentions now, heading into the budget, is how determined the Conservatives are to press ahead with a full suite of significant reform, controversies be damned — and how far the plan extends beyond the OAS system. The change envisioned is huge.

For starters, the age of eligibility for OAS will indeed rise from the current 65 to 67 (though in grandfathered fashion, so that only those younger than 50 or so now will be affected), sources confirm. Beyond that, immigration, resource development, research and innovation and trade are also being overhauled, all while the government moves more aggressively than previously signalled to balance the books. (The Finance department has said budget cuts will be in a range between $4-billion and $8-billion. As I reported here last week, the overwhelming majority of Tory ministers and MPs are pushing hard for cuts at the very upper end of that range, because they want to campaign in 2015 on a balanced budget.)
more on link


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Mar 2012)

I certainly think the budget is going to be a doozy. Be certain the NDP and Liberals are up in arms over this. Expect comments like "draconian, extremist, punitive, unfair to young and old" to be part of the narrative.

On the OAS front, I think more stability can be gained by lowering the claw-back thresholds. Right now, claw-back begins at a net income of $67668 (equates to $84545 pre tax). Even with a net income of 100K, you still get 1200 per year in OAS. I'm all for supporting our poor seniors, but I have to think that if your net income is $67000, you're probably doing OK. If the claw-back threshold was lowered to $50000 (net), then there would be significant savings. If you throw in income splitting, then you're still looking at 100K family income before the benefit is reduced.


----------



## MJP (9 Mar 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> On the OAS front, I think more stability can be gained by lowering the claw-back thresholds. Right now, claw-back begins at a net income of $67668 (equates to $84545 pre tax). Even with a net income of 100K, you still get 1200 per year in OAS. I'm all for supporting our poor seniors, but I have to think that if your net income is $67000, you're probably doing OK. If the claw-back threshold was lowered to $50000 (net), then there would be significant savings. If you throw in income splitting, then you're still looking at 100K family income before the benefit is reduced.



I agree that the clawback thresholds are too high and can be reduced.  I have said it before but I think the whole scare a senior shell game regarding OAS is a crap move by the opposition for exactly the reasons you outline above..  If any party was serious about reducing senior poverty they would advocate increasingthe GIS.  That would have more effect than tinkering with the OAS in the long term.


----------



## ModlrMike (9 Mar 2012)

The opposition knows that seniors by and large tend to vote Conservative. They hope to pry a large number of those votes away in the next election(s). I think the Conservatives are presuming that any significant changes to OAS etc can happen this year, so as to be well minimized when we next go to the polls. If you look at the promise of income splitting, they need to balance the budget first. Get the deficit sorted by 2015, introduce income splitting, effectively reverse the OAS changes by now splitting non-pension income.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Mar 2012)

A balanced budget is a good platform to run on - but more importantly, it suggests fiscal flexibility when running, meaning a whole new collection of promises become possible.


----------



## GAP (9 Mar 2012)

MJP said:
			
		

> I agree that the clawback thresholds are too high and can be reduced.  I have said it before but I think the whole scare a senior shell game regarding OAS is a crap move by the opposition for exactly the reasons you outline above..  If any party was serious about reducing senior poverty they would advocate increasingthe GIS.  That would have more effect than tinkering with the OAS in the long term.



I agree. I was chatting to Service Canada awhile back regarding my upcoming pension. She gleefully informed me the GIS will ensure I have 16K to live on if I need it.......really, that much? 

uh....the poverty line is 22K......but dog food is cheap  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (9 Mar 2012)

Things could actually be worse for the government. A Drummond Report like accounting would mean _real_ draconian cuts (Ontario needs to cut spending by 17% just to stabilize the economy and get the deficit and debt under control. Since the current government is set to ignore the report, a future Ontario government may come into office facing a $30 billion deficit, 400 billion debt and a flatlined economy). 

Luckily for us, we have had a combination of skillful management and a bit of good luck (high resource prices have provided a great deal of revenue, which hasn't been totally squandered). Still, getting the budget balanced should only be considered the first step; there is a $500+ billion dollar debt ($30 billion/year in interest payments on that alone) and another $500 billion in unfunded liabilities (mostly government pensions and the like) that should be paid down as a matter of urgency.

As a third priority, I would like to see the tax burden go down for Canadians as well; with 42% of the average Canadian family income going to taxes and fees there is little scope for wealth building, much less wealth creation for citizens. Even a reduction from 42% to 32% of income would have dramatic effects (basically recapitalizing the working population).

If the government can balance the budget by 2015, these are the priorities that they should be looking at for the 2015-2020 cycle.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Now that the budget date has been announced all "decisions," even those that have been made and are firmly in place, albeit pending release of the budget, "have not been taken" and are not "taken," by convention,, until the budget is brought down in the HoC. Many governments, including this one have ignored that _convention_, when it suits them, but it is still an 'honest' parliamentary answer: budget confidentiality rules.




And here is a preview, one that, I think does not really violate any budget confidentiality rules, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-offer-glimpse-at-budget-changes-in-speech-to-party-faithful/article2365625/


> Tories offer glimpse at budget changes in speech to party faithful
> 
> STEPHANIE LEVITZ
> 
> ...




I liked this bit, from Treasury Board President Tony Clement: _“The real job that we have to accomplish is change the culture of official Ottawa from one of being spending enablers to one of being cost containers ...”_  That gets to a problem with this less than conservative Conservative government.

I also like this, from Diane Finlay: _“Essentially the social impact bond has the effect of moving risk from the current state of affairs where government – and taxpayers – pay up front without a real way of guaranteeing performance, to the social group itself who will be ‘paid for results’ ... The investors win, the community groups who are successful win, the recipients and users of the service win and the taxpayers win.”_

We don't have long to wait.


----------



## Teeps74 (10 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And here is a preview, one that, I think does not really violate any budget confidentiality rules, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-offer-glimpse-at-budget-changes-in-speech-to-party-faithful/article2365625/
> 
> ...



Well, there is a time and place for everything. The military however should be placing the imperative on operational effectiveness first and fore most, not fiscal responsibility. Want to limit the military's spending in that environment? Define what the military does for operations.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Mar 2012)

Teeps74 said:
			
		

> Well, there is a time and place for everything. The military however should be placing the imperative on operational effectiveness first and fore most, not fiscal responsibility. Want to limit the military's spending in that environment? Define what the military does for operations.




It's not the military's budget; it is not, even, in any special way, about the military. It is the government's budget, aimed at the whole country - government departments, provinces, cities, even you and me; it's about how we and they save and how how we and they spend. It _might_ signal a change to _conservative_ values ~ see an earlier post of mine here re: why a Conservative government hasn't been very _conservative_.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Mar 2012)

The budget per se has no real bearing on if we are operationally effective or not; it is the job of the CF leadership to ensure the dollars we do have are spent to keep us operationally effective. Even if there is no money whatsoever (and yes, I was once the Pl 2I/C of a BMQ(L) course which had a 0 allotment of ammunition for the ranges) we have to find some way to make it work. Small things like teaching troops to "count rounds" rather than yell "bang" (and making them change mags when they reach 30) might not be 100%, but still help you reach some level of operationa effectiveness.

A 10% cut need not lead to a decade of darkness, especially if a real effort is made to cut the fat, eliminate excess overhead and keep dollars directed towards training, a lot of our problems in the CF are self inflicted and can be traced to a huge, cumbersome and creaking bureaucratic apparatus. Prune that as our 10% contribution to a balanced budget and you will have no issues with operational effectiveness.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Mar 2012)

An article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, dealing with civil service cuts:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/dont-expect-radical-changes-in-upcoming-public-service-cuts/article2368727/


> Don’t expect radical changes in upcoming public service cuts
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




Those five points sound pretty realistic and reasonable, to me, except that this, from item 4, will be, *IF* it is implemented, a radical and most welcome change: *"... departments should expect to see any future increases tied to inflation and population growth, at best. Spending caps will be the norm."*


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Mar 2012)

More on the civil service cuts, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Budget+reveal+details+cuts+Clement+says/6303389/story.html


> Budget won’t reveal details of PS cuts, Clement says
> 
> By KATHRYN MAY, The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> ...




Much as I, personally, regret the "anxiety in the workplace" that these well trumpeted cuts are creating, I hope they are deep and actually require the national government to stop doing some, ideally many things ~ especially in areas that are, Constitutionally, matters of provincial responsibility.


----------



## larry Strong (15 Mar 2012)

An alternative budget. Reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the CBC:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2012/03/15/pol-cp-alternative-budget.html

*'Alternate budget' would raise taxes, spending*




> Ottawa can balance the budget and still spend billions on job creation and social programs, a leading left-wing think-tank says in its latest "alternative budget."
> 
> The annual document from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives being released Thursday is, at 202 pages, almost as thick as Jim Flaherty's real budget will be in two weeks.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (15 Mar 2012)

Based on what I can see, a reduction or removal of most of the “Lawlist” triggers for CEAA. A lot of current regulation will be either done away with or turned into “Best management practice's meaning no requirement to apply if you meet the stated requirements. This removes the requirement for the Crown to make a Decision and reduces the Crown's duty to consult with First Nations. I also expect that Federal regulators will told to rely more on Provincial environmental Assessments.
Other effects will be that any non-funded activities by departments are going to grind to halt, so unless it's directly in their mandate, they won't do it. Expect more Service charges as well for what they still do.
Normally at this time we are being asked to spend money, now we can't get money to carry out parts of our mandate and have effectively run out of funds. Mainly as they clawed back more money based on optimistic costings.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2012)

Colin P said:
			
		

> Normally at this time we are being asked to spend money, now we can't get money to carry out parts of our mandate and have effectively run out of funds. Mainly as they clawed back more money based on optimistic costings.



Now in the private sector, managers who can't budget (optimistic costings) are sacked. If we apply the same sort of discipline to the Public sector management, I'll bet we could see lots of savings indeed...


----------



## dapaterson (16 Mar 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Now in the private sector, managers who can't budget (optimistic costings) are sacked. If we apply the same sort of discipline to the Public sector management, I'll bet we could see lots of savings indeed...



Private sector is not magically better than the public sector in budgeting or planning.  Public sector planning is often constrained by higher level inputs - political leadership says "you may budget only $XXX for a job" when all are well aware that the true cost will be $YYY.  To blame the public service for lowballing costs when the planned costs were dictated, rather than properly estimated, is to blame the public service for the failings of political leadership.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2012)

I'll argue the management should then take action to work within these restraints, including scaling back to match the resources allocated, changing expectations, or if all else fails, falling on your sword.

Business also often works under imposed constraints from the board of directors, shareholder expectations, regulatory issues etc, so management has similar issues. In business, market discipline provides the ultimate benchmark, which is why the private sector has a generally better record in these matters.


----------



## dapaterson (16 Mar 2012)

The challenege is that in many areas there is no "market" for government services, making "the market" a poor comparison.

That said, there are far too many "encroaching incrementalists" in government (both on the political and bureaucratic sides) who slowly maneuver into areas that should not be served by government - those are prime for elimination, rather than improvement (IMHO).


----------



## The Bread Guy (16 Mar 2012)

This from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives - some highlights from the attached excerpt on defence and security:


> AFB (Alternate Federal Budget) Actions
> 
> The AFB resolves to take the following actions for the 2011–12 fiscal year:
> 
> ...


----------



## PuckChaser (16 Mar 2012)

Apparently Paul Martin and Jean Chretien work for CCPA now... they're advocating a return to the decade of darkness.


----------



## jollyjacktar (16 Mar 2012)

They would de-fang Canada by the looks of it if they had their wicked ways.   :tsktsk:


----------



## larry Strong (16 Mar 2012)

Or Stephen Staples.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> They would de-fang Canada by the looks of it if they had their wicked ways.   :tsktsk:





			
				Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Or Stephen Staples.



Defang Stephen Staples? I'm in...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Mar 2012)

:goodpost:

I'm totally with you there.


----------



## Robert0288 (16 Mar 2012)

> In order to return to pre-2001 levels in the next five years


Called decade of darkness for a reason.



> Review planned equipment spending to ensure projects still meet Canada’s national defence policy priorities.



Parliament already does that...



> establishing a parliamentary committee or sub-committee responsible for Major Crown Projects



Because throwing in more partisan politics into procurement projects is a good thing?  The recent ship building contracts where applauded for going around this exact thing to exclude politics from awarding contracts



> Increase Overseas Development Assistance to impoverished countries to approach Lester B. Pearson’s goal of 0.7% of GNP over 10 years.


 Because that gained us so much influence and "(soft)power" in regions that we invested in.  Last I heard our major partners that we donated to didn't vote for us to get on the security council.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (16 Mar 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Now in the private sector, managers who can't budget (optimistic costings) are sacked. If we apply the same sort of discipline to the Public sector management, I'll bet we could see lots of savings indeed...



My boss had budgeted till the end of fiscal and had a tiny buffer left, that went all went away when they said "give us X amount now" The fact that HQ had committed most of their funding just prior to the news of the clawback has the region fuming. 

We are adapting as we can, it means that certain commitments we made to other departments and the Province can't be honoured, despite them willing to match our funding to solve some long term mutual issues. Also amusing that HQ continues to add new and interesting requirements oblivious that all have associated costs.


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Although I agree it, the tactics referred to in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is "bullying," I happen to agree with dropping the "supply management" system even without concessions for the reasons I have cited above:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/being-a-spoke-in-american-trade-isnt-enough-for-canada/article2382331/
> 
> ...




Further to this, here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is virulent anti-Harper columnist Lawrence Martin's analysis of the soon to be brought down budget:

My highlights added
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lawrence-martin/no-room-for-sacred-cows-in-this-budget/article2381878/


> No room for sacred cows in this budget
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...




Does the _"various scandals, imagined or real"_ comment mean that Martin now also knows that _robo-calls_ is not a problem for the Conservatives but may blow up in Bob Rae's face?

Re: all the other things in orange: they all look good to me.

I think Martin understands why Mulcair wants to drag the NDP towards the centre, i.e. to the right; it is because, as Martin himself has so often  feared, the whole country is less and less moderate progressive Liberal socialistic.


----------



## McG (27 Mar 2012)

> *Defence cuts will put focus on costs - not policy*
> Matthew Fisher
> Ottawa Citizen
> 27 March 2012
> ...


----------



## GAP (27 Mar 2012)

ER....LAWRENCE MARTIN pretty much nailed it.......and the problem is? Everything you highlighted needs to change. It's time we grew up as a country.


----------



## GAP (27 Mar 2012)

In response to ER's post on No room for sacred cows in this budget here's a little more on the issue of Supply Management.

Being a spoke in American trade isn't enough for Canada
John Ibbitson Globe and Mail  Tuesday, Mar. 27, 2012 
Article Link

Canada is launching free-trade talks with Thailand and Japan in case Plan B must turn into Plan A, because Plan A is in trouble, thanks to what is being described as American bullying.

Plan A is the Trans Pacific Partnership, a set of trade talks currently involving the United States and eight other Pacific nations that Canada badly wants to join. Negotiators from the two countries are attempting to secure a pre-agreement so that the Americans will support Canada’s accession to the talks. 

But the Americans are being particularly bloody-minded, from the Canadian perspective. Supply management is the biggest issue. This is the system of quotas and tariffs that protect the Canadian dairy and poultry industry from competition.

Canada is willing to put everything, including supply management, on the TPP table, but only after reaching that table. The Americans, however, insist that Canada must signal its readiness to abandon supply management as a condition for joining the talks.

The American intransigence – “bullying” is the word that gets most often used – has led to a theory that is making the rounds in Ottawa circles.

According to that theory, the Obama administration is employing a hub-and-spoke approach to foreign trade.

That is, as the Americans pursue new trade agreements, they seek to place the United States at the hub of any relationship, with smaller nations serving as spokes.

The spokes supply the U.S. with whatever it needs to make things, and the U.S. then sells the finished product back to the spokes and to other countries. 
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Mar 2012)

More on Budget 2012 in this article, which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

My emphasis added
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Deep+federal+department+level+cuts+expected+budget/6362031/story.html


> Deep federal department-level cuts expected in budget
> 
> By Jason Fekete, Postmedia News
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Mar 2012)

All right folks, the official word is starting to be passed around the CF. Below is an example of what's being ordered.



> _As the federal budget will be released next week, we have been placed on "radio silence" regarding all external comms.  This includes all Public Services Announcements (PSA), Media Advisories (MA), and New Releases (NR) regarding any type of training (BFT, Freedom of the City, etc.) that have already been approved for release.
> 
> Please continue to pass PA products for review as per SOP, ...will not return them until radio silence has been lifted or special approval to release the product is granted by Ottawa, via LFCA PA_.



What it's basically saying is that CF business is not to be discussed with outside sources. That will include here. We have a huge volume of 'journalists' that persistently troll this site for information. In the past they have also not been shy about using it and revealing their source as here, in their newspaper, magazine, TV or radio spots.

Until the 'Radio Silence' has been lifted by higher, please follow the parameters asked. No discussion related to matters internal to the CF that could be construed as budget business, be they cuts, grants, programs, whatever.

We appreciate your cooperation.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Mar 2012)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is some analysis of the "one-two punch" that Ontario and Ottawa are landing on public sector unions:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/as-flaherty-prepares-to-take-on-public-service-he-owes-ontario-a-thank-you/article2383763/


> As Flaherty prepares to take on public service, he owes Ontario a thank-you
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




I think Harper/Flaherty are on the side of the angels here; Canadians, by and large, don't like public sector unions - the *perception* is that the public sector writ large, including politicians, government workers and school teachers, is overpaid, has gold-plated pensions and is under worked. It doesn't matter if that's true or not, it's what the general public feels and my sense is that Canadian labour leaders, except, maybe, a few 'tone deaf' public sector union officers, know it.


----------



## Haletown (28 Mar 2012)

Helpful video for taxpayers unfamiliar with Ottawa-Speak.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OtLL7pLM-yE


Maybe she could explain  procurement to Evan?


----------



## RangerRay (28 Mar 2012)

> How about resource development, which has traditionally contended with environment protection? A winner has been declared and it isn’t the tree huggers. It’s full speed ahead for pipelines and resource exploitation at the expense of green priorities. This week’s budget is expected to further weaken environmental assessment laws and reduce fish habitat protection.



I have to disagree with this.  To me, it would be a huge mistake to weaken the environmental assessment process and fish habitat protection laws.  These processes are the only way we have to ensure that industry mitigate their externalities, and ensure projects which would cost more environmentally than they would reap in economic benefits, never see the light of day.

We have seen what happens when environmental regulation in BC is weakened (while we got a carbon tax shafted on us).  It effectively turned the Province into a Monopoly board, public good be damned.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Mar 2012)

I think there is a disconnect between proper, constructive environmental regulation, which I agree is *vital*, and the unnecessarily long review processes. Those reviews are, in my opinion, aimed more at pacifying project opponents, very often serial opponents - folks who oppose, oppose and oppose anything, than at ensuring that projects that can be approved are safe and clean. I don't think we need to our should do irreparable harm to the environment just to make money, but I also think that the environment can and even should be _changed_ to support human development.


----------



## Jed (28 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think there is a disconnect between proper, constructive environmental regulation, which I agree is *vital*, and the unnecessarily long review processes. Those reviews are, in my opinion, aimed more at pacifying project opponents, very often serial opponents - folks who oppose, oppose and oppose anything, than at ensuring that projects that can be approved are safe and clean. I don't think we need to our should do irreparable harm to the environment just to make money, but I also think that the environment can and even should be _changed_ to support human development.



I concur with your assessment ERC, however;

As with all the professions in today's litigation prone society, environmental engineers and other technical persons are very reluctant to get on with approvals of any sort. It takes individuals in positions of power to take the political risk to move these projects forward. I do not feel there is enough trust between elected officials and the bureaucratic support staff to expedite any of the in place approval processes.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (28 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think there is a disconnect between proper, constructive environmental regulation, which I agree is *vital*, and the unnecessarily long review processes. Those reviews are, in my opinion, aimed more at pacifying project opponents, very often serial opponents - folks who oppose, oppose and oppose anything, than at ensuring that projects that can be approved are safe and clean. I don't think we need to our should do irreparable harm to the environment just to make money, but I also think that the environment can and even should be _changed_ to support human development.



I have been involved in many CEAA reviews from screenings, comp studies and Panels. We generally don't get a lot of bang for the buck with how screening level CEAA's are done, mostly it's a report listing the submission of the agencies, First Nations and responses by the proponents. My CEAA screenings are triggered by the "Lawlist regulations" some of the triggers are stunningly silly, I can imagine some junior policy wonk running through a list going; "Decision, yep add to lawlist" We have one section of our Act that allows for us to take action after 24hrs as it's determined to be an emergency , yet that same section is also on the Lawlist requiring a CEAA to be done first.

Comp studies and Panels are more indepth, happen less, but generally produce a better and more useful product, however they cost everyone a great deal more time and money. For 1 comp study the proponent spent $100,000 on printing costs and their application weighed 60lbs when it hit my desk. The good news is that it sent our IM Nazis with their obsession with RDMIN's running out the door in terror.  ;D

DFO has moved away from CEAA's by creating "Operational Statements and Best Management Practices"  for things like clearspan bridges and reactivating old log dumps, these sort of regulatory practices will be the wave of the future as it removes the need to apply, generally just notification. 
My concern about the above is that the wonks in the Ivory tower, think going this way saves money. It actually costs more as the only way to maintain standards is through consistant compliance and enforcement, which is way more expensive than regulatory work. If you don't maintain standards and force the industries to comply with the standards, then the "gypo" companies win the contracts as they have no intention of meeting the standards and they force the good companies to the same level in order to survive.


----------



## Kirkhill (28 Mar 2012)

Much like the USMC General who couldn't remember the last time they manned an ICBM missile, I can't remember the last time we had a public review of the National Building Code, Fire Code or Electrical Code.

Most planning applications involve public input at the Development Permit stage (hands up all those that want a sewage plant next to your lovely marina) and that is it.

I fail to understand why environmental regulation should be any different than any other type of regulation.  Once they are promulgated then they are incorporated into the project plan and converted to a dollar value.  The client decides if he can afford the cost or not.

The politicians, bureaucrats and (indirectly) the public control the regulations.  Those can be managed.  

What makes life difficult is an indeterminate timeline and random synaptic surges from local PTA members.


----------



## RangerRay (28 Mar 2012)

I don't know.  Recently, it was the federal process that stopped a very poorly planned mine from going ahead in the Chilcotin area of BC.  The watered down provincial process (Thanks Gord!) approved the project, but the federal process found that there would be serious damage to a lake (which was to be drained dry), grizzly bear habitat, leaching of toxins into the water table, and serious legal concerns with the local First Nations.  All along, the proponent said that it's proposal was the only feasible option for the mine to operate.  As soon as the feds canned it, the proponents all of a sudden said that they could do it differently.  :

I fear that if this process is weakened, then bad projects like that mine would get rubber stamped, all in the name of economic prosperity.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Mar 2012)

I don't want the *standards* weakened - challenged on a scientific basis, yes, but not weakened without hard scientific evidence.

BUT: I am not sure that every single opponent needs to be given (at public (your and my) expense) a lawyer and weeks to prepare his or her brief, and the weeks appear to run concurrently, imposing expensive delays on the project approval process. I believe we need to hear the opposition but my impression is that the opposition is organized so as to impose unreasonable and unwarranted delays - in the hopes that the proponents of a safe, clean project will give up in the face of an endless line of publicly funded whiners.


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Mar 2012)

RangerRay: 





> To me, it would be a huge mistake *to weaken the environmental assessment process and fish habitat protection laws*.  These processes are the only way we have to ensure that industry mitigate their externalities, and ensure projects which would cost more environmentally than they would reap in economic benefits, never see the light of day.



Agree to some extent, but the Environment has become a huge public service growth industry, much like that other bugbear of mine, Public Affairs.

Example of where to save a buck. Note, that my info is out dated by almost five years. 

Land Staff had approximately twenty-two public servants in their Environmental directorate. The was one LS General Safety Officer.

Trundling down Hwy No 1 West, RangerRay, towards Brandon in August. You put a vehicle into the absolutely dry ditch and spill a drop of POL and you have violated the Fisheries Act.

Sure Species At Risk is important to Shilo. How many trees did it take to produce and distribute the FTX Environmental Annex?

Ever take the Unit Environmental Officer course? 

I was a CBG  GSO and Envir O.


----------



## RangerRay (29 Mar 2012)

Mr. Campbell, you bring up good points about a process that can get bogged down by everyone and their dog seeking representation on our dime at the assessment hearings.  And Rifleman62, you make excellent points about the silliness of many of the regulations out there.  They need to be fixed.

However, it is my experience that when these assessment processes and environmental regulations are weakened in the name of efficiency, they turn into rubber stamp processes for anyone who can promise huge economic benefits.  Scientists assessing the projects are ordered to not say "No", but to look for ways to mitigate the damage, even if mitigation is not possible.  This is especially problematic when the proponent is inflexible in its proposal, saying that any changes would make the project unfeasible.  

I am hardly a friend to the tree-huggers and eco-facsists out there, most of whom are totally uneducated in ecology, forestry or wildlife management.  However, I am very cynical when I hear that environmental assessment processes and regulations are being "streamlined" to help industry.  To me, it sounds like a giant rubber stamp is being made, economic benefits will trump environmental concerns, and we, the general public, pay for any and all damage to the environment.


----------



## The Bread Guy (29 Mar 2012)

The highlights just out....


> .... The Honourable Jim Flaherty, Minister of Finance, today tabled Economic Action Plan 2012, a comprehensive agenda to bolster Canada’s long-term economic strengths and promote job growth.
> 
> “In this budget, our Government is looking ahead not only over the next few years but also over the next generation,” said Minister Flaherty. “The reforms we present today are substantial, responsible and necessary. They will ensure that all across government we are focused on enabling and sustaining Canada’s long-term economic growth.”
> 
> ...



.... and this on getting rid of the penny:


> .... Introduction
> 
> In Economic Action Plan 2012, the Government announced it will eliminate the penny from Canada's coinage system.
> Over time, the penny's burden to the economy has grown relative to its value as a means of payment. It costs the Government 1.6 cents to produce each new penny. The estimated cost to the Government of supplying pennies to the economy is about $11 million a year.
> ...



Feel free to hunt around here for what intrigues you.


----------



## RubberTree (29 Mar 2012)

The CBC tag line right now states that the CF (and other federal areas) will "pay more and get less" with respect to pensions. I looked at the budget (albeit briefly) to try and gain more info but no luck. Any ideas what this will mean for the average soldier?


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Mar 2012)

From the Economic Action Plan 2012:



> The Government proposes to adjust the Public Service Pension Plan so that public service employee contributions equal, over time, those of the employer (50/50). Comparable changes to the contribution rates will be made to the pension plans for the Canadian Forces, the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Parliamentarians.



Also:



> The Government is also taking specific action to bring federal public service compensation in line with that of other public and private sector employers. This includes eliminating the accumulation of severance benefits for voluntary resignation and retirement, which to date has been eliminated
> for about 230,000 unionized and non-unionized federal government employees, including members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, the Canadian Forces and all executives in the core public administration. Other federal public sector employers are pursuing similar approaches.



2 questions:

1- How much do we pay now for our pension, in terms of ratio?

2- Does the second quote mean we will lose all accumulated severance pay or are we going to be given options?


----------



## Haletown (29 Mar 2012)

Quickie look says Federal spending will increase by $13 Billion over 3 years.

Only in Ottawa would that be considered an austerity budget.


----------



## GAP (29 Mar 2012)

Yeah, but they cut the CBC by 10%


----------



## Haletown (29 Mar 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Yeah, but they cut the CBC by 10%




They missed a zero  . . .   :nod:


----------



## Privateer (29 Mar 2012)

From the Globe and Mail:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/budget/military-aid-and-diplomacy-face-deep-cuts-in-tory-budget/article2386038/



> Most of the details on how the cuts will be made were kept hidden.
> 
> In fact, neither the budget nor the host of government officials attending a lockup to explain it provided a figure for the Defence budget for the coming year, and in the years affected by the cuts. Officials said that information was not being presented on budget day.
> 
> ...


----------



## RubberTree (29 Mar 2012)

A cursory look through the treasury board website shows the government (as of 2005, the page was archived) paying 78% of the pension while the members pay 22%.


----------



## SupersonicMax (29 Mar 2012)

RubberTree said:
			
		

> A cursory look through the treasury board website shows the government (as of 2005, the page was archived) paying 78% of the pension while the members pay 22%.



So it will be a 172% increase!?  This would have an important impact on all CF members if that's the case. It would essentially cut our net pay by 17%!


----------



## dapaterson (29 Mar 2012)

SupersonicMax said:
			
		

> From the Economic Action Plan 2012:
> 
> Also:
> 
> ...



1.  Office of the Superindendent of Financial Institutions does regular evaluations of the CF pension plans; that would be the best place to start for current contribution ratios (as opposed to 7 year old figures that do not reflect increases to member contribution rates over the past few years).

2.  I suspect the PSAC model, where choices were given to take it now or later or a mix of both, is what will happen - the budget document stated that accumulation has ceased, not that accumulated benefits were lost.


----------



## jollyjacktar (29 Mar 2012)

Why do I get the feeling that they could have at least kissed me first...


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Mar 2012)

The _Globe and Mail_ has produced a good set of _info-graphics_ to explain the budget highlights; they are reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/budget/infographic-your-2012-federal-budget-explained/article2384109/?from=2386120











































In my opinion it is a pretty fair budget ... I believe it could have cut more from spending without doing any real economic damage, but politics would, probably, not allow it. Our national aim should be to get the total (federal and provincial) debt down to something in the range of 30% of GDP by about 2025.


Edit: typo


----------



## AliG (29 Mar 2012)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> 1.  Office of the Superindendent of Financial Institutions does regular evaluations of the CF pension plans; that would be the best place to start for current contribution ratios (as opposed to 7 year old figures that do not reflect increases to member contribution rates over the past few years).
> 
> 2.  I suspect the PSAC model, where choices were given to take it now or later or a mix of both, is what will happen - the budget document stated that accumulation has *ceased*, not that accumulated benefits were lost.



2. The net effect of which is equal the equivalent of up to a 2% cut to the salary envelope.


----------



## kilekaldar (29 Mar 2012)

*$3.5-billion in capital spending - the sums the military uses to buy equipment like planes, ships, trucks, tanks and weapons - will be put off until seven years from now, so that the government can save an average of $500-million a year.*

7 years with no new equipment? The LSVW is suppose to last another 7 years? LOL
And all the LAVs and armored vehicles we lost, guess we'll do without those too? Does this mean that the navy ships nearing the end of their lives won't get replaced? Or the CF-18 will get 'extended'?

The war ends, politicians always think 'that was the last war', and get caught by surprise when the next war happens.
When the ramp ceremonies start up again and the media suddenly gives a damn, then well see a slew of single-source panic purchases, when it's too late, and likely at a much higher cost then if we had purchased major equipment gradually. 
Brilliant. It's great how history can go in circles, like a dog chasing it's tail.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Mar 2012)

WRT cuts, I'm somewhat underwhelmed. The total amount cut really should have been doubled, indeed the "Chopping Block" series in the National Post has laid out the argument for cuts of up to $12 billion. I doubt there is a cunning plan to cut another $5 billion next year and another $5 billion the year after...

One thing which is rather alarming is there seems to be no provisions to deal with Ontario, or to a lesser extent Quebec. Ontario's budget mismanagment is so bad that the provincial debt could be in the range of $300 billion to $400 billion by the time the next provincial election rolls around. (Given the McGuinty government has bailed on the Drummond report, I actually expect the higher figure as business, capital and skilled workers leave the province). The bond rating agenceis could cause a catastrophic event in the Canadian economy if they dongrade Ontario's credit rating, the higher interest rates that Ontario would have to pay (and the escalating issues of runaway debt, ever increasing defecits or taxes and economic flight from the province) could rapidly crater the national economic recovery, or force Ottawa to assume the Ontario debt and thus almost double the debt and increase the total debt plus unfunded liabilites to over $1.4 trillion dollars. This would cause ripples of alarm in the bond market, so Canada would get hammered with a greater risk premium. (This may happen even if the Federal Government refuses to assume Ontario's liabilites).

Only taking steps to rapidly clear the national debt would provide insulation should Ontario capsize, and this budget is not going to set the stage to do so.


----------



## dogger1936 (29 Mar 2012)

......so whats happening to my pension now?


----------



## Remius (29 Mar 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> ......so whats happening to my pension now?



Your severance will stop growing sometime next year.  You'll be paying more into it thus less take home pay, and likely work 5 years more than you anticipated.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Mar 2012)

Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, ia one commentator's opinion the budget:

My *emphasis* added
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/pm-delivers-his-vision-less-government-for-all/article2386614/


> PM delivers his vision: Less government for all
> 
> JOHN IBBITSON
> 
> ...




Broadly, I approve of this budget, including the cuts to defence spending - *being a civilian, albeit retired from the CF, I am not bound by DND's embargo on commentary* - I think some cuts could have been deeper; I hope some, like those to the CBC and regional development, will become annual events. I do not believe that the cuts to the defence budget are going to hurt much - we have discussed elsewhere why and how to cut some of the "bloat" in DND; we do not all agree on how to cut but most of us, serving and retired, junior and senior, are fairly satisfied that DND, the whole place, beginning with HQs in Ottawa, can do more better with less. Maybe DND will need another cut to, finally, provoke the senior management and military leadership to examine their basic organization. I understand that some of you are going to have to work longer and harder to retire and you will not get the same benefits I enjoy. I will not apologize for my "good" pension - it was part of the terms of service under which I agreed to serve more than a half century ago, some things were better than you have, post this budget, some worse.


----------



## matthew1786 (30 Mar 2012)

http://www.canada.com/mobile/iphone/story.html?id=6380737

A good listed summary of today's budget reveal. Check out #17 down the list for a summary on CF affected pension contributions. I believe right now it is 60/40 and now it will transform to 50/50.

Also, although the internal details have not yet been revealed, how do you think this will effect those applying into the CF now under the 2012-2013 fiscal year?


----------



## dogger1936 (30 Mar 2012)

Crantor said:
			
		

> Your severance will stop growing sometime next year.  You'll be paying more into it thus less take home pay, and likely work 5 years more than you anticipated.



Thank you Mr. Harper!!


----------



## Journeyman (30 Mar 2012)

It's always hard to tell online, but I suspect that you meant that sarcastically.

I say the same thing, but sincerely.


But then, I guess I'm just looking at the larger puzzle rather than one small piece.


----------



## dogger1936 (30 Mar 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> It's always hard to tell online, but I suspect that you meant that sarcastically.
> 
> I say the same thing, but sincerely.
> 
> ...



Whats not to love about losing severance pay and having to pay 50% for the same pension?


----------



## PuckChaser (30 Mar 2012)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Quickie look says Federal spending will increase by $13 Billion over 3 years.
> 
> Only in Ottawa would that be considered an austerity budget.



Correction, only for the Liberals and NDP would $13 Billion net increase in spending is considered austerity. Look what the Liberals and NDP did to Ontario.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Mar 2012)

Again, bigger picture -- what's not to love about being one of only two G7 countries to have a balanced budget by 2016? A stable budget, forecasting a surplus by 2015-16 is power.

I suspect that this will do more for Canada's voice in the world than whether we get F-35s or Super Hornets....whether our Army adopts any 'Royal' affectations and pips & crowns....or whether we ever get submarines that spend less time above water than our helicopters. But that's the budget, _writ large_, not any opinion on defence spending!

While you're looking closer to home, in the form of severance pay, my domestic vision says this will be better for my kids down the road.

:dunno:   Just sayin'


----------



## dogger1936 (30 Mar 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Again, bigger picture -- what's not to love about being one of only two G7 countries to have a balanced budget by 2016? A stable budget, forecasting a surplus by 2015-16 is power.
> 
> I suspect that this will do more for Canada's voice in the world than whether we get F-35s or Super Hornets....whether our Army adopts any 'Royal' affectations and pips & crowns....or whether we ever get submarines that spend less time above water than our helicopters. But that's the budget, _writ large_, not any opinion on defence spending!
> 
> ...



Put yourself in the shoes of a Cpl with 4 years in. It's great for us on the end of the spectrum IRT career's. I'm sure he'll living in the PMQ's with a family of three loving the fact he's making X less dollars. I bet every payday he'll be thanking his lucky stars we have a good domestic vision.


----------



## dogger1936 (30 Mar 2012)

Whats 17% of a Cpl pay anyway...cleared maybe 200 bucks or so? I'm sure they won't miss that.


----------



## Journeyman (30 Mar 2012)

Well, we've both laid out our points of view -- I guess we'll have to see how it all plays out.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Mar 2012)

Does this thing mean I can serve to 65? That's what it sounded like to me :


----------



## Journeyman (30 Mar 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Does this thing mean I can serve to 65? That's what it sounded like to me :


I somehow pictured you as accepting that you were one of us destined to leave this lash-up feet first in a box.


----------



## Allen (30 Mar 2012)

> 7 years with no new equipment?



I don't think this is what's happening.

The article words it badly, but they're carving out $3.5b of the capital spending which would have occurred over the next 7 years and delaying it - the budget isn't clear for how long - it could be less or more than 7 years.

From the budget plan:



> In order to ensure that funding for major capital equipment procurements is available when it is needed, the Government is adjusting the National Defence funding profile to move *$3.54 billion over seven years into the future period* in which purchases will be made.



http://www.budget.gc.ca/2012/plan/chap5-eng.html

This table shows that the $3.5b is spread out over the 7-yr period. The amount for the last 2 years are not shown, but it would be about $0.6b:




> Updating defence capital funding
> billions of dollars
> 
> 2011–2012    0.4
> ...



http://www.budget.gc.ca/2012/plan/chap6-eng.html

It's not great, but postponing $3.5b on a 7-yr capital expenditure of over $30b is not going to bring equipment and infrastructure spending to a halt.

If certain journalists are to be believed, one of the programs to be delayed is the CCV.

Moderator edit: content


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Mar 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I somehow pictured you as accepting that you were one of us destined to leave this lash-up feet first in a box.



You're right! I'm just not ready to climb into the box yet ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Mar 2012)

Here is a _right wing_ view of the budget, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

My *emphasis* added
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/03/29/andrew-coyne-on-budget-2012-this-is-the-terminus-of-tory-radicalism/


> Andrew Coyne on Budget 2012: This is the terminus of Tory radicalism
> 
> Andrew Coyne
> 
> ...




I am not quite as pessimistic as Coyne; I believe there is some room in Harper's heart for further cuts to regional economic development programmes - maybe even cutting entire agencies - and the CBC in 2013, but, essentially he is right: the Conservatives will go easier and easier until, *IF* they get a majority in 2015, the 2016 budget.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Mar 2012)

I don't mind the slow and steady approach. There's no great 'ah ha ' moments, but the problems are identified and being dealt with.

I don't think any one group was, really, untouched in all this. There are some ways forward, project timelines for example, that really needed a head shake anyway.

Coyne's probably just pissed (seems to be anyway), that this budget held no minefields for anyone (of consequense) and that there is really nothing to stab the CPC in the eye about.

Simple, boring fiscal management. It's what we need, what we elected the CPC to do............and what we got.

Coyne, and the rest, are just pissed that there's no story here. They, now, have to start working for a living and go out and find something to write about for a change. No two week free ride bitchng about the budget.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Mar 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I don't mind the slow and steady approach. There's no great 'ah ha ' moments, but the problems are identified and being dealt with.
> 
> I don't think any one group was, really, untouched in all this. There are some ways forward, project timelines for example, that really needed a head shake anyway.
> 
> ...




I think you are pretty close to the mark; this is a _Stephen Harper_ budget, not a _conservative_ one. Both the left and right 'wings' of the political spectrum will be annoyed but, barring some unforeseen catastrophe or a huge political scandal, the _centre_, where elections are won in Canada, should be happy enough by 2015 to re-elect Harper _et al_.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Mar 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I am not quite as pessimistic as Coyne; I believe there is some room in Harper's heart for further cuts to *regional economic development programmes* - maybe even cutting entire agencies - and the CBC in 2013, but, essentially he is right: the Conservatives will go easier and easier until, *IF* they get a majority in 2015, the 2016 budget.


Maybe I'm shortsighted, but I think all ruling parties get a lot of local, over-the-heads-of-the-big-media-outlets press via such programs ("Government of Canada investment to support economic development in the Atikokan region", "Senator Duffy Announces Support for COWS Inc. to Expand Production Facility in North River", "Harper Government and Town of Swan River Turn Sod on Recreation Infrastructure Project", etc.), making them attractive to keep even by this government.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Mar 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Maybe I'm shortsighted, but I think all ruling parties get a lot of local, over-the-heads-of-the-big-media-outlets press via such programs ("Government of Canada investment to support economic development in the Atikokan region", "Senator Duffy Announces Support for COWS Inc. to Expand Production Facility in North River", "Harper Government and Town of Swan River Turn Sod on Recreation Infrastructure Project", etc.), making them attractive to keep even by this government.




There's no doubt, _regional development_ programmes, are political goldmines; but they are, also, social and economic rubbish pits and they do nothing  for anyone ... except to garner votes from the muddle headed. So, you're right, my desire to see the end of them represents, yet again, the triumph of hope over experience.


----------



## DBA (30 Mar 2012)

Coyne has lost his marbles and is just babbling incoherently. Harper promised to cut the GST and unlike the Liberals promise to abolish it he followed through. That exposes statements like "discarded every principle it had ever held and every commitment it had ever made" to be the overheated rantings of a fool. 

Overall I like the budget with some reservations in how some of it will be carried out on the ground. Lots of areas they could botch things or the end results not be in line with what was intended.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Mar 2012)

I still want to know if it means I can extend to 65  8)

I already have higher ups panicking ;D


----------



## GAP (30 Mar 2012)

I'm amazed that nobody in the media has picked up on the EI changes.

They are killing, abeit slowly, the perpetual cycle of work a few weeks, collect many more....especially in the Maritimes. The Liberals brought in the changes, mainly to get votes, but to overcome the fishing/fish plant workers doing short term seasonal work, then having nothing much for the rest of the year. 

The EI system changes allow workers to get less of a clawback while they draw for part time work....great. It gives more incentive for the people to find at least, part time work. I suspect that the changes will also work towards doing away with the endless cycle of one claim after another. I'll wait and see, but it maybe the first nibble of many to bring the system back to an employment insurance program rather than a social program.


----------



## DBA (30 Mar 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> I'm amazed that nobody in the media has picked up on the EI changes.
> 
> They are killing, abeit slowly, the perpetual cycle of work a few weeks, collect many more....especially in the Maritimes. The Liberals brought in the changes, mainly to get votes, but to overcome the fishing/fish plant workers doing short term seasonal work, then having nothing much for the rest of the year.
> 
> The EI system changes allow workers to get less of a clawback while they draw for part time work....great. It gives more incentive for the people to find at least, part time work. I suspect that the changes will also work towards doing away with the endless cycle of one claim after another. I'll wait and see, but it maybe the first nibble of many to bring the system back to an employment insurance program rather than a social program.



I can only see it helping if it leads to more employment which it just might. Higher employment in a given region means more weeks of work to qualify for EI and fewer weeks of benefits. Looking at the current EI Program Characteristics it would take a fairly large move to do it however, especially in regions with very high unemployment.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Mar 2012)

WRT the idea of a 17% "pay cut"; the resources have just been reallocated. This unwinding of the decades old "progressive project" is needed, since you would have lost a lot more than 17% when it came time to pay for the pension tsunami and various other boondoggles that were implemented without proper consideration of the long term costs. (Pension reform alone solves a problem that would have potentially ballooned into a $100 billion dollar/year expenditure).

I am willing to bite the bullet now in order to see to my long term welfare and that of my children.


----------



## larry Strong (30 Mar 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> Whats not to love about losing severance pay and having to pay 50% for the same pension?



Why should I pay for your pension??????? 50/50 split is still way better than you will get on the street, where most plans only cover a small percentage of what you contribute.


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Mar 2012)

Another way to look at pensions is that cuts and increased contributions are the cost of ensuring there is a pension.  People can lose most or all of their pensions to insolvency.  That can happen to private and municipal pensions.  I wonder how many people who plan to collect a municipal pension plan on retiring to some other less costly community so they won't be paying property taxes to support their own pensions?

Provincial pensions should be slightly harder to break, but people can vote with their feet - move to another province - rather than pay ever increasing taxes for fewer real services.  Not all provinces are likely to have the same degree of pension funding difficulties.  As tax revenues fall, the cycle becomes more vicious.

Federal pensions should be almost impossible to break, except that there isn't much difference between losing 50% of a pension and having a pension paid in dollars that have had half of their value inflated away.  Frankly, the thought of a bunch of well-off pensioners all paying exorbitant taxes to fund each others' pensions is amusing - kind of like the parable about trying to create an economy based on doing each other's laundry.

I'm not sure from where the assumption springs that fewer future taxpayers are going to cheerfully go along with paying higher taxes even while they work for lower wages and benefits.  They will have options.

I reiterate what I've stated earlier: people who've lived part of their working lives from about 1940 to present have not been paying the full shot of their benefits - by definition, since we've had to borrow to cover costs.  The only place for those costs to be made good is the future.  How is it conceivable that any rational person should expect to take more out than he put in and sit their with a smug expression while someone who wasn't alive to take part in the discussion bears the costs?  So we punted the costs yesterday; today we lose something to make up those costs.  That's just and fair, isn't it?  We can't assume that economic expansion is going to make up all the difference - it hasn't, so I assume it won't.


----------



## GAP (31 Mar 2012)

Not sure if this got posted or not....

Budget: Soldiers avoid direct hit but Defence Department, diplomats to feel budget blitz
 By Lee Berthiaume, Postmedia News March 29, 2012
Article Link

 OTTAWA — While Canada's frontline military force has emerged untouched in this year's federal budget and reservists were provided some relief, thousands of Defence Department civilians and contractors could be on the chopping block.

At the same time, the country's diplomatic footprint is set to shrink as the government will close embassies and other missions and end Canadian participation in a number of international organizations, while millions in foreign aid will be slashed.

As expected, National Defence is facing the largest cuts of all departments in terms of sheer numbers, at more than $1.1 billion by 2014-15. This is over and above the $1.1 billion the government already had planned to slash from the department's $21-billion budget this coming fiscal year.

Few details were provided, but by maintaining the current level of 68,000 regular force members and 27,000 reservists, the government appears to have taken retired general Andrew Leslie's advice to maintain the frontline force and instead cut back on the $2.7 billion spent on contractors, consultants and private-service providers.

The Defence Department also may look to sell or otherwise dispose of some of the property it currently holds in different parts of the country and change the way it purchases equipment.

On that front, the government is taking $3.54 billion it was planning to spend over the next seven years on military vehicles and other items and saving it for a future date. This largely reflects delays in a number of projects.

Meanwhile, the government is planning to help offset hiring and training costs incurred by companies that employ reservists who subsequently are deployed on military operations.

"Canada's reservists make extraordinary sacrifices to keep our country safe," Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said in his budget speech to the Commons. "But potential long absences and added costs mean some employers will not hire them. These brave Canadians should not be disadvantaged."
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Apr 2012)

A report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, on the _fallout_ from the budget:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/just-days-after-harpers-budget-the-axe-begins-to-fall/article2388765/


> Just days after Harper’s budget, the axe begins to fall
> 
> STEVEN CHASE
> 
> ...




I think we can safely assume that the cuts have been planned for some time and that, in DND anyway, they are being managed at levels below Ottawa.


----------



## matthew1786 (4 Apr 2012)

http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120404/defence-department-jobs-chopping-block-120404/

The DND is cutting approximately 1100 civilian jobs.


----------



## mad dog 2020 (4 Apr 2012)

Union: Ottawa to cut 1,100 civilian Defence Department jobs


----------



## Remius (4 Apr 2012)

Had our big meeting this morning for our L1.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Apr 2012)

matthew1786 said:
			
		

> http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20120404/defence-department-jobs-chopping-block-120404/
> 
> The DND is cutting approximately 1100 civilian jobs.



Nothing in the article states that there will be 1100 unemployed DND civilians at the end of the process. What it does say is that DND is eliminating 1100 positions. Many of these are currently unfilled, many more will be wrapped up when folks retire in the next three years, still more will be term positions that won't be renewed. The actual firing of people should be relatively small.


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Apr 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Nothing in the article states that there will be 1100 unemployed DND civilians at the end of the process. What it does say is that DND is eliminating 1100 positions. Many of these are currently unfilled, many more will be wrapped up when folks retire in the next three years, still more will be term positions that won't be renewed. The actual firing of people should be relatively small.


I agree.  During my time in FMF there were numerous retirements, none had been back filled to my departure last APS.  There were two terms that were let go in 2010, but I expect most of the losses will be exactly as you describe.


----------



## DAA (4 Apr 2012)

http://www.nugget.ca/ArticleDisplay.aspx?e=3525320

At least 16 Department of National Defence jobs in North Bay are being slashed as the federal government rolls out public service cuts outlined in its recent budget.

Kevin McNama, president of the Local 635 of the Union of National Defence Employees, said the area support unit for Northern Ontario is being eliminated. He said the unit employs civilians who provide support to reserves in the North including those at the M.L. Troy Armoury in North Bay. The positions include clerical workers and vehicle technicians.

McNama said another six jobs in Sault Ste. Marie are also being chopped. He said the Northern Ontario support unit is among five across the country that are being eliminated. McNama said it’s unknown who will be doing the work once the jobs are gone. 

The union says approximately 1,000 jobs across the country are being cut. 

The jobs will be phased out over three years, with 346 positions gone this year, 671 more of the positions disappearing in 2013-2014, and the remaining 156 in 2014-2015. McNama couldn’t say when the local cuts would take effect. 

The defence department cuts are among details that emerged Wednesday from federal departments regarding public service jobs. It was also reported that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is cutting 650 jobs, including 475 positions this year. 

The government announced plans in its recent budget to cut 19,000 public service jobs in order to save $5 billion.

Nipissing-Timiskaming MP Jay Apsin said late Wednesday that he still hadn’t heard back from the defence department about the extent of the job losses in North Bay. He said the department was working on ensuring workers were informed first. 

Apsin said he doesn’t like to see jobs lost in the riding, but noted that the government is scaling back on national defence in light of the winding down of the mission in Afghanistan. He said spending on national defence had been significantly increased since 2005. 

Additional information from the Department of National Defence was not available at press time.


----------



## Stoker (4 Apr 2012)

Here's the MARGEN for the Navy cuts

SUBJ: ECONOMIC ACTION PLAN 2012 - RCN IMPACT 
1.  ON 29 MARCH, THE GOVERNMENT ANNOUNCED ITS ECONOMIC ACTION PLAN 2012, AND THEREIN THE MEASURES TO BE TAKEN BY CF / DND UNDER THE STRATEGIC REVIEW 2010 (SR) AND DEFICIT REDUCTION PLAN 2011 (DRAP). THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE RCN IN AIDING THE GOVERNMENT TO RETURN TO A BALANCED BUDGET OVER THE MEDIUM TERM IS SIGNIFICANT AND REDUCTION TARGETS WILL NO DOUBT HAVE AN IMPACT ON OUR DEFENCE TEAM, BOTH MILITARY AND CIVILIAN.  OUR APPROACH TO MANAGING THESE IMPACTS HAS BEEN BASED ON ALMOST TWO YEARS OF CAREFUL ANALYSIS AND DEVELOPMENT OF OPTIONS TO POSITION THE NAVY FOR SUCCESS.  THE RCN EXAMINED THE BREADTH OF ITS ACTIVITIES AND IDENTIFIED OPTIONS THAT WERE EVALUATED 
CAREFULLY AGAINST ITS CORE OUTCOME - THE GENERATION OF MISSION-READY, COMBAT-CAPABLE MARITIME FORCES.  OUR WORK RE-AFFIRMED THAT THE PREPONDERANCE OF RCN ACTIVITIES ARE ALREADY WELL ALIGNED WITH THE RCN MISSION AND HENCE WITH THE CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY.  BUT THE REVIEW ALSO IDENTIFIED WHERE ADJUSTMENTS WERE NEEDED, ESPECIALLY IN BUILDING TOWARDS THE MORE EFFICIENT AND EFFECTIVE ONE-NAVY RCN OF TOMORROW
2.  WE ARE OPERATING IN A TIME OF CHANGE, BUT I AM CONFIDENT THAT THE EXTREMELY STRONG LABOUR MANAGEMENT RELATIONS IN THE RCN FORMATIONS, NURTURED OVER TIME THROUGH A TRUST BASED COLLABORATIVE APPROACH TO THE BUSINESS OF THE RCN, AND BY THE STRONG SUPPORT OF THE CHAIN OF COMMAND AND ENGAGED LABOUR LEADERSHIP, WILL SUPPORT RENEWAL IN TERMS OF FINDING EFFICIENCIES, PRESERVING THE OPERATIONAL READINESS OF THE
FLEET, AND INTRODUCING NEW CAPABILITIES ARISING FROM CFDS AND THE NATIONAL SHIPBUILDING PROCUREMENT STRATEGY.
3. NEW BUSINESS PROCESSES, FUNCTIONAL ORGANIZATIONAL ALIGNMENT AND PRIORITIZATION OF OUR EFFORTS ARE AT THE HEART OF OFFSETTING THE ADDITIONAL PRESSURES OF PERSONNEL REDUCTIONS AND CHANGES TO BASELINE FUNDING.  TO ACHIEVE THE EFFICIENCIES OF A ONE NAVY ORGANIZATION, SIGNIFICANT CHANGES HAVE BEEN SET IN MOTION.  THESE CHANGES INCLUDE THE STAND-UP OF THE NAVAL TRAINING SYSTEM UNDER A SINGLE COMMANDER, 
THE ADOPTION OF PERSONNEL COORDINATION CENTRES ON BOTH COASTS UNDER A SINGLE NATIONAL AUTHORITY, THE FORMALIZATION OF THE MARITIME COMPONENT COMMANDER IN SUPPORT OF NATIONAL AND INTERNATIONAL OPERATIONS, THE DESIGNATION OF A SINGLE AUTHORITY RESPONSIBLE FOR FLEET SCHEDULING AND READINESS MANAGEMENT, AND THE APPOINTMENT OF THE DIRECTOR CANADIAN SUBMARINE FORCES TO OVERSEE THE MANAGEMENT OF OUR SUBMARINE CAPABILITY.
4. WITH REGARD TO RCN DIVESTMENTS DIRECTLY ARISING FROM SR AND DRAP, I HAVE ORDERED THE FOLLOWING INITIATIVES TO BE IMPLEMENTED IMMEDIATELY:
A.  RESHAPE THE NAVAL RESERVE (NAVRES) TO TRANSITION FROM ITS CURRENT CONFIGURATION TO A MORE BALANCED STRATEGIC RESERVE, RETAINING A NAVAL RESERVE TRAINED CLASS A TARGET STRENGTH OF APPROXIMATELY 3500 PERSONNEL.  MEASURES WILL INCLUDE A REDUCED RELIANCE ON RESERVE FORCE CLASS B PERSONNEL, NOTING THAT 365 CLASS C RESERVISTS IN SUPPORT OF KINGSTON CLASS CREWING ARE NOT AFFECTED.  REDUCTIONS WILL INCLUDE THE DIVESTMENT OF CERTAIN CAPABILITIES IN FAVOUR OF REDIRECTING THOSE CORE SKILLS AND COMPETENCIES TOWARDS NAVAL RESERVE DOMESTIC SAFETY 
AND SECURITY TASKS. MEASURES INCLUDE ALSO THE DIVESTMENT OF FORCE PROTECTION POSITIONS IN HALIFAX AND ESQUIMALT.  SEPARATE 
CORRESPONDENCE WILL FOLLOW IN DUE COURSE THAT EXPLICITLY DETAILS THESE CHANGES
B. MERGE ADAC (PACIFIC) AND ADAC (ATLANTIC) INTO ONE CENTRE IN HALIFAX, IMPROVE EFFICIENCIES, REDUCE OVERHEAD AND ELIMINATE REDUNDANCIES
C. RATIONALIZE FMFS, RESHAPING THE TWO WORKFORCES TO BEST MEET THE OPERATIONAL NEEDS OF THE FLEET
D. REDUCE REPAIR-AND-OVERHAUL SUPPORT FOR SELECTED DDG 280 WARFARE CAPABILITIES AND RELATED TRAINING MUNITIONS, CEASE SUPPORT TO THE DDG 280 COMBAT CONTROL SYSTEM, AS WELL AS CONTINUE A TARGETED APPROACH TO REPAIR-AND-OVERHAUL OF SELECTED LEGACY FRIGATE SYSTEMS THAT ARE DUE TO BE UPDATED AS PART OF THE ONGOING HCM PROGRAMME
E. REDUCE RELIANCE ON OVERTIME, TEMPORARY DUTY TRAVEL AND CONTRACTED SERVICES, AND REQUIRE LEADERS AND MANAGERS AT ALL LEVELS TO COMPENSATE THROUGH CLOSER PLANNING OF THEIR RESOURCES AND
F. RATIONALIZE AND REDUCE CIVILIAN PERSONNEL IN NAVAL HQS AND BASE SUPPORT STAFFS.
5. THE REDUCTION BY WAY OF WORK FORCE ADJUSTMENT IS EXPECTED TO BE APPROXIMATELY 44 EMPLOYEES OVER THREE YEARS.  USING HISTORICAL ATTRITION VALUES AND ASSESSING THE DEMOGRAPHIC OF OUR WORKFORCE, WE ANTICIPATE BEING ABLE TO REDUCE OUR WORKFORCE FURTHER BY ATTRITION IN ORDER TO REMAIN WITHIN OUR CIVILIAN SALARY FUNDING ALLOCATIONS.  AS A DIRECT RESULT OF AN AGGRESSIVE WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY BY THE 
RCN OVER THE COURSE OF THE LAST 12 MONTHS, THE NAVY HAS ALREADY DEMONSTRATED A SUSTAINED REDUCTION OF FULL TIME EQUIVALENTS TO BE CREDITED AGAINST THE DOWNSIZING.
6. I MUST NOTE, THOUGH, THAT AS FURTHER PLANNING UNFOLDS AND IF 
ATTRITION FAILS TO MEET TARGETED EXPECTATIONS, THERE MAY NEED TO BE MORE WFA BUT WE WILL RESPECT THE WORKFORCE ADJUSTMENT DIRECTIVE AND THE COLLECTIVE AGREEMENTS.  A NATIONAL LEVEL, RCN CIVILIAN WORKFORCE MANAGEMENT BOARD WILL REPORT TO ME THE PRIORITY OF STAFFING PROCESSES IN ORDER TO ENSURE OUR HUMAN RESOURCES ARE DIRECTED TO THE PRIORITY TASKS OF THE RCN, WHILE MEETING THE TARGETED REDUCTIONS DEMANDED BY SR AND DRAP.
7. A CRUCIAL ELEMENT OF OUR IMPLEMENTATION PLAN, FORMALLY BEGUN TODAY AS A RESULT OF THE GOVERNMENT’S ANNOUNCEMENT, IS THE NEED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE LEGITIMATE CONCERNS OF OUR MEN AND WOMEN, AS WELL AS TO HONOUR OUR FUNDAMENTAL LEADERSHIP RESPONSIBILITIES TOWARDS THOSE WHO ARE IMPACTED DIRECTLY BY THE MEASURES OUTLINED ABOVE.
8.  ADMITTEDLY, A GREAT MANY PERSONNEL ARE EITHER DIRECTLY OR 
INDIRECTLY IMPACTED BY THESE CHANGES.  REST ASSURED THAT YOUR 
MANAGERS, SUPERVISORS AND DIVISIONAL LEADERS WILL BE WORKING CLOSELY WITH YOU IN THE DAYS AND WEEKS AHEAD WITH THE CARING LEADERSHIP THAT I EXPECT OF THEM. THEY WILL HELP YOU TO MAKE THOSE NECESSARY ADJUSTMENTS TO NEW OPPORTUNITIES TO BE FOUND EITHER WITHIN DND OR ELSEWHERE.
9.  CHANGE IS SELDOM EASY.  BUT THESE CHANGES WERE NECESSARY TO 
ENSURE THAT THE RCN PLAYS ITS ROLE IN THE FISCAL MANAGEMENT OF OUR GREAT COUNTRY, BUT ALSO TO ENSURE THAT THE RCN REMAINS QUOTE READY, AYE READY UNQUOTE TO ACCOMPLISH ITS CORE MISSION, NOT JUST TODAY AS YOU CONTINUE TO ENSURE THROUGH YOUR SUPERB EFFORTS, DEDICATION AND RESOLVE, BUT ALSO FOR TOMORROW THROUGH THE FLEET THAT THE CANADA FIRST DEFENCE STRATEGY WILL DELIVER.  I THANK ALL OF YOU FOR YOUR STELLAR SUPPORT TO THE SUCCESS OF THE RCN, AND MOST SPECIFICALLY, I PRAISE YOUR STOIC DETERMINATION THROUGHOUT THE UNCERTAINTY OF THE PAST FEW MONTHS.  FOR THOSE DIRECTLY AFFECTED BY THE REDUCTION ACTIVITIES, I OFFER MY MOST SINCERE APPRECIATION FOR YOUR DEDICATION AND EFFORTS.  I KNOW THAT LIFE AND CAREER TRANSITIONS WILL BE VERY DIFFICULT AND VOW TO ENSURE 
THAT OUR PERSONNEL SUPPORT AGENCIES DIRECT THEIR RESOURCES TO YOUR ASSISTANCE.  I ENCOURAGE YOU TO DISCUSS ANY QUESTIONS OR CONCERNS WITH YOUR MANAGER AND TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE RESOURCES AVAILABLE TO SUPPORT YOU THROUGH THE CHANGE PROCESS. FURTHER INFORMATION ON THE CHANGES AT DND/CF AND ON THE RESOURCES, CAN BE FOUND ON THE FOCUS ON CHANGE SITE AT HTTP://DT-ED.MIL.CA/CHANGE-CHANGEMENT/INDEX-ENG.ASP.
10. AS UPDATES OCCUR, I WILL CONTINUE TO KEEP YOU INFORMED OF OUR WAY FORWARD.
11. VADM PAUL MADDISON, COMMANDER RCN SENDS


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Apr 2012)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> C. RATIONALIZE FMFS, RESHAPING THE TWO WORKFORCES TO BEST MEET THE OPERATIONAL NEEDS OF THE FLEET
> D. REDUCE REPAIR-AND-OVERHAUL SUPPORT FOR SELECTED DDG 280 WARFARE CAPABILITIES AND RELATED TRAINING MUNITIONS, CEASE SUPPORT TO THE DDG 280 COMBAT CONTROL SYSTEM, AS WELL AS CONTINUE A TARGETED APPROACH TO REPAIR-AND-OVERHAUL OF SELECTED LEGACY FRIGATE SYSTEMS THAT ARE DUE TO BE UPDATED AS PART OF THE ONGOING HCM PROGRAMME
> E. REDUCE RELIANCE ON OVERTIME, TEMPORARY DUTY TRAVEL AND CONTRACTED SERVICES, AND REQUIRE LEADERS AND MANAGERS AT ALL LEVELS TO COMPENSATE THROUGH CLOSER PLANNING OF THEIR RESOURCES AND


That sounds like the death knell of the 280's starting to sound serioulsy with the first of the nails being hammered home, and the FMF's sound as if they have a nasty cough and a mysterious black mole appearing suddenly on their skins.  Of course we all knew the 280's days were numbered, but to see the start announced gives me a chill.


----------



## Occam (4 Apr 2012)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> That sounds like the death knell of the 280's starting to sound serioulsy with the first of the nails being hammered home, and the FMF's sound as if they have a nasty cough and a mysterious black mole appearing suddenly on their skins.  Of course we all knew the 280's days were numbered, but to see the start announced gives me a chill.



That's why there's the big push to get the first four hulls through FELEX - they'll be capable of taking over the command ship responsibilities from the IRO class so they can be paid off.


----------



## jollyjacktar (5 Apr 2012)

Yes, indeed.  Sad times to see the old girls break a hip.


----------



## GAP (12 Apr 2012)

Why are we funding US universities? 

Harper government slashes Canadian Studies funding for U.S. universities

The federal government has supported Canadian education abroad for over 30 years, but now universities across the U.S. are being refused funding from the Department of Foreign Affairs. 
Alexis Stoymenoff  Apr 12th, 2012
Article Link

Canadian Studies programs at universities across the U.S. are facing serious cutbacks this year, with the rollback of an important grant program facilitated by Canada’s Department of Foreign Affairs.

"This is the first year in history that the government has denied funding dozens of grant applications from across the U.S.," said Nadine Fabbi, the associate director of Canadian Studies at the Seattle-based University of Washington. 

"These grants have significantly strengthened Canada's voice in the U.S. on issues that range from the Keystone XL pipeline to water resources to Arctic sovereignty," Fabbi said.  

"It is incredible to think that the Department of Foreign Affairs is willing to fund $200,000 a year for bamboo to feed panda bears, but will not support enhanced international education about and understanding of Canada," she said. 

Fabbi wasn't alone in her surprise: many other universities have recently found out that important grants have fallen through.

“We’ve been receiving support from the Canadian government for at least 30 years,” said Don Alper, director of the Center for Canadian-American Studies at Western Washington University.

His institution is one of the few American schools with extensive academic programming about Canada. But this year, the Canadian government refused his Center’s grant applications.

“We heard a lot about delays and reorganizations and things like that," he said. After speaking with the people who normally work on his programs, he explained, it became "pretty clear that this was part of a larger budget revision or budget reviews going on at the federal government.”

“They didn’t tell us anything specifically about why we weren’t funded. They just said we weren’t funded.”

DFAIT’s Canadian Studies Grant Program: what does it do?

Canadian Studies grants to U.S. schools are administered through the Canadian Embassy and the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade (DFAIT). In addition to individual research grants for students and professors, DFAIT has traditionally offered institutional and program grants intended to “promote research, exchanges, teaching, and program activity that contribute to a better knowledge and understanding of Canada, its relationship with the United States, or its international affairs.”

"The grants have brought hundreds of American students to Canada to understand the differing values and social models of the country," Fabbi said. 
More on link


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Apr 2012)

> The military is boarding up an intelligence office on the West Coast less than two years after the navy argued it needed more surveillance in a region considered a prime thoroughfare for human smuggling.
> 
> The Acoustic Data Analysis Centre at Canadian Forces Base Esquimalt, B.C., will close as part of a three-year drive to carve $1.5 billion from the budget of National Defence.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press, 18 Apr 12


----------



## Colin Parkinson (19 Apr 2012)

We were discussing over morning coffee the cycle or rubberband of "centralize" and then "de-centralize" resources, for some people this is their 3rd go around.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Apr 2012)

Funny.  I was talking about that with a guy currently employed by a company/bureaucracy I used to compete with.  We had both been around long enough to see our management centralize/de-centralize a number of times - usually in rhythm with managers being promoted on the backs of "promoting change".

How did the Admiralty manage to survive between Samuel Pepys and Horatio Nelson with the same structure?


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Apr 2012)

Far distant ships worked pretty well with general directions and wishes of bon voyage, thus allowing the Lords of the Admiralty plenty of leisure time.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Apr 2012)

The latest alleged cuts....


> There could soon be less spring in the step of those at National Defence as the department considers halting the decade-long practice of distributing free Viagra to the troops.
> 
> Also under consideration is the cancellation of taxpayer-funded transgender medical procedures for members of the military.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press, 27 Apr 12


----------



## GAP (27 Apr 2012)

> There could soon be less spring in the step of those at National Defence as the department considers halting the decade-long practice of distributing free Viagra to the troops.



uh.....who knew!!  ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Apr 2012)

Considering the belt fed *C*onfirmation *O*f *C*ombat *K*nowledge that some people claim to constantly receive, you knew there had to be some sort of, issued, sex enhancement drug involved.


----------



## GAP (27 Apr 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Considering the belt fed c**k that some people claim to constantly receive, you knew there had to be some sort of, issued, sex enhancement drug involved.



oh.....I thought that was the Tac Vest.......silly me..... ;D


----------



## aesop081 (27 Apr 2012)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> The Canadian Press, 18 Apr 12



This is a funny one........




> The military is boarding up an intelligence office on the West Coast less than two years after the navy argued it needed more surveillance in a region considered a prime thoroughfare for human smuggling.



ADAC(P) has nothing to do with this.



> Operations will be transferred to a similar centre in Halifax, which has been in the middle of a continuing spy scandal involving navy intelligence officer Sub-Lt. Jeffery Delisle.



That event had nothing to do with ADAC(A).


----------



## CountDC (27 Apr 2012)

seems National Defence likes to issue terse statements:

"The navy refused to discuss specifics of the closure, declined interview requests and issued a terse statement that the centre's loss would not have an impact."

"Asked whether either health initiative faced elimination, National Defence responded with a terse statement saying the military's health services branch..."

They must mean smoothly elegant.  

They could say brief but it doesn't have the same impact of giving a negative impression like terse does.

shhhh CDN Aviator - wouldn't want the press to actually get something right now would we.


----------



## The Bread Guy (27 Apr 2012)

As pointed out by one of the Mods here on the CP health story.... 
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/105663.0.html
.... for once, the comments are actually sometimes helpful in explaining more of the story.


----------



## Brad Sallows (27 Apr 2012)

My recollection is of a 3-ringer (or was it 4?) wearing a snake explaining that the funding of some trans-gender medical issues was simply because some provinces covered some of those issues - DND should provide its dependants something approximating the coverage of Canadians elsewhere, being the thinking.

Given that not all services are listed (funded) by all provinces, I see nothing controversial in DND deciding to list some of what provinces offer, but not all of it.  Political correctness and party ideology have nothing, and should have nothing - for or against - to do with it.


----------



## bridges (9 May 2012)

The latest on the passage (or not) of this bill through the House:

From globeandmail.com, by GLORIA GALLOWAY 
Posted on Wednesday, May 9, 2012 12:32PM EDT
Reproduced in accordance with the fair dealing provisions of the Copyright Act.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/tories-refuse-to-split-up-budget-bill-in-face-of-ndp-sabre-rattling/article2427636/




> New Democrats are promising a strong reaction to the Conservative government’s refusal to split an omnibus budget bill into a number of parts to allow for more thorough debate.
> 
> “This is not a good day for democracy,” Opposition House Leader Nathan Cullen told reporters after his Conservative counterpart publicly rejected a proposal to divide the 420-page bill – much of which involves major changes to environmental law – into at least five pieces.
> 
> ...


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 May 2012)

Well we were hoping that any changes to my job will happen next budget year, but it seems that we might get dragged into the next June 29th announcement, hope we are reading the tea leaves wrong.


----------



## GAP (19 May 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> I'm amazed that nobody in the media has picked up on the EI changes.
> 
> They are killing, abeit slowly, the perpetual cycle of work a few weeks, collect many more....especially in the Maritimes. The Liberals brought in the changes, mainly to get votes, but to overcome the fishing/fish plant workers doing short term seasonal work, then having nothing much for the rest of the year.
> 
> The EI system changes allow workers to get less of a clawback while they draw for part time work....great. It gives more incentive for the people to find at least, part time work. I suspect that the changes will also work towards doing away with the endless cycle of one claim after another. I'll wait and see, but it maybe the first nibble of many to bring the system back to an employment insurance program rather than a social program.



Crowley: EI causes chronic unemployment in Maritimes
 May 19, 2012
Article Link

Critics of Ottawa’s plan to press workers on employment insurance (EI) to accept available work remind me of Captain Renault walking into Rick’s Nightclub in the film Casablanca. They are shocked — shocked, mind you — to discover that there is gambling going on in this establishment.

Renault knew perfectly well what was going on in Rick’s; he was a regular there himself. But it became a convenient excuse when he needed to close the place down.

Where EI is concerned, the critics are shocked at the suggestion we might need EI reform because after all highly qualified engineers shouldn’t be forced to sling fries at minimum wage. True. But it is also a herring of the deepest red hue. We need EI reform to end the shameful damage it has caused in many communities, particularly throughout eastern Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

Having lived in that region for 20 years, I saw the damage close up. This is what it looks like on the ground.

A friend of mine moved from B.C. to Lunenburg and got a job in a restaurant. She was stunned to learn the restaurant closed outside the tourist season. The owner said it wasn’t because she didn’t want to stay open, but she couldn’t get people to work in the winter once everyone was “stamped up” (i.e. qualified for the maximum annual EI benefits).

My friend said she was willing to work all year long. Once word of this got out, she got calls from employers all over town fighting to hire someone willing to work over the winter.

One year in Petit Rocher, New Brunswick, the fish plant closed for lack of fish; the locals demanded a provincial make-work project until they could get fully stamped up. When the fish plant in the next town offered them work, and a free shuttle bus service to get there, the workers angrily refused — until the province told them if there was work available there would be no make-work.

The Ocean Choice fish plant in Souris, P.E.I., has to bring in temporary workers from as far away as Russia and Ukraine in a province with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country. Immigration Minister Jason Kenney finds this inexplicable. Look no farther than EI for that explanation.
More on link


----------



## GAP (23 May 2012)

EI recipients expected to accept work within an hours’ drive
BILL CURRY AND CARYS MILLS OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Tuesday, May. 22, 2012
Article Link

Canadians on EI will be expected to stomach a long commute under new rules the Conservative government is preparing to announce.

Human Resources Minister Diane Finley will soon outline the details of her government’s Employment Insurance reforms, as her fellow ministers add to the confusion over what exactly the Tories are planning.

About half a dozen cabinet ministers have offered hints at the new policy, making various, sometimes contradictory statements about the government’s new expectations for EI recipients. The latest to weigh in is Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield, who represents the riding of Fredericton.

“People that can find employment within an hour’s drive of their home, that would be reasonable in our opinion,” Mr. Ashfield told CBC Radio. The average one-way commute in Canada is 26 minutes. The minister was then specifically asked whether new regulations would allow EI recipients to take a pass on a job offer it is more than an hour away from their home.

“Yes. That’s exactly true,” Mr. Ashfield replied. Yet Conservative officials later said the minister was speaking in “generalities” in an effort to make the point that EI recipients will not be expected to move. Officials acknowledged the rules will aim to quantify the criteria around how far and wide EI claimants should be job hunting.

Currently, an unemployed worker’s decision to restrict a job search to a specific geographic region is dealt with on a case-by-case basis. Disputes have been resolved by an independent board and the Federal Court.

The Conservative government has triggered intense speculation about the future of Canada’s EI system with the release of its omnibus budget bill, C-38. The legislation erases key sections of the Employment Insurance Act dealing with the criteria unemployed workers can cite for refusing an available job on the grounds that it is not suitable.
More on link


----------



## Nemo888 (23 May 2012)

EI is insurance and makes a profit every year as the payroll deductions are more than what is paid out. The excess is then funneled into the general coffers. Since it is more than self sufficient why make people take jobs they don't want for collecting on the insurance they paid for? When my house insurance pays for a hotel for me to stay in while my house is being rebuilt they don't make me move to the first available house within an hour drive of my original house.

Essentially this is a backdoor to raise taxes with the (hopefully)unintended side effect of forcing down wages. In the USA right now, even though there are hundreds of thousands more jobs than there have ever been, tax revenue is down due to lower salaries. Lower wages decreases demand which slows the economy which causes more job losses.

If the problem is regional unemployment just give out a one time 2000$ movement allowance for people in those areas. Since they would probably be on EI a shorter period it would likely be cost neutral and very helpful. I was once trapped in a small town when a plant laid a few thousand of us off. I would have been packing my car the next day if they offered for me to move.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (23 May 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> EI is insurance and makes a profit every year as the payroll deductions are more than what is paid out. The excess is then funneled into the general coffers. Since it is more than self sufficient why make people take jobs they don't want for collecting on the insurance they paid for? When my house insurance pays for a hotel for me to stay in while my house is being rebuilt they don't make me move to the first available house within an hour drive of my original house.
> 
> Essentially this is a backdoor to raise taxes with the (hopefully)unintended side effect of forcing down wages. In the USA right now, even though there are hundreds of thousands more jobs than there have ever been, tax revenue is down due to lower salaries. Lower wages decreases demand which slows the economy which causes more job losses.
> 
> If the problem is regional unemployment just give out a one time 2000$ movement allowance for people in those areas. Since they would probably be on EI a shorter period it would likely be cost neutral and very helpful. I was once trapped in a small town when a plant laid a few thousand of us off. I would have been packing my car the next day if they offered for me to move.



You can call it whatever YOU want and define it the way YOU want. You're welcome to your opinion.

Personally, I see way too many healthy, but lazy sods, sitting around on EI and welfare spending needlesly, what I see and define as my hard earned tax payments.

I work in an industry where I see plenty of EI recipients, in an area (greenhouses) that has to import workers from Thailand, Jamaica, Viet Nam and Mexico because the people in this area won't take the work themselves.

Then they have the balls to complain when local businesses start to cater to the immigrant workers instead of them.

I say it's about time they were cracked down on. It's supposed to be a 'safety *net*' not a 'security *blanket*' that the Libs and NDP turned it into.

That's my hard earned  :2c: .............that I don't want to give to someone that doesn't want to earn an honest living.


----------



## dogger1936 (23 May 2012)

With no catch phrases being sent out telling working Canadians they will save by not paying so much into EI with the new rules being implemented. I can't help but think someone is looking to skim off the extra in the fund as the liberals did years ago.

I also wonder what this will do to the Conservative backing in Ontario, Alberta and Saskatchewan where EI has been on the rise now for 6 months or so.

I keep hearing "east coast" brought up in this discussion however EI seems to be dropping off in the east and rising among Ontario (due to the manufactring sector collapse) and the prairie provinces.


----------



## Jed (23 May 2012)

If EI is on the rise in the prairie provinces something smells. There is no reason for people to be unemployed here. Sounds like we have imported and / or developed some home grown lazy sods over the past few years.


----------



## ModlrMike (23 May 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> If the problem is regional unemployment just give out a one time 2000$ movement allowance for people in those areas. Since they would probably be on EI a shorter period it would likely be cost neutral and very helpful. I was once trapped in a small town when a plant laid a few thousand of us off. I would have been packing my car the next day if they offered for me to move.




Movement expenses in the acquisition of employment are already tax deductible. $2K might get you across the country, but it won't move your house and chattels.


----------



## larry Strong (23 May 2012)

dogger1936 said:
			
		

> With no catch phrases being sent out telling working Canadians they will save by not paying so much into EI with the new rules being implemented. I can't help but think someone is looking to skim off the extra in the fund as the liberals did years ago.
> 
> I also wonder what this will do to the Conservative backing in Ontario, _*Alberta and Saskatchewan where EI has been on the rise now for 6 months or so.*_I keep hearing "east coast" brought up in this discussion however EI seems to be dropping off in the east and _*rising*_ among Ontario (due to the manufactring sector collapse) and the _*prairie provinces.*_



Really!  You should maybe check your stats. This is from Mar 2012

_Nationally, the number of initial and renewal claims rose by 3,700 (+1.6%) to 242,300 in January.
Provincially, the number of claims increased 4.4% in Quebec, 3.9% in Ontario and 2.8% in New Brunswick. Claims fell 7.8% in Alberta, 3.2% in British Columbia, 1.4% in Manitoba and 1.4% in Nova Scotia. There was little change in the remaining three provinces
_

http://cthrc.ca/en/member_area/member_news/stastistics_ei_beneficiaries_increase_in_january_to_levels_of_june_2011

*In Alberta, all 12 large centres had fewer beneficiaries in January compared with 12 months earlier. The largest percentage decreases occurred in Grande Prairie, Lethbridge, Cold Lake, Red Deer, Calgary and Edmonton. In Calgary, 9,700 people received benefits, down 34.1%, and in Edmonton, 10,600 people received benefits, down 31.3%. For the third consecutive month, Calgary and Edmonton posted the highest year-over-year declines among all census metropolitan areas.

*

http://www.statcan.gc.ca/daily-quotidien/120322/dq120322a-eng.htm


----------



## dogger1936 (23 May 2012)

My mistake...was looking at 2011...... :facepalm:

In Alberta, all 12 large centres had fewer beneficiaries in January compared with 12 months earlier. The largest percentage decreases occurred in Grande Prairie, Lethbridge, Cold Lake, Red Deer, Calgary and Edmonton. In Calgary, 9,700 people received benefits, down 34.1%, and in Edmonton, 10,600 people received benefits, down 31.3%. For the third consecutive month, Calgary and Edmonton posted the highest year-over-year declines among all census metropolitan areas.


In Newfoundland and Labrador, the number of beneficiaries decreased in all five large centres. In St. John's, the number of people receiving benefits fell 12.8% to 5,000, continuing a series of year-over-year declines that began nearly two years earlier.


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 May 2012)

EI ceased to be insurance against unemployment long ago and became a wage subsidy (ie. financial assistance), and more recently a leave-of-absence (maternal, care of others) benefit.  Where EI props up seasonal employees, it is a wage subsidy to employers who would otherwise have to pay higher wages to hang onto their employee base.  The leave-of-absence benefit is self-explanatory; the customary expectation for centuries used to be that people dealt with their crises and planned life events from within their own resources.


----------



## armyvern (25 May 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> EI ceased to be insurance against unemployment long ago and became a wage subsidy (ie. financial assistance), and more recently a leave-of-absence (maternal, care of others) benefit.  Where EI props up seasonal employees, it is a wage subsidy to employers who would otherwise have to pay higher wages to hang onto their employee base.  The leave-of-absence benefit is self-explanatory; the customary expectation for centuries used to be that people dealt with their crises and planned life events from within their own resources.



Except that, in the case of MATA for CF members, way back when I collected it (19ish years ago), the CF precluded my from getting another job while on maternity. They also called me back in to work a few times during that period. Perhaps the CF should have continued to pay me the entire time then? As long as someone did. Not allowed to work elsewhere etc = pretty hard to blanket state that I should cover it with my own resources.


----------



## GAP (25 May 2012)

Pig poop and pizzas: Your tax dollars at work
By David Akin, Parliamentary Bureau Chief 
Article Link

OTTAWA - This week in Brandon, Man., the local MP, Conservative Merv Tweed, proudly announced that $57,000 in federal tax money would be spent to promote the use of swine manure.

That's right: Your tax dollars at work in support of pig poop.

Meanwhile, in Summerside, P.E.I., the local MP, Revenue Minister Gail Shea, was handing over $51,000 to the the Silver Fox Curling and Yacht Club so it could fix up its marina.

In Montreal, Transport Minister Denis Lebel had a cheque for $750,000 for a conference on "commerce and creativity." He also had $650,000 for a conference on sports tourism in Quebec City.

And in beautiful Chipman, N.B., the local MP, Fisheries Minister Keith Ashfield was pleased to hand over $20,000 so that senior citizens in that community can go swimming, bowling, reading and cooking with young people.

This, folks, is your tax dollars hard at work.


In fact, since the last federal election, there have been 1,566 cheque-handover announcements like these. Add up all the cheques and the total comes to more than $13 billion.

None of this is so-called "new money" but it's where the rubber hits the road, so to speak, for the annual federal budget cycle.

Here's what happens: The government tells Parliament that, for example, it will allocate $15 million to a program called "New Horizons for Seniors."

Parliament approves that big dollar figure but never votes on how the money actually gets spent. Instead, groups apply to bureaucrats for up to $25,000 each out of this pile of money. When the bureaucrats approve a grant, an MP is dispatched with a cheque to hand it over. That's what Ashfield was doing in Chipman, N.B., with $20,000.

In the past, this program paid $13,000 for senior movie night in Richmond, B.C., and $23,000 so seniors in Cayuga, Ont., could put on some skits about what it's like to be a senior.

I'm all for helping out our seniors. That's why I approve of pension splitting, a well-funded national health-care program and an indexed OAS and CPP. But I think seniors are like most of us: Skits, movie nights and bowling ain't a great use of federal tax dollars.

Then there's regional economic development agencies. When he was in opposition, Stephen Harper thought these were ripe for spending abuse and he mused about shutting them down. Since he came to office, he's actually created two new development agencies - one for southern Ontario and one for the far North. Collectively, those two plus the ones for Atlantic Canada, Quebec, northern Ontario and the West hand out $1 billion a year.

Again, MPs approve the big picture but never vote on the details like the announcement Thursday in a town near Rimouski, Que., where a cabinet maker got a federal handout. The firm, Miralis Inc., needed more than $300,000 in federal loans for a "commercialization strategy." Miralis was once named one of Canada's 50 best-managed private companies. If that's true, why wouldn't a bank lend them the money? Why are taxpayers on the hook?

At the same time, multinational food giant Dr. Oetker got $12 million to build a frozen pizza factory in London, Ont. Even though Dr. Oetker had international sales revenue in 2010 of nearly 9.5 billion euros, it got a federal handout.

It's a good thing this isn't a time of austerity in Ottawa. 
end


----------



## GAP (29 May 2012)

If the Tory EI reform plan is too radical, why did the Liberals go so much further?
Andrew Coyne  May 28, 2012 
Article Link

How mild are the Conservative employment insurance reforms? Even the opposition seems unable to muster much more than a frowsy “you could have consulted more,” its default response when there’s little political blood to be drawn.

How mild? Compare them with the last attempt at EI reform, the package of changes introduced by Lloyd Axworthy, the great stalwart of the Liberal left, in 1996. The current exercise would oblige EI claimants to be a little less choosy in the jobs they were willing to take, depending on their claim experience and how long they remained on benefit. Frequent users, in particular, would be expected to take a job paying as little as 80% as much as their previous employment, dropping to 70% after six weeks. 

But if no such jobs were available they could carry on more or less as before: the same benefits, the same duration, the same frequency. By contrast, the Axworthy reforms directly reduced their benefits, again depending on how often they claimed, a system known as the “intensity rule.” From the standard 55% of insurable earnings, a percentage point was reduced for every 20 weeks of benefit received in the previous five years, to a maximum of five percentage points. Another reform clawed back benefits from higher income recipients at a steeper rate if they made frequent claims.

Mind you, the Axworthy reforms were small beer themselves compared to earlier reform proposals. The Mulroney-era Commission of Inquiry on Unemployment Insurance, headed by the former Quebec Social Affairs minister Claude Forget, recommended “annualizing” benefits, that is basing them on claimants’ earnings over an entire year, rather than the few weeks in which they might actually have worked: a sharp incentive to work longer before filing a claim.

And before Forget, there was the Macdonald Commission, headed by the former Liberal finance minister Donald Macdonald, which recommended setting employers’ EI premiums according to how frequently their employees made claims: a system known as “experience rating.” This is how unemployment insurance (as it is called in other countries) works in the United States, among other places. It is also the principle on which Workers’ Compensation operates in this country.

And before Macdonald there were other studies and reports, going back to the early 1970s, when the system really began to run off the rails. What had begun as a fairly strict insurance program in the 1940s had almost immediately started to unravel. Seasonal workers — that is, workers who become unemployed for part of the year, every year, not by some remarkable string of bad luck but by design — were first entitled to benefits in 1950. Initially they could only receive benefits for the part of the working season they missed: the 1971 “reforms” extended this to the entire year. Thus was born “Lotto 10/42”: 10 weeks’ work was enough, depending on where you lived, for 42 weeks of benefits.

The result was predictable enough. Workers and firms in seasonal industries found it in their mutual interest to time spells of employment and layoffs to the rhythms of the EI rules. Though anecdotes abound, the statistical evidence of this sort of mass gaming of the system is unequivocal. A famous study by the economists David Green and Craig Riddell found a huge spike in claims filed every year by employees with precisely the minimum 10 weeks’ work required: when the minimum was temporarily increased to 14 weeks in 1990, the spike moved with it.

So no one is in any doubt about what is going on. Differences arise over what, if anything, to do about it. If the costs of maintaining workers in unstable or seasonal employment were paid for by some bottomless cash machine called “the government,” then its defenders would be right to object to any reform. But in fact the costs are paid in other jobs.

While everyone pays the same premiums, not everyone claims the same benefits — indeed, workers in high-unemployment regions can claims benefits for longer, in return for fewer weeks’ work, than workers in other regions. Workers and firms with unstable employment records are in effect being subsidized by those with more stable histories: the former’s premiums are too low, relative to how much they cost the system, while the latter’s are too high — with all the consequences this implies for employment.

What previous reform efforts had in common was that they attempted to address this problem at its roots: whether by experience rating of employer premiums, or cutting benefits to frequent claimants (a form of experience rating), the aim was to reduce the subsidies to unstable employment. The current reform exercise, by contrast, tackles it from the back end. While encouraging claimants in seasonal industries to look a little further afield for employment, it does nothing to rebalance the skewed incentives that sucked them into those sectors in the first place.

It is a hard thing, as critics of the Conservative plan note, to ask workers in their fifties who have never done anything but seasonal work to adapt to something new. But those workers were just entering the labour force when the first reports were landing on ministers’ desks urging that the system be reformed, to little lasting effect (the Axworthy reforms were soon repealed, after the loss of 20 Liberal seats in Atlantic Canada in the 1997 election). Perhaps there is little that can be done for them. But we can at least try to prevent the same thing happening to the next generation.
end


----------



## GAP (2 Jun 2012)

As an offshoot of the budget, it would seem there's another cog in the wheel of correcting the fiscal situation on reserves.....but I can't see any of it succeeding if the trained people don't move off reserves to the jobs...there will never be enough jobs for all of them ON the reserves....

Workfare for reserves: Tory plan ties benefits for aboriginals to job training
John Ivison  Jun 1, 2012
Article Link

The Harper government is planning a workfare program that would oblige young aboriginals on reserves to undertake job training in return for a welfare cheque.

Ottawa wants to take young natives off welfare rolls before they become too used to receiving social assistance.

The government already spends $400-million on a range of training programs but sources suggest new money will be earmarked to improve delivery of programs for natives on reserves.

That part of the plan is likely to be warmly received by First Nations leaders. But the government is keen to tighten up eligibility requirements, as it has done recently with the Employment Insurance program. Native chiefs are less likely to welcome the idea of young band members having their benefits cut if they don’t sign up for available training programs.

Jason MacDonald, director of communications for John Duncan, the Aboriginal Affairs Minister, said it would not be accurate to say income assistance will be cut off but would not elaborate on how the government plans to transition native youth into training.

He said the government is committed to working with aboriginal peoples “to encourage those who can work to access training and encourage their participation in the labour market.”

In the March budget, the Tories said they want to “better align on-reserve Income Assistance programs with provincial systems” in terms of compliance and program requirements. In provinces like Saskatchewan, income assistance is a program of last resort and requires able-bodied welfare recipients to look for work and take training courses when offered.

Yet, despite labour shortages across much of Western Canada, the number of aboriginals on income assistance remains stubbornly high.

Saskatchewan has an unemployment rate of 4.9%, yet 48.1% of natives on reserve are on income assistance. In Manitoba, which has an unemployment rate of 5.3%, half the on-reserve native population is on welfare.

There are pilot projects such as Active Measures in Saskatchewan — a tripartite initiative between First Nations and the federal and provincial governments — that aim to help people off income support by providing better access to career planning, literacy programs, training allowances, transport and child care.

Chief Felix Thomas of the Saskatoon Tribal Council said the Active Measures pilot still needs more funding to cover daycare, transportation and housing needs. But he said welfare rates have declined by 2% and he is encouraged by the involvement of companies like Potash Corporation, who have been working with local First Nations.

Working with willing bands is crucial. While the feds are keen to introduce a degree of uniformity across the system, income assistance is actually distributed by First Nations to their band members.

The government would not confirm any such plan exists but sources suggest First Nations will be encouraged to sign up for the program, attracted by the enhanced funding, but will be encouraged to cut off welfare for those refuse to accept training.

The federal government’s ability to unilaterally make any major moves in the realm of aboriginal social policy is limited. A federal court judge in the Maritimes issued an injunction in April that will temporarily prevent Ottawa from reducing social assistance rates for First Nations.
More on link


----------



## Stoker (2 Jun 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> As an offshoot of the budget, it would seem there's another cog in the wheel of correcting the fiscal situation on reserves.....but I can't see any of it succeeding if the trained people don't move off reserves to the jobs...there will never be enough jobs for all of them ON the reserves....
> 
> Workfare for reserves: Tory plan ties benefits for aboriginals to job training
> John Ivison  Jun 1, 2012
> ...



Unfortunately most don't want to move off the reserves and work where the decent paying jobs are. They would rather stay where they are,get government money and live in squalor. They are offered so many advantages to better their lives and the lives of their families that most Canadians don't get and still we have this problem.
Perhaps some tough love is in order.


----------



## GAP (3 Jun 2012)

Long overdue

‘Fair wages’ come from laws of economics, not legislation
Andrew Coyne  Jun 1, 2012
Article Link

Buried deep within Bill C-38, the omnibus budget implementation bill, on page 305 of 425, just before the bit about raising the retirement age two years and just after certain amendments to the Canada Labour Code, is the following provision: “The Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act is repealed.”

Little else is said about it. The budget itself gave no hint that such a change was in the offing. Nor is any explanation provided. You would have to look elsewhere to discover that the Act is a Depression-era holdover requiring all businesses doing construction work for the federal government to pay “fair wages,” defined as “such wages as are generally accepted as current for competent workmen in the district in which the work is being performed.”

So far, so devious. A fairly important change to federal contracting practices, dropped into a mammoth omnibus bill, without notice or context, denying parliamentarians the opportunity to vote yay or nay on it as a separate proposition, but only as part of the government’s legislative agenda in toto. Indeed, parliamentarians might not even have been aware of it, had it not been spotted by the NDP’s Pat Martin, a former construction worker, who has been raising a stink about it ever since.

As a matter of process, then, the measure suffers from the same defects as the rest of the bill, about which I have complained elsewhere. But what about on the merits? Martin, for one, appears to believe the Act is all that stands between the Canadian worker and destitution, its repeal part of an insidious “war on labour” that will, according to a Toronto Star report, “keep wages low for a middle-class that has seen little improvement in income for decades.”

“In whose interest is it,” Martin thundered in the Commons this week, “to drive down the wages of Canadian workers?”

Okay, I’ll bite. How about: other Canadian workers? By “driving down” wages, of course, he means not artificially propping them up in legislation; and he doesn’t mean everybody’s wages, but only those favoured few to which the Act applies.

Canadian workers are also taxpayers, and as such deserve to get the best value for their money. The purpose of federal construction contracts is construction, the building and maintenance of public works, not to redistribute income from one group of workers to another.

More to the point, workers are entitled to compete for jobs. The practical effect of the Act’s insistence on “fair wages” is to limit competition on federal construction projects, restricting the business to a handful of large, established firms with highly-paid, usually older workforces, to the exclusion of smaller firms with younger employees. An Act that prefers the interests of the higher-paid to those of the lower-paid may be many things, but “fair” isn’t one of them.

But this isn’t just a dispute about this particular piece of legislation. More broadly, this is about differing visions of the economy, and how incomes grow over time. Do standards of living rise because we legislate them higher? Or does it depend on other things, like productivity?

Much popular thinking about the economy inclines to the former view. We grow richer, in effect, by overpaying each other, and overcharging each other in our turn. To leave the setting of wages to the market would, on this view, lead inevitably to a “race to the bottom.” Only by pegging wages above-market levels, whether directly in law, or by means of union representation, is there any hope even of maintaining such progress as has been achieved, let alone making further gains.

But if the pop economics story were true, it would be hard to explain why anyone made more than the minimum wage — anyone, that is, who did not work in a union shop. In fact only about 5% of workers in Canada make the minimum, while just 16% of the private sector workforce now belongs to a union.

Yet, far from stagnating, as the Star story claims, living standards in Canada have in fact been rising steadily for most of the last two decades: from 1993 to 2008, median family income grew by 21.5% after inflation. Incomes fell, it is true, in the previous decade, but for an obvious reason: the two bone-crunching recessions that began and ended it. When large numbers of people are earning no income — because they are unemployed — the median tends to lag a bit.

What that ought to suggest is that wages and incomes do not, in fact, fall to zero in the absence of some legislated floor — they are subject to the workings of other laws beside those of the state, including the laws of economics. Put simply, the amount of goods and services we can buy, whether as individuals or, in the aggregate, as a country, will depend on the value of the goods and services we can offer in exchange.

Or in even simpler terms: If we want to be able to buy more stuff, then either we have to make more stuff — that is, increase productivity — or charge more for the stuff we make. Rising living standards in Canada of late have been fuelled less by the former and more by the latter, namely by the higher prices we can command on world markets for the resources we export, notably oil. They have had rather less to do, I suggest, with the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act.
end


----------



## aesop081 (3 Jun 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> just before the bit about raising the retirement age two years



Another popular misconception fuelled by the MSM. The retirement age is not being raised by 2 years.


----------



## cupper (3 Jun 2012)

Anyone stop and consider that the Provincial Labour Laws essentially made the Federal Law unnecessary?


----------



## Colin Parkinson (4 Jun 2012)

I think it applies only to federal contracts, even then it seems to be only for major project, never seen invoked on any of the smaller contracts we have let.


----------



## Cloud Cover (4 Jun 2012)

The law is repealed because it was replaced by a Policy Order drafted and brought into force in 2006:
_Fair Wages Policy Order, CRC, c 1621_

The new Policy Order is not just for federal public works cnonstruction projects but also extends into manufacture and supply for the federal government. It is not reliant on the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act.


----------



## dapaterson (4 Jun 2012)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> The law is repealed because it was replaced by a Policy Order drafted and brought into force in 2006:
> _Fair Wages Policy Order, CRC, c 1621_
> 
> The new Policy Order is not just for federal public works cnonstruction projects but also extends into manufacture and supply for the federal government. It is not reliant on the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act.



But... but... if it's merely legislative housekeeping and makes no substantive change, that means all the complaints were just ill-founded incompetent whining.  And no one ever does that on the internet.


----------



## Cloud Cover (5 Jun 2012)

I realize that I inadvertently misspelled what may actually be the most  accurate description of a 21st Century PWGSC project to build something without actually building something useful (or at all) - a "cnonstruction".  For example, the shipbuilding program (so far). My apologies for outing the clever strategy.


----------



## bridges (6 Jun 2012)

whiskey601 said:
			
		

> I realize that I inadvertently misspelled what may actually be the most  accurate description of a 21st Century PWGSC project to build something without actually building something useful (or at all) - a "cnonstruction".  For example, the shipbuilding program (so far). My apologies for outing the clever strategy.



Nonstruction... nice coinage.  That should go in one of those "best new words/definitions" lists for 2012.  


Edited for clarity... in my mind at least...


----------



## m2austin (6 Jun 2012)

Sourced from the National Post, 5 June 2012, Link <a href="http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/05/opposition-parties-joining-forces-to-delay-passage-of-trojan-horse-budget-bill/">Here</a>



> *Opposition parties joining forces to delay passage of ‘Trojan Horse’ budget bill*
> Jason Fekete, Postmedia News
> 5 June 2012
> 
> ...



Details of Bill C-38 are <a href="http://www.parl.gc.ca/LEGISInfo/BillDetails.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&billId=5514128">Here</a> with changes to the _Canadian Forces Members and Veterans Re-establishment and Compensation Act_ <a href="http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5524772&File=1202#391">Here</a> (Original 2005 document <a href="http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-16.8/">Here</a>)


----------



## bridges (6 Jun 2012)

Personally, I don't understand why those changes are not being reviewed by the respective committees applicable in each instance - environment, employment insurance, food safety, etc.  They're only being reviewed by the finance committee.  That doesn't strike me as thorough or prudent.


----------



## m2austin (6 Jun 2012)

Some clarity based on the carried senate motion wrt bill C-38 as detailed <a href="http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/Sen/Chamber/411/Debates/075db_2012-05-03-e.htm?Language=E#21">Here</a>:



> On May 3, 2012, the following motion was adopted by the Senate:
> 
> That, in accordance with rule 74(1), the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance be authorized to examine the subject-matter of all of Bill C-38, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 29, 2012 and other measures, introduced in the House of Commons on April 26, 2012, in advance of the said bill coming before the Senate;
> 
> ...




Bill C-38 will be studied by respective senate committees but not their equivalents in the House.


----------



## bridges (6 Jun 2012)

M2A said:
			
		

> Bill C-38 will be studied by respective senate committees but not their equivalents in the House.



Interesting - thanks for that, M2A.  The omission of the House committees seems troubling, to me, and the question remains.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (8 Jun 2012)

As much as I despise the opposition parties, they have a point, the CPC took a already underhanded method and doubled it. Not good for the party or the country.


----------



## Brad Sallows (8 Jun 2012)

The easiest question to ask is: how much time does one bill consume; how much time would it take if broken into pieces?  Indeed, would it all be possible if all the components had to be dealt with separately?

I do not claim that expediency is an excuse, but nevertheless expediency may be the reason.  If there is six years worth of legislative work in there as piecework, I understand why the government wants to deal with in one bill.


----------



## Nemo888 (8 Jun 2012)

Isn't this what both parties do in the States when they want to ram pork through.  Even if it is not abused now it will DEFINITELY be abused be later. Not a great precedent to be starting.

Please separate the bills again and stop throwing votes to the NDP.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Jun 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> The easiest question to ask is: how much time does one bill consume; how much time would it take if broken into pieces?  Indeed, would it all be possible if all the components had to be dealt with separately?
> 
> I do not claim that expediency is an excuse, but nevertheless expediency may be the reason.  If there is six years worth of legislative work in there as piecework, I understand why the government wants to deal with in one bill.



I have to admit I haven't been following this issue at all. 

Is the Government preventing committees from sitting to review aspects of the bill independently?  If so that would be a matter of concern to me.

If, on the other hand, it is just a matter of the opposition relishing the prospect of 6 years of contentious political issues by stretching the matter out, and the government diminishing that opportunity by organizing things so that CBC has to decide which of 6 nasties they are going to promote for a year.....  Well, I can see the merit in Concurrent Activity.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jun 2012)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> I have to admit I haven't been following this issue at all.
> 
> Is the Government preventing committees from sitting to review aspects of the bill independently?  If so that would be a matter of concern to me.
> 
> If, on the other hand, it is just a matter of the opposition relishing the prospect of 6 years of contentious political issues by stretching the matter out, and the government diminishing that opportunity by organizing things so that CBC has to decide which of 6 nasties they are going to promote for a year.....  Well, I can see the merit in Concurrent Activity.



It's my understanding that the various committees will not get a chance to comment or review the various aspects of the BIA that pertain to their committees. I know from what they are doing to the Act that I enforce that very little committee, public comment or even advice from the department is playing a part. The goal was set from elsewhere and end will justify the means. Legislate in haste, repent at leisure.


----------



## GAP (28 Jun 2012)

Latest civil servant perk to go: severance for keeping your job
 Tories negotiating to eliminate lucrative benefit for federal employees
 By Jason Fekete, Postmedia News June 8, 2012
Article Link

$1.2B: 'Severance' paid in 2011-12 to workers who stayed in their jobs or left voluntarily

$850M: Additional payments expected this year

66%: Portion of union deals still unsettled

OTTAWA - The federal government paid $1.2-billion in voluntary severance last fiscal year to 91,613 public servants who either remain in their jobs, retired or quit on their own -- a perk unheard of to most Canadian taxpayers who are footing the bill.

Business groups and spending watchdogs say the voluntary payouts are both "staggering" and "outrageous," considering Canadians in the private sector are generally only paid severance when they lose their job -- not if they continue working or leave on their own.

"It's outrageous. If taxpayers knew what is contained in federal union contracts, we'd have a rebellion on our hands," said Gregory Thomas, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.

"The contracts that the public is saddled with are too rich. It's an unbelievable deal that most federal government employees have."

All told, taxpayers are on the hook for more than $1.5-billion in regular and voluntary severance to 102,589 public servants in 2011-12, according to new federal numbers obtained by Postmedia News.

The total severance payout includes the $1.2-billion to more than 90,000 employees who voluntarily requested the payments, as well as additional cash for those who received regular severance benefits (payment upon termination of employment regardless of circumstances), according to Public Works and Government Services, the department responsible for the payments.

"It is a staggering amount of money paid out to people who are not losing their jobs," said Dan Kelly, senior vice-president with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which represents more than 109,000 small-business owners across the country.

The numbers include payments to federal departments, agencies and most Crown corporations, but don't factor in large, independent corporations like Canada Post and Bank of Canada, which pay their employees separately.

The government also is projecting it will spend at least another $850-million in the 2012-13 fiscal year on accumulated severance payouts (including for resignation and retirement) owed to federal employees as per collective agreements signed by successive governments over several years.

The Conservative government, as of October 2010, halted the accumulation of severance benefits for resignations and retirements, but is renegotiating a number of collective agreements with public-sector unions to cover what is already owed.

Along with the more than $2-billion needed to cover the severance expenses for 2011-12 and 2012-13, the government also has earmarked $900-million to cover "workforce adjustment" payments owed to thousands of employees who will be laid off because of federal budget cuts.
More on link


----------



## bridges (28 Jun 2012)

The article makes it sound like people are getting a bonus for staying in their jobs - that's not exactly how it was.  In the end it's a _reduction_ in benefits.

Our union wanted us to vote for continuing to accumulate retirement severance AND pay raises.  I voted 'No', because I didn't personally feel that I needed that money, compared to a greater need elsewhere in society, and consequently I didn't think it was right to fight for it at this time.  The 'No' side prevailed (no doubt for a variety of reasons as varied as the individuals voting), so they froze everyone's "severance" and made an equivalent payment in kind, at current levels.  I agree - it's a bit strange.   Rest assured, my portion went right back into the Canadian economy.   :nod:


----------



## GAP (3 Jul 2012)

Conservatives backtrack on health care cuts for some refugees
Gloria Galloway OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail  Tuesday, Jul. 03 2012
Article Link

Doctors say the federal Conservative government’s decision to backtrack on cuts to health benefits for some refugees and not others is proof that the rationale for the move does not hold water.

After defending the plan to eliminate supplemental benefits such as payments for prescription drugs, vision care and dental coverage for refugees who do not qualify for provincial plans, the federal immigration department quietly rescinded the cuts last Friday afternoon – but only for refugees who are brought here by the government through the Resettlement Assistance Program and those who are victims of human smuggling and have received a temporary resident permit.

"Our intention was never to have this policy impact government-sponsored refugees who have been living in UN refugee camps, who arrive in Canada as permanent residents, but who do not initially qualify for provincial social support," Alexis Pavlich, a spokeswoman for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, said in an e-mail. "It is important to note that the supplemental benefits for this limited group is less than two per cent of the overall spending on the Interim Federal Health Program."

Those sponsored by church groups and other humanitarian organizations, and those who seek asylum after fleeing a country that Canada has deemed to be unsafe, are “out of luck,” Philip Berger, chief of family and community medicine at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, said in a telephone interview on Tuesday. And they will also be entitled to medical health coverage “only if of an urgent or essential nature” – a proviso that was removed last week for government-sponsored refugees.

Other cuts to refugee health services will remain in place. Treatment under the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) will be denied to refugees who come from a country that Canada has declared to be safe, and to those whose claims have been rejected but are still living in Canada. The only exceptions under the changes, which took effect on Saturday, will be in cases where the person has a disease that poses a risk to public health or safety.
More on link


----------



## Colin Parkinson (10 Jul 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Latest civil servant perk to go: severance for keeping your job
> Tories negotiating to eliminate lucrative benefit for federal employees
> By Jason Fekete, Postmedia News June 8, 2012
> Article Link
> ...



As I recall in 2006-8 there was concerns that the rates of pay for Civil Services would not attract the people they wanted who would be drawn to the private sector because of high pay, better career aspects and more flexiablity in the workplace.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Jul 2012)

Public servants get to be everyone's whipping boy, no matter what the reason.

They are easy to pick on.


----------



## jollyjacktar (10 Jul 2012)

Meh, as far as the MSM is concerned they cannot do anything right from any angle of an issue.  Paying too much $$$?  They're wrong.  Not offer enough $$ to attract the right kind of personnel?  They're wrong.  Seems as if there is no correct answer solution out there.  They have it in for the Harper government, period.


----------



## GAP (10 Jul 2012)

It was not the Harper government that negotiated those sweetheart deals......they have to pay them out to take them out of the contracts, but then they are done with them...


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2012)

Public servants are the whipping boy because they are visible.  When a private sector employer cuts benefits or cuts its work force, it just goes ahead with it with little to no media fanfare.

The reason these oddball benefits look bad is because they are inconceivable (ie. contrary to common sense) to most people.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (11 Jul 2012)

this article is better than most

_The government is right to pay out severance


By Dan Gardner, The Ottawa CitizenJuly 10, 2012
  
The rule of law is like a 1960s-era Jaguar. It looks sleek and shiny in the showroom. Everyone wants it. But after you buy it and take it for a drive, it breaks down, so you get it fixed, and it breaks down again, and pretty soon it’s costing you a fortune and it’s such a pain that you wonder if maybe you should sell it or just send the damned thing to a junkyard.

I’m sure Tony Clement understands that feeling.

As president of the Treasury Board, Clement is responsible for paying the public service. And that job has him handling a very hot file these days.

For many decades, civil servants were entitled to severance pay without severance — if they quit voluntarily, or retired, the government handed them a substantial cheque just as if they had been laid off. This was odd. Such a valuable perk essentially doesn’t exist in the private sector. And it costs the government an estimated $500 million a year.

So the government has decided to get rid of it, a move widely supported because, really, severance pay without severance is pretty much indefensible. But there’s a problem.

The government can’t simply wash its hands and walk away. “Severance pay” is a benefit in the employment contracts which the government negotiated, accepted, and signed. It is on the hook.

And then there’s the matter of outstanding debt. Current employees are owed a lot of “severance pay.” The latest estimates suggest it’s in range of $6 billion.

So for the government to be rid of this system, it had to get the unions to agree to the change, which meant giving them something in exchange. And it had to start sending out big “severance pay” cheques to civil servants who will keep showing up for work as always.

Which is what it did. Civil servants got a special 0.75 per cent wage increase over three years as compensation for scrapping the “severance pay” system, while cheques for tens of thousands of dollars each have been landing in mailboxes. It’s like Christmas for civil servants. And the taxpayer is Santa Claus.

The reaction was predictable.

“To spend billions of dollars in severance package for people that are not losing their jobs, people that have the best form of job security in the country, that have gold-plated pensions to leave to, just seems nuts,” fumed Dan Kelly, head of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Of course Kelly agreed that the “severance pay” perk should be taken away from civil servants. Everyone does, apparently. But he and many others just don’t think civil servants should be compensated for the loss.

The government should have just told its employees to “forget it,” wrote Kelly McParland in the National Post, even though this would “undoubtedly run into some legal issues.”

Ah, yes. “Legal issues.” Isn’t the rule of law annoying? Sure it sounds great in principle. But this is ridiculous. Couldn’t the government just send the damned thing to the junkyard?

It could, actually. With legislation, the government can do pretty much whatever it wants. In this case, all it had to do was pass a bill that changes the contracts without compensation.

Governments occasionally do that sort of thing. Remember the Pearson airport deal?

Shortly before being ousted from power, the Progressive Conservative government signed a contract to have a consortium run Pearson airport. The Liberals said it was cronyism and promised to get out of it if elected. They won. But backing out of the contract would have incurred massive penalties, as prescribed in the contract. So the Liberals introduced legislation that scrapped the contract without compensation.

The bill passed the House of Commons. But in chamber of sober second thought, many Senators believed this was a matter of great principle.

The rule of law is the foundation of a modern, free society, they said. If the government can change the law retroactively whenever it wishes it is not truly bound by the laws that bind all others. It is above the law. And government above the law is a frightening thing.

The Senate blocked the legislation. The government ultimately paid up, as required by its contractual obligations.

Yes, there was also politics involved. The Senate was heavily PC at the time. But there really was a fundamental principle at stake, and it was upheld, even though doing so was very expensive and it would have been so much easier to take the principle and the contract to the junkyard.

In scrapping the “severance pay” benefit the Harper government is doing what previous Liberal and Conservative governments should have done long ago, as even Liberal critic John McCallum graciously agreed in a recent interview. But just as importantly, the government is doing it the right way: by honouring its contractual obligations and thus, implicitly, honouring the rule of law.

And it’s doing that despite the cost and the yowling from people who don’t understand or appreciate that an essential principle is at stake.

Of course that’s where my metaphor with the 1960s-era Jaguar breaks down like a 1960s-era Jaguar. The rule of law isn’t just cool in the showroom, expensive on the road. It’s also of inestimable value — practical value. It’s not like a sport car. It’s not a luxury. We need it.

Sending it to the junkyard is not, and should never be, an option.

Dan Gardner’s columns appear twice a week. Email: dgardner@ottawacitizen.com.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen_


----------



## ModlrMike (11 Jul 2012)

Did that actually come out of the Citizen?


----------



## Infanteer (11 Jul 2012)

Great article.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Jul 2012)

>So for the government to be rid of this system, it had to get the unions to agree to the change, which meant giving them something in exchange.

Not necessarily true.  Union vocabulary only has two words for bargains:
1) "Win" - a gain they obtain for nothing in return
2) "Tradesies" - something exchanged for something else of equal value

If one side of the bargaining table can "win", so can the other.  That implies the existence of "lose" - a gain lost for nothing in return.  The government should have removed the "win", period.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (12 Jul 2012)

Unions will often throw small groups to the wolves as a bargaining chip. As a Rescue specialist in the CG, we asked to be compensated for that work (ther was no job description for the work at the time) , that request was always bargained away to gain a benefit for another larger group.


----------



## GAP (12 Jul 2012)

Federal Crown lawyers reach 15.25 per cent tentative pay deal
Tuesday July 10, 2012 Tess Kalinowski Staff Reporter 
Article Link

In a move that breaches the atmosphere of restraint in Ottawa, federal Crown lawyers have reached a tentative settlement that would give them a 15.25 per cent wage increase by May 2014.

The agreement with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, is expected to go to a ratification vote in August. It would give 2,700 federal Crowns, represented by the Association of Justice Counsel, a 12 per cent increase next year alone. That includes a 10 per cent “pay restructure.”

Federal Crown attorneys prosecute drug and terrorism offences. They also negotiate civil cases.

The relatively high settlement essentially corrects about 20 years of lagging wages that has prompted many to leave the federal Crown for the private sector or even provincial Crown offices, said Lisa Blais, association president in Ottawa.

The average federal Crown wage is about $106,000.

“Our salaries have sunk like a stone, not just compared to the private sector. We don’t even try. But compared to our provincial comparators,” she said. “This deal we hope, when and if it’s ratified, will curb that tide.”

The agreement also gives the most experienced lawyers a lump-sum payment of about 4.6 per cent annually.

Junior lawyers will, however, lose overtime provisions that were not available to senior federal Crown attorneys.
More on link


----------



## GAP (3 Aug 2012)

EI claimants to keep more benefits when they take temporary jobs
The Canadian Press | Aug 2, 2012
Article Link

Starting next week, jobless Canadians will be able to pocket more of their employment insurance benefits if they find temporary jobs during their search for full-time work.

A new pilot program announced in the Conservative government’s spring budget gets underway Sunday.

The two-year, $74-million pilot project will allow EI claimants to stay active in the labour market in their search for permanent employment.

It will cut the current clawback rate in half for people who are collecting EI but who have found temporary work.

The easing of the clawback would mean that an unemployed person who is collecting $330 a week on EI while working a job that paid $450 a week would see their weekly earnings rise to $555 from $462.

The EI changes are billed as an attempt to drive overall economic growth by matching unemployed Canadians with employers trying to fill vacant jobs.

“Our government believes it should always pay to work,” Human Resources Minister Diane Finley said in a statement.

“Canadians want to get back to work, and statistics show that those who stay active in, and remain connected to, the labour market find permanent employment faster. Our government is committed to supporting workers and ensuring that EI enables a strong and competitive workforce.”

The Conservatives made several changes to EI earlier this year, most to crack down on seasonal and chronic users of the service.
More on link


----------

