Politics in 2013

[Fishbone Jones]

I'm oversimplifying of course, but Quebec doesn't matter anymore. No one cares about a Quebec battleground (except maybe Quebec). The Libs and NDP can fight and waste all their resources there. Quebec is no longer needed to win.

And on a personal note, it's nice to see a sitting government that won't be blackmailed by them, for a change.

 

[Remius]

I wouldn't go that far.  I don't think that Quebec matters as much as it may have seemed before.  But don't discount  the effect that province can have.  It traditionally votes as a complete geo-political entity.  Enough seats to put the Liberals back into relevancy and could mean the difference between a majority and a minority government for the CPC.  Anything less than a majority will be a major defeat for the CPC and Harper.

As well, although the Conservative government is viewed as "standing" up to Quebec it had no problem getting in bed with the bloc when they were in a minority situation and are not really facing the Quebec of 20, 30, years ago when they posed a real threat.  Seperatism is in its death throes if not already clinically dead already.  The old guard is dead or dying, the people of Quebec have adopted a more global view of the world and the thirst for seperation is just not there.  Plus the current government has benefited from having a PLQ government for most of it's time in power plus a minority PQ government now and likely until the next federal election.  In fact, what the PQ and sovereignists want is more power to the province which the Conservatives are all to happy to do given their willingness to de-evolve power from the central government.  Their interests align more than people think.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The National Post's John Ivison is promoting a cabinet shuffle (something that excites pundits) in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/04/28/young-tories-hoping-for-cabinet-post-mere-pawns-in-stephen-harpers-game/

Ambitious young Tories hoping for Cabinet posts are mere pawns in Harper’s game

John Ivison

13/04/28

Watching Michelle Rempel in the House of Commons Thursday, it was obvious why so many people think she’s a lock for a job in Cabinet when Stephen Harper shuffles his deck this summer.

The 32-year-old from Calgary is pretty — can we still say that? — and shrewd. She was taking part in a debate on climate change and revealed that as a 10-year-old “science geek,” she read about Earth Day and started worrying about climate change.

Michelle Rempel on Parliament Hill is the MP representing Calgary Centre-North.
PAT McGRATH / POSTMEDIA NEWS

She had been preceded by Michael Chong, the 41-year-old from Fergus, Ont., who is less pretty but telegenic in his own way and an excellent debater. He gave a vigorous defence of the government’s environment policy, such that a jury would be left with a reasonable doubt about the opposition charge of negligence on the file.

Michael Chong.
Amoryn Engel for National Post

The received wisdom in Ottawa — and therefore the least likely outcome — is that Mr. Harper will refresh his Cabinet this summer by promoting the best and brightest of his parliamentary secretaries into key portfolios.

While Mr. Chong is clearly able, he resigned from Cabinet in 2006 because he did not support a government motion recognizing Québec as a nation within Canada. Mr. Harper rarely forgives or forgets, so the MP for Halton Hills may have to be patient before he is rehabilitated.

But the consensus is that Ms. Rempel, and her fellow parliamentary secretaries Chris Alexander, Candice Bergen, Shelley Glover and Pierre Poilievre are Cabinet bound.

Conservative MP for Ajax-Pickering, Chris Alexander.
Tristin Hopper/National Post

Hmm. All five have done their time in the trenches and been good soldiers, often accepting politically dangerous assignments with enthusiasm.

But they are already the friendly public face of the government, appearing nightly on political talk-shows and acting as the front-line of defence when the Conservatives are taking fire.

When the accusations fly that the Tories are a bunch of old, white guys who are happy to befoul the environment in their quest for profit, they wheel out Ms. Rempel, not the 70-year-old minister, Peter Kent.

When Vic Toews, the Public Safety Minister, has said something perceived as particularly outrageous, they send out Ms. Bergen to explain what he really meant.

Is Mr. Harper really going to put either into some invisible portfolio such as Minister of State for Seniors? He could drop them into a senior portfolio but we have seen that movie before, when he over-promoted Rona Ambrose in 2006. It didn’t end well.

In any case, there is a natural progression in politics and parachuting someone into a top job would create a brigade of malcontents from those passed over.

It seems that to be young, telegenic and quick on your feet in the Harper government is as much a curse as a career-enhancer.

That’s not to say there will not be promotions from the ranks of parliamentary secretaries. But, this being Canada, merit is a tertiary consideration behind gender and geography. Good candidates for promotion like Mike Lake, James Rajotte and Rick Dykstra are likely to find themselves falling short on both counts.

Only one in four Cabinet ministers is female, so there is a drive to fill any vacancies with women.

Then there is the delicate provincial balance. For that reason, Winnipeg MP Ms. Glover is likely to ascend, since it seems certain that Mr. Toews will retire.

Gordon O’Connor, the chief whip, is 74-years-old this year and may also step down, which would open a Cabinet position from the national capital region. Mr. Poilievre’s luck would be in, were that the case.

Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre.
Adrian Wyld / THE CANADIAN PRESS

Peter Penashue’s apparently doomed bid to get re-elected in Labrador means Mr. Harper is going to have to find another minister in Atlantic Canada. New Brunswick MPs Rob Moore and John Williamson would be ready and able to step up, even if the latter has annoyed his former boss by recently arguing for more independence for backbench MPs.

And then there is the linchpin of the whole shuffle — Jim Flaherty.

The Finance Minister says he knows what is going on — he is going on. But suggestions that he will call it quits this summer continue to abound. If he does, candidates for his job would include Tony Clement, the Treasury Board president, Ted Menzies, currently Minister of State for Finance, and John Baird, the Foreign Minister (who is quite happy where he is, thank you very much).

Of the other heavy hitters in Cabinet, Jason Kenney is the strongest performer in Cabinet and has done a good job at Immigration. But that may work against him as Justin Trudeau seeks to usurp the Conservatives in the suburbs. In any case, having the Prime Minister and Finance Minister from the same city would likely cause palpitations east of the prairies.

James Moore, has turned Canadian Heritage, from a “shield” department, where the Tories were always playing defence, into a “sword.” He has also performed well in Question Period when asked to pinch-hit for the Prime Minister. For the record, he is 36 and his attractiveness is in the eye of the beholder.

Canada's Minister of Heritage James Moore speaks during Question Period in the House of Commons
REUTERS/Blair Gable

Lisa Raitt is another who is widely judged to have performed well in her Labour portfolio. She is overdue a move — something she would undoubtedly welcome, since, as has one smartass noted, three years in labour is enough for any woman.

The job for the Prime Minister, therefore, is quite simple: placate the revolting backbenchers through promotions (or by bringing in a less confrontational House Leader and chief whip); usher in a younger Cabinet, without removing all the stars who stem the tide of opposition criticism on a daily basis; fill in the major departures with replacements of proven ability; and, last but not least, shake up departments that need a new vision — Fisheries, Defence and Industry spring to mind.

Fortunately for him, the Prime Minister understands that there are no true friends in politics and so doesn’t try to cultivate any. The results have been clinical but, generally, effective.

The young and the restless in the government caucus may have to seek solace in the fact that they are mere pawns in this particular game of thrones.

National Post

While I agree with John Ivison on the complexities of cabinet making in Ottawa I think he is missing the point that Prime Minister Harper needs to give more potential leaders an opportunity to shine plus, the government needs a fresh, friendly, younger and competent face going into 2014/15.

 

[a_majoor]

Perhaps the natural progression could be done by allowing these ambitious young members more "face time" in the media. This could be a sort of "Parliamentary Idol" to determine who is articulate and quick on their feet, without too much danger (it is easy to throw an MP under the bus without too much damage to the CPC brand), and keeping cabinet ministers out of the line of fire.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is an interesting bit of prognostication about the 2013 prepatory phase for the 2015 election:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harpers-challenge-to-reboot-and-refresh-his-government/article11672152/#dashboard/follows/

Harper’s challenge: To reboot and refresh his government

STEVEN CHASE
OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, May. 01 2013

Stephen Harper, who turned 54 this week, is a man on the verge of a reboot as his government approaches the mid-point of its third term in office.

It’s been two years ago Thursday since Mr. Harper was returned to 24 Sussex with a majority government.

The Prime Minister is now crafting a sizable cabinet shuffle for mid-2013 – likely relatively early this summer – that is intended to refresh his ministry and showcase for Canadians the team that he will campaign with during a 2015 election.

Former PMO officials say they expect that Mr Harper’s chief of staff, Nigel Wright, is approaching ministers to determine whether they plan to retire after this term and could therefore be dropped from cabinet to make way for new blood.

Mr. Harper is expected to follow up this overhaul of his ministerial team by proroguing Parliament – hitting the reset button on the session – before returning in late September with a new Speech from the Throne that lays out the political agenda for the last half of his mandate.

This refresh is well timed.

After more than seven years in office, Mr. Harper’s political brand is feeling its age, according to pollster Nik Nanos. “The Harper brand is becoming a little fatigued,” he said.

Like many political leaders after any length at the helm, the Prime Minister now has a record that includes ministerial resignations for slip-ups, government misadventures like picking the F-35 fighter jet without a proper search, and unaccounted-for funds such as the $3.1-billion in money earmarked for anti-terrorism flagged by the federal Auditor-General this week.

The Conservatives have sold Mr. Harper as the only leader who can be trusted to be Canada’s economic steward and, while this country has fared remarkably well compared to its peers, the economy remains weak and slow-growing even several years after the recession ended.

“As the economy becomes a little more uncertain, it kind of cuts directly to his personal brand,” Mr. Nanos said.

The Prime Minister is also facing a new challenger in the form of Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau. Even Conservatives who remain confident they can fend off the Montreal MP say they’re concerned by the press buzz the son of former prime minister Pierre Trudeau is generating.

Mr. Harper retains a commanding lead over his rivals, NDP Leader Tom Mulcair and Mr. Trudeau, when it comes to perceived competence, Mr. Nanos says.

“It’s the long-term trend that counts and what we’ve seen in the last six months is a general erosion of positive views related to the Prime Minister,” the pollster said. “What we’ve seen are fluctuations in views, which are usually the first indicator of change. He still enjoys a comparative advantage, but he does not stand as tall politically as he did five years ago.”

The pollster suggested Mr. Harper needs a signature project “to demonstrate there are still things to be done under a Stephen Harper Canada,” adding: “Parties that win over the long term actually remake themselves.”

The shuffle will bring new faces into cabinet as Mr. Harper recruits from those MPs who’ve been performing support duties as parliamentary secretaries to ministers. Hopefuls include Chris Alexander, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Defence, Kellie Leitch, Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministers of Human Resources and Labour, and Shelly Glover, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance.

The key question for the shuffle is whether Finance Minister Jim Flaherty is ready to go. The long-serving Whitby MP has said he wants to remain until the budget is balanced – but it’s far from certain he would stay another term. “I would be shocked if he ran again,” one long-time colleague said.

Mr. Harper would have to decide whether to replace the minister right away if Mr. Flaherty tells him this is his final term in office.

Mr. Nanos, however, points out that the Harper government might unsettle markets by replacing both Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney – who’s leaving for England at the end of June – and Mr. Flaherty at the same time. “That might be too much of a change. Until the new Bank of Canada governor is settled, they are probably going to want to keep Flaherty there.”

While the Prime Minister is putting a fresh coat of paint on his government, the overriding political imperative in Ottawa for the next two years is balancing the budget. The Conservatives are determined to retire the deficit by 2015 – barring a sudden and drastic drop in economic fortunes.

Mr. Harper needs this. He promised to eliminate the deficit in the last campaign, and his strategy for the next election is predicated on a balanced budget. The Conservatives want to deliver on pricey political promises such as income-tax splitting that should form the core of their next election platform but are contingent upon surplus cash in federal coffers. These include a fitness tax credit as well as a $1.8-billion income-splitting tax cut that would allow parents of children under 18 to share up to $50,000 of income for tax purposes. This would enable the higher-earning spouse to flow some of his or her income to a partner in a lower tax bracket.

All signs suggest the Conservative’s fall Throne Speech will focus on the unfinished business of economic reforms that have become a mainstay for a government with little money to spend but a desire to make Canada more competitive. It should wrap together labour market changes to attract skilled foreigners faster, find more jobs for aboriginals, close loopholes that allow too many temporary overseas workers, and enact the new job skills grant announced in Budget 2013. It will include references to Immigration Minister Jason Kenney’s planned Expressions of Interest system for more quickly locating skilled immigrants, as well as concerted efforts to find new markets for Canadian petroleum such as the Gateway project.

The Prime Minister’s Office rejects the idea Mr. Harper’s brand needs to change.

“For us, the brand is the economy,” said Andrew MacDougall, Mr. Harper’s director of communications. “That’s what the Prime Minister cares about and thinks about. We’re facing some tough circumstances out in the world and he’s not going to take his focus off this and he’s not going to change what he is. That’s not what the country needs right now. We need someone who has the experience and wherewithal to keep moving along with the reforms we need to make.”

It's a fine balancing act: Prime Minister Harper wants to keep the socially liberal/fiscally conservative wing (the centre of the CPC) on side while, at the same time, not alienating any of the social conservatives (some of whom, especially in the "new Canadian" communities, are also fiscally conservative), the law and order conservatives (which includes many senior citizens) or the free spending Red Tories.

 

[Colin Parkinson]

We are dealing with a issue that gets a lot of traction out here, Ottawa has ignored it for years, but now we are getting a sense that they will throw some money at it, but will wait for the election year to announce it. A very typical Liberal response.

 

[a_majoor]

Another faux scandal shrivels under the light:

http://www.danieldickin.ca/2013/05/that-missing-31-billion.html

That "missing" $3.1 billion

Strange. Despite all the media reports and Opposition demands, I can't find any reference in the Auditor General's report saying anything close to "OMG! The Conservatives lost $3.1 billion!? Where did it go?!"


Oh wait, is this it?

8.21 As we noted, the Treasury Board allocated $12.9 billion for Initiative activities, but departments and agencies reported spending only $9.8 billion. We therefore asked the Secretariat for information that could help explain how the remaining $3.1 billion allocated between 2001 and 2009 was used.

8.22 We found that the Treasury Board generally restricted the way departments and agencies could use the funds, but it allowed reallocations. In such cases, the Secretariat was to receive assurance from departments and agencies that there would be no impact on the Initiative's activities for which funding had originally been allocated.

8.23 We asked Secretariat officials for information on whether such reallocations had occurred and whether assurances were provided by departments. We were informed that discussions took place between the departments and agencies and the Secretariat as part of the normal program challenge function. However, financial information on reallocations was not captured. The Secretariat, however, worked with us to identify several possible scenarios:

- The funding may have lapsed without being spent.
- It may have been spent on PSAT activities and reported as part of ongoing programs spending.
- It may have been carried forward and spent on programs not related to the Initiative.

 

[ModlrMike]

So the headline could just as easily read "Government doesn't spend 3.1 billion". Not likely of course, but there's a great deal of difference between losing money and a budget allocation not spent.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Prime Minister Harper's "not the time time to do sociology" remark (regarding Justin Trudeau's "root causes" gaffe) caused all manner of consternation amongst the chattering classes, most of whom are charter members of the Laurentian Consensus ...

The Toronto Star continues to fret that "Two years of Conservative majority government have brought profound changes to Canada, and some may be hard to undo. Not everyone is celebrating Thursday’s birthday" - the "not everyone" refers to the so-called Laurentian Consensus which, John Ibbitson posits, managed the Canadian socio-economic and political agenda for pretty much all of the 19th and 20th centuries ...

Now, as if to demonstrate their tin ear where Canadians are concerned, a loooooong list of sociol scientists weighs in to condemn the PM"s "anti-intellectualism" and to defend the "doing sociology," in this letter to the editor which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Montreal Gazette:

Letter: Let’s all ‘commit sociology’

The Gazette

April 30, 2013

Re: “Harper hits Trudeau on terror” (Gazette, April 26)

The anti-intellectualism of Stephen Harper demands a reply. In face of global capitalism’s mounting crisis, critical interrogation of social phenomena, causes and consequences is urgently needed. We invite Canadians to “commit sociology” and indeed history, literary criticism, philosophy, political science, anthropology, critical legal studies, political economy and feminist studies.

The latest attack on independent research and scholarship is part of the current Conservative government’s attempt to keep Canadians in the dark. Since at least the 1960s and 1970s, evidence-based research in the humanities and social sciences has illuminated pervasive injustice and inequality. In Canada, long-standing colonialism in dealing with the First Nations, the “patriarchal dividend” in employment, politics, education and social security, the gulf between rich and poor, the scapegoating of racialized immigrants and foreign workers, the criminalization of the poor, and the hollowing out of the middle class have been confirmed. To a significant degree, anti-racist, feminist and other critical scholars have shaped policy and improved outcomes for the less powerful. Their scholarship has also encouraged social movements such as Idle No More and Occupy, which reject the market capitalism embraced by the right as the solution to global immiseration.

Harper’s administration and its allies have mounted a general attack on critical research, be it in the humanities, the social sciences or the sciences. Evidently, they want data-based interpretations of Canada that document elite, corporate, European and male abuse to disappear. Their assault on the humanities and social sciences, like that on the sciences, began with censorship. Statistics Canada, archives, libraries, and parks and historic sites, not to mention programs of scientific research, have been hobbled.

National history is one special target of conservative efforts to cleanse Canada of proof of inequality and injustice. Ottawa’s 2011 Discover Canada guide to the citizenship test and 2012 immigrant guide, Welcome to Canada, foster a naive patriotism. Political decisions to turn the Canadian Museum of Civilization into one of History, to embrace reactionary commemorative practices, to militarize patriotic mythology, and to attack Library and Archives Canada, the principal depository of our history, appear to be intended to dumb down the electorate.

The contest for hearts and minds goes far beyond anti-intellectualism. Current government practices form part of a broader process of public “de-gendering” that would result in the systematic elimination of gender, racial and class justice from public policy. That result threatens hard-fought struggles by Canadians of every description and scholarly investigation of every variety.

In face of a world that is so self-evidently badly served by reactionary forces, we rededicate ourselves to committing critical scholarship. We also support scientists who document the precarious state of the environment. Like them, we embrace the “sin” of employing data in aid of a proactive public policy that fosters a sustainable and equitable planet. We urge all Canadians to do the same.

Veronica Strong-Boag (FRSC) & Gillian Creese, University of British Columbia

Leonora Angeles, University of British Columbia

Constance Backhouse, University of Ottawa

Denyse Baillargeon, Université de Montréal

Kaili Beck, Laurentian University

Frank Blye, University of British Columbia

Suzanne Bouclin, Université d’Ottawa

Susan Boyd, University of British Columbia

Bettina Bradbury, York University

Angela Cameron, University of Ottawa

Gail Campbell, University of New Brunswick

Wanda Cassidy, Simon Fraser University

Mary Chapman, University of British Columbia

Ann Chinnery, Simon Fraser University

Elizabeth Comack, University of Manitoba

Cynthia Comacchio, Wilfrid Laurier University

Margaret Conrad, University of New Brunswick

Sharon Cook, University of Ottawa

Emma Cunliffe, University of British Columbia

Megan Davies, York University

Karen Dubinsky, Queen’s University

Margaret Early, University of British Columbia

Sylvia Fuller, University of British Columbia

Shelley Gavigan, Osgoode Hall Law School

Carole Gerson, Simon Fraser University

Laauren Gillingham, University of Ottawa

Mona Gleason, University of British Columbia

Sneja Gunew, University of British Columbia

Huamei Han, Simon Fraser University

Katy Haralampides, University of New Brunswick

Jennifer Henderson, Carleton University

Susan Hoecker-Drysdale, Concordia University

Emery Hyslop-Margison, University of New Brunswick

Franca Iacovetta, University of Toronto

Rebecca Johnson, University of Victoria

Gregory Kealey, University of New Brunswick

Linda Kealey, University of New Brunswick

Gary Kinsman, Laurentian University

Kim Lenters, University of Calgary

Andrée Lévesque, McGill University

Kristina Llewellyn, University of Waterloo

Meg Luxton, York University

Susan McDaniel, University of Lethbridge

Gayle MacDonald, St. Thomas University

Ann McKinnon, Okanagan College

Arlene McLaren, Simon Fraser University

Lynn Marks, University of Victoria

Greg Marquis, University of New Brunswick

Isabelle Martin, Université de Montréal

Kathy Mezei, Simon Fraser University

Mary Jane Mossman, Osgoode Hall Law School

Suzanne Morton, McGill University

Catherine Murray, Simon Fraser University

Tamara Myers, University of British Columbia

Vrinda Narain, McGill University

Bonny Norton, University of British Columbia

Nicole O’Byrne, University of New Brunswick

Debra Parkes, University of Manitoba

Karen Pearlston, University of New Brunswick

Geraldine Pratt, University of British Columbia

John Price, University of Victoria

Jane Pulkingham, Simon Fraser University

Andrew Rippin, University of Victoria

Becki Ross, University of British Columbia

Claudia Ruitenberg, University of British Columbia

Eric Sager, University of Victoria

Joan Sangster, Trent University

Ozlem Sensoy, Simon Fraser University

Alexis Shotwell, Carleton University

Mary Lynn Stewart, Simon Fraser University

Jordan Stanger-Ross, University of Victoria

D. Gillian Thompson, University of New Brunswick

David Tindall, University of British Columbia

Keelleen Toohey, Simon Fraser University

Lorna Turnbull, University of Manitoba

Lucinda Vandervort, University of Saskatchewan

Robert Whitney, University of New Brunswick

Wendy Wickwire, University of Victoria

Margot Young, University of British Columbia

© Copyright (c) The Montreal Gazette

Who needs Tory attack ads when the intellectuals parody themselves and remind Canadians of why they like solid, even stolid Stephen Harper better than the representatives of the Laurentian Consensus:

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Laurentian Consensus

 

[Old Sweat]

Wow! The letter is more deserving of rabble.ca than a respected daily paper. Even the starting point, that the Prime Minister attacked sociology as a discipline, is untrue. While there may well be a place for victim studies and all the rest of their field, to suggest claim that the country is on a path that runs against everything the writers stand for is beyond the pale. The whole thing is weak, full of overwrought rhetoric, poorly constructed and unworthy of distinguished academics.

It may even have escaped their ken that Canada is one of the minority of countries that allows them to mount such a criticism of the ruling administration without fear of reprisal.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'll leave it to our own resident academics to pass on whether the signatories are "distinguished" or not; I was happy to note the absence of several names - people I cite fairly often - from that list.

 

[CougarKing]

With this latest commentary by Lord Black below, isn't it about time we have superthread about the abuses and excesses of certain unions?

To think there was a recent Maclean's article, titled "The new $100,000 club" of why people in certain professions in the provincially-paid public sector workers such as firefighters, police officers and teachers are getting unreasonable high salaries, partially because of gains from union action. In some cases, they earn more than lawyers and engineers; in Ontario, as quoted from the article, more than half of these government costs go to incomes and benefits.

National Post link

Conrad Black: Public-sector unions are a blight on our society

The announcement this week by Tony Clement, Canada’s capable Treasury Board President, that representatives of his department would attend collective bargaining sessions at Crown corporations, is entirely welcome. The entities he singled out for careful examination in search of budgetary economies were Canada Post, Via Rail and the CBC. These all present different administrative challenges, but the idea is a first positive step in the long-overdue overhaul of this entire process.

The largest problem here, and doubtless the last one that will be tackled, is that there simply should not be any collective bargaining at all in the public sector. Former Quebec premier Maurice Duplessis was correct when he said 65 years ago: “The right to strike against the public interest does not exist.”

For many years, the often explicit understanding was that public employees would be less well-paid than those in the private sector, but would have greater job security and, in general, less challenging employment. The unionization of the public service consigned that rule of thumb to the proverbial dust-bin of history, and public-service unions began leading organized labour in militancy, while feasting on the weakness and cowardice of political employers.

During the 20th century, as government legislation progressively equalized the rights of the worker with those of the employer, unions became surplus to the requirements of the employed person. This process was accelerated by the frequent irresponsibility and corruption, intellectual and financial, of much union leadership. Many unions were financially mismanaged, and many more were afflicted by cronyism, and excessive compensation for the controlling families and cliques.

But the unions simply raised the ante, and blackmailed one industry after another, threatening shutdowns unless workplace rules were made inflexible to assure greater personnel and product costs than were necessary; which, of course, ultimately made them uncompetitive. The antics of the automobile workers became particularly notorious, as product quality deteriorated and each automobile produced in American unionized plants became tens of thousands of dollars of pension and health benefits wrapped in sheet metal.

The failings of the manufacturing unions were magnified in the public-service unions, where there was no product, nor any competition, and the management side was represented by politicians who were vulnerable in their jobs, being subject to complaint from the worker-sympathetic public for being skinflints, and from the whole public for any interruption of services.

This led to some famous confrontations in the United States and Canada. In 1946, U.S. president Harry Truman introduced legislation to draft striking railway workers into the army, where failure to report to work would lead to court martial and severe penalties, and the rail strike collapsed. In 1970, president Richard Nixon called out the army and the National Guard to distribute mail in the New York City area after a postal service strike. (The workers returned to their jobs and new agreements were negotiated that addressed some of their concerns and reorganized the postal service, but did not grant the right to strike.) In 1981, Ronald Reagan famously fired all the striking air controllers who did not return to work as ordered, and replaced them on an interim basis with military air traffic controllers until new personnel could be recruited.


In Canada, Pierre Trudeau threw the leader of the Canadian Union of Postal Workers, Jean-Claude Parrot, in jail in 1980 for defying back-to-work legislation, and there were frequent work stoppages in the postal services through much of the 1970s. (Parrot’s predecessor, Joe Davidson, had famously shouted “To hell with the public!”) In Quebec, premier Robert Bourassa jailed almost the entire senior labour leadership at times for defiance of strike-breaking legislation.

Labour strife in education has been one of the greatest frustrations of modern Western society. As it became less and less an occupation for single women or wives in the era before most women were in the workplace, and became more the occupation of people (of both sexes) who had to support a family from a teacher’s income, pressures for higher compensation steadily rose. Skyrocketing costs have been accompanied by sharply declining standards of educational effectiveness, and in the level of competence of students. Matriculation numbers have been maintained only by making the examinations and the curriculum simpler.

The culture has doubtless increased slovenliness and philistinism. But at the heart of the problem of failing public education are the teachers’ unions. Ununionized schools do better than unionized schools, and ununionized schools do not strike and hold the students hostage, putting extreme pressure on homes where there is no adult at home on work days.

It is now a familiar three-hankey tear-jerker to see teachers’ union representatives passionately explaining that the last thing they wish to do by striking in the middle of the school year is hold the students hostage or impinge on the money-earning capacity of their parents; but that is, of course, what they are doing and why they are doing it. I do not doubt that the teachers have many legitimate grievances against school boards and school administrators. But Duplessis was right: They do not have the right to strike against the public interest.

People are free to change their jobs, to retire and pursue other employment. Collective bargaining is a defiance of the free market, which is efficient and meritocratically fair. Union rules standardize, regiment, stifle initiative, discourage enterprise, and concentrate power to intimidate and influence political decision-making in the hands of unrepresentative and self-serving cabals. Unionization divides any enterprise and creates a them-and-us-mentality that is a collapsed lung that cripples and stultifies any organization.

Laws must be constantly reviewed and updated to prevent abuse by employers. And civilized and liveable working conditions must be assured as a matter of inalienable right to everyone. But the surest guaranty of such rights is the free market, as exploited workers will not produce competitive products or services, and will defect from or sabotage by their sullenness any employer who so treats them.

George Smith — who is former vice president of the CBC for human resources and now a professor of collective bargaining at Queen’s University (an utterly ludicrous and anachronistic simulation of a university discipline) — argues that having Treasury Board officials present at collective bargaining negotiations of Crown corporations “goes against decades of industrial relations policy in this country, and I think it’s reprehensible.” Yet this argument illustrates precisely why it is a good idea. For decades, that policy has been mistaken and extravagant, and has encouraged waste, sloth, incompetence and sclerosis.

The CBC itself has not so much suffered from a strangled budget (though it has), but from the misallocation of resources to an administrative clot of bureaucratic stagnation riveted on a network whose creative budget and personnel have been forced to carry this top-lofty bureaucracy. The CBC should be reformed as Charles I and Louis XVI were reformed, by the liberative stimulation of decapitation, and the vital and creative elements should be allowed, and financially permitted, to flourish.

All governments should be cleaned out by a draconian process of zero-based personnel costs and competition for retention of fewer but better-paying jobs, and the private sector should be incentivized to hire those who thus depart the public sector. A modern arbitration procedure should replace collective bargaining in all enterprises, public and private, and George Smith should crown his career by teaching something that someone would profit from learning.

As for Tony Clement, he deserves an all-party commendation for creative thinking.

 

[Infanteer]

I'll leave it to our own resident academics to pass on whether the signatories are "distinguished" or not; I was happy to note the absence of several names - people I cite fairly often - from that list.

Remember, being an "academic" these days often means (a) your parents had enough to pay for you to do a 7 year undergrad, (b) you can write a paper about a book the prof made you read and/or (c) you are in an "academic department" that considers protesting and orgies to be credit worthy material is the degree mills that many university programs have become....

 

[Edward Campbell]

With this latest commentary by Lord Black below, isn't it about time we have superthread about the abuses and excesses of certain unions?

To think there was a recent Maclean's article, titled "The new $100,000 club" of why people in certain professions in the provincially-paid public sector workers such as firefighters, police officers and teachers are getting unreasonable high salaries, partially because of gains from union action. In some cases, they earn more than lawyers and engineers; in Ontario, as quoted from the article, more than half of these government costs go to incomes and benefits.

National Post link

Lord Black is wrong about one thing. He says, "Collective bargaining is a defiance of the free market, which is efficient and meritocratically fair." A "free market" - one without trade unions - cannot make a sensible calculation of the real cost (or value) of labour which is, almost always, an important input cost. There's an old adage which says "you can't manage what you can't measure" and collective bargaining allows us to "measure" both the cost and the value of labour.

I separate cost and value for a reason: sometimes, very often in the case of traditional, industrial work, increasing costs of the workers have the predictable effect of lowering the "value" of each worker and higher wages bring automation and "off shoring."

There is no problem with public sector unions, per se. What is problematical is the conditions under which they were established. Public sector unions were given the rights won by industrial unions - including the silly Rand formula - but they did not lose their "iron rice bowl." Traditionally public sector workers were paid less than their counterparts in the private sector (not the case any more!) but they had enviable, excellent job security.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>A "free market" - one without trade unions - cannot make a sensible calculation of the real cost (or value) of labour which is, almost always, an important input cost.

The "free market" knows the value of labour full well; most private sector labour is not unionized.  What needs to be shown is that the public sector's estimate of the value of its labour is more accurate than that of the private sector - for any given job.

 

[mariomike]

With this latest commentary by Lord Black below, isn't it about time we have superthread about the abuses and excesses of certain unions?

Not sure which "certain" unions you mean, but a member started a discussion of Emergency Services pay and benefits here:

"Civilians complaining about Police/Emergency Services' Pay"
http://forums.milnet.ca/forums/threads/102608.0.html
 

To think there was a recent Maclean's article, titled "The new $100,000 club" of why people in certain professions in the provincially-paid public sector workers such as firefighters, police officers and teachers are getting unreasonable high salaries, partially because of gains from union action. In some cases, they earn more than lawyers and engineers; in Ontario, as quoted from the article, more than half of these government costs go to incomes and benefits.

Like the story says, "Since police, firefighters and paramedics—so-called essential workers—aren’t allowed to strike, the task falls to an arbitrator when municipalities can’t arrive at a new agreement."

They are just living by the system that was instituted. 

The Association of Municipalities of Ontario (AMO) is lobbying for changes to the arbitration system.

May 2, 2013

"Rising Emergency Service Costs
Ontario municipalities are deeply concerned about the unchecked rise in emergency service costs. Wages and benefit increases in this area are greater than increases for other municipal employees, the rate of inflation, increases for Ontario's population, and the capacity of many municipal governments."
http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1157745/ontario-budget-delivers-infrastructure-investment-silent-on-tools-to-manage-costs

 

[Edward Campbell]

Just to show that internecine warfare is not the exclusive province of the Liberal Party of Canada, here is a somewhat nasty opinion piece by disgruntled Conservative insider Peter G White:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/stephen-harpers-costly-french-kiss-off/article11714708/#dashboard/follows/

Stephen Harper’s costly French kiss-off

PETER G. WHITE
The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, May. 06 2013

In the 2004 federal election, Stephen Harper, as the newly minted Conservative Party leader, won zero seats in Quebec. In 2006, he won 10 seats there, and he did that again in 2008. In 2011, he won only five seats. Since that election, the Prime Minister’s standing in Quebec has gone from bad to worse.

Far from wooing the Québécois by campaigning personally in the province, using Quebec media to explain and defend his policies directly, and engaging in good old-fashioned retail politics, Mr. Harper seems to be further alienating most Quebeckers in an almost calculated way.

Consequently, the vast majority have concluded that he has written off Quebec politically. And not surprisingly, the feeling is mutual.

Ever since becoming leader of the Conservatives, Mr. Harper has left the Quebec political field wide open to his enemies. He’s now everyone’s punching bag in the province, a constant butt of media aspersions and a byword for someone inimical to Quebec’s interests at all levels. Charitable observers attribute this not to malevolence but to indifference and perhaps ignorance – and apparently also to self-interest.

As all Quebeckers know only too well, in 2011, Mr. Harper won his coveted majority elsewhere. And with 30 new seats to be added to the House of Commons before the next election, he will have even less electoral need for Quebec than ever.

This is a dream scenario to delight the hearts of Quebec separatists.

Last September, Quebeckers elected a minority Parti Québécois government. That’s Act I.

Despite the weakness of the PQ’s mandate, many hard-liners within the party believe that this mandate is their last best chance to win a referendum. They are searching for an excuse – any excuse – to trigger one.

As far-fetched and tiresome as it may seem, the PQ leadership may nevertheless try to cobble together enough votes in the National Assembly to hold some form of referendum on the future of Quebec. If this ploy succeeds, that’s Act II.

Then we would have a campaign pitting Pauline Marois as head of the Yes side against über-federalist Philippe Couillard, the new leader of the Liberal opposition, as head of the No side.

But Ms. Marois’s real opponent would be Stephen Harper. And if she can turn the campaign into a referendum on a more independent Quebec versus le Canada de Stephen Harper, that’s Act III.

Mr. Harper’s image in Quebec is now so diabolical that for Quebec federalists to have his support in a referendum campaign would be akin to having the support of the Communist Party during the Cold War. Not only is Mr. Harper not the solution, he’s the problem. Yet, he does not modify his behaviour.

In the 1980 referendum campaign, Pierre Trudeau was a major and successful defender of federalism. In the 1995 referendum campaign, this role fell to Jean Chrétien, strongly assisted by federal Progressive Conservative leader Jean Charest.

Will it now fall, by default, to Pierre Trudeau’s son Justin?

If so, it will leave the young Mr. Trudeau looking very much like the great consensus-building defender of a united country – a role that, one would have thought, belongs to the prime minister of Canada.

Peter G. White is past president of the Brome-Missisquoi Conservative Association and former principal secretary to prime minister Brian Mulroney.

This is not Mr. White's first kick at this can - see, also, here (MacLean's magazine) for a similar piece with the same message from early in 2013.

Now I am one of those who is not disturbed by what I see as a considered Conservative programme to "govern without Quebec" - not against Quebec, just not depending upon policies which appeal to Quebec nationalists. I believe that the Conservatives can compete for the 15-20 solidly federalist seats in Quebec if they adopt a position which is more sympathetic to linguistic minorities (not just the English), but that's another issue.

I expect, before I die, to see a House of Commons with nearly 400 seats, with just over ¼ being from "old Canada" (Quebec and Atlantic Canada). Why would the CPC alienate their new "coalition" of rural conservatives and suburbanites in order to placate either Quebec or Atlantic Canada?

But: Mr. White is not alone. There is, still a fairly large Progressive Conservative rump in the CPC and it remembers when Brian Mulroney achieved success by uniting rural conservatives, some suburbanites and Quebec's soft nationalists.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Is this really how Justin Trudea wants to counter the CPC attack ads that suggest he's a lightweight?

Justin Trudeau appears in a campaign video sent to Liberal supporters Monday morning.
Source: National Post

I'm assuming the aim is to cement his attraction to the Facebook/Twitter/YouTube generation, but I doubt it will help in the fast growing suburbs where fiscal policy is the key issue.

 

[PanaEng]

Is this really how Justin Trudea wants to counter the CPC attack ads that suggest he's a lightweight?

Justin Trudeau appears in a campaign video sent to Liberal supporters Monday morning.
Source: National Post

I'm assuming the aim is to cement his attraction to the Facebook/Twitter/YouTube generation, but I doubt it will help in the fast growing suburbs where fiscal policy is the key issue.

That may actually be a very good played political move in order to attract the younger votes by seeming more down to earth.

 

[Remius]

Indeed.  Plus the Liberals seem to be getting the coffers filled with at least 1 million raised since Justin was crowned. 

And now a possible win in a Labrador by-election.

But how long will the wind stay in the sails?

Edited for grammar.