Category Archives: harper government

Andrew Coyne: There’s no spinning it — the Conservatives were spanked in Monday’s byelections

Posted on by

   Andrew Coyne  27/11/13  http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com

Does Stephen Harper realize that he needs to turn things around to win in 2015?   Adrian Wyld/The Canadian PressDoes Stephen Harper realize that he needs to turn things around to win in 2015?

If you were determined to be obtuse about it, you could look at the results of Monday’s byelections and say: nothing changed. The Tories held onto their two seats in the West, the Liberals held onto theirs in Ontario and Quebec. Move along folks, no story here.

Justin Trudeau would have come under less flak if he’d drawn a caricature depicting the Prophet Mohammed. Mr. Trudeau had the temerity to quote fallen NDP leader Jack Layton in his victory address, after the Liberals retained the Bourassa and Toronto Centre seats in Monday’s byelections.

Mr. Trudeau said that the NDP is “no longer the hopeful, optimistic party of Jack Layton … it is the Liberal Party that proved that hope is stronger than fear, that positive politics can, and should win out over negative.”

The invocation of Mr. Layton’s words, penned in a note to Canadians just before he died two years ago – “love is better than anger, hope is better than fear” – has incensed New Democrats, who have all but accused Mr. Trudeau of defaming the memory of their former leader.

You could do this, as I say, only if you took extravagant care to ignore everything else that happened that night: If you focused myopically on the top-line result in each riding, and paid no attention to the popular vote — the trend, the swing, across the nation and over time.

In private, I can assure you, no one in any of the parties does this. Only in the public realm do they say things like “a win’s a win” — which is what you say when a win looks a lot like a loss — and only the most programmed partisans actually mean it.

Only in the most literal sense is the Tories’ 391-vote margin in Brandon-Souris, one of the safest Conservative seats in the country, a “win.” Even the partisans found this hard to say with a straight face. Rather, they were obliged first to pretend that a Forum Research poll showing the Liberals ahead by 29 points the weekend before the election had some basis in reality, the better to conjure up a fantasy “comeback.”

To be sure, every party comes well-stocked with rationalizations on occasions like these, usually introduced by “when you consider” or some such phrase. As in: The Conservatives did pretty well, when you consider we’re in the throes of a massive national scandal. Or: the NDP collapse in Manitoba is understandable, when you consider the unpopularity of the province’s NDP government. It’s not cold, when you consider it’s February.

We would have done better, in other words, but for the fact that we did worse. Figures don’t lie, but losers can consider.

Related

But there’s just no spinning this one. The trends are too pronounced. Across all four ridings, the Tory vote was down 11 points versus the 2011 election, from 39% to 28%, almost exactly mirroring the national polls. The NDP, which might have been expected to gain the most from the Tories’ disfavour — when you consider how well Tom Mulcair has been performing in Parliament — instead dropped five points overall, while the Liberals surged 18 points.

If the drop in the Tory vote was the night’s main story, the rise in the Liberals’ was the other. In Provencher and Brandon-Souris, the Grits blew past the NDP to become the Tories’ main rivals, taking as many votes from the left as they did from the right. In Toronto Centre and Bourassa, they increased their margins of victory, even in the face of spirited challenges from the NDP. Conservative candidates in the East both lost their deposits, as NDP candidates did in the West. Only the Liberals were up across the board.

But the true significance of the result is captured, not by comparison to the last election, but set against the broad sweep of history. The 8.7% of the vote the Conservatives managed to hold onto in Toronto Centre — the riding of David Crombie and David MacDonald — is the party’s worst showing in any election in that riding since Confederation.

The Conservative candidate in Bourassa, likewise, took less than 5% of the vote. That is the second-worst showing for the Conservatives in that riding since 1968, when it was created. (Only 2000, when they split the vote with the Canadian Alliance, was worse.) By contrast, the Liberals’ 43% showing in Brandon-Souris was not only a 37% increase over 2011, it was their best ever.

NP Graphics

NP GraphicsClick to Enlarge

Nothing changed? Come on. We can argue about the reasons, we can debate what it portends, but on the night, there’s no getting away from it: The Conservatives were spanked. No doubt it would have been even worse for the Tories had they actually lost Brandon-Souris (“not unexpected, when you consider the Liberal candidate was the son of the riding’s long-time former Conservative MP”), but the results ought to prompt some deep reflection among the party’s leadership.

No, the Senate scandal is not likely to be at the top of most voters’ minds two years from now. But I rather doubt the Senate scandal, on its own, is what has driven one in four Tory voters to abandon the party: As I say, the polls have been showing the same thing for some time. It’s everything that went before it, and everything that’s happened since.

It’s the general impression that we are being governed by a gang of thugs — secretive, high-handed, unprincipled gusting to unethical, and openly contemptuous of such quaint notions as democratic accountability — an impression that grows more baked in each time the Prime Minister dodges a question in Parliament, or worse, sends in the clownish Paul Calandra to answer in his place.

At the same time, it’s clear the NDP have a lot of work to do to convince voters, not just of the Conservatives’ faults, but of their own virtues as their putative replacements. It must gall Mr. Mulcair, after all his weight and substance, to see the voters flock instead to the lighter-than-air Justin Trudeau. But he still has lots of time to turn things around.

For that matter, so does Stephen Harper. The difference is, Mr. Mulcair seems to realize he needs to.

Postmedia News

Should the public service have the right to strike? YES

Posted on by

By Jim Stanford, Ottawa Citizen November 26, 2013

Should the public service have the right to strike? YES   Photograph by: Chris Mikula , The Ottawa Citizen

It might seem like ancient history, but it wasn’t long ago that Canadian governments knew how to balance their books — and then some. The collective operating surplus of Canadian governments in 2007 equalled almost $40 billion. Teachers, nurses, and other public servants did their jobs. Tax revenues were more than sufficient to pay for their valuable work (in fact, average tax rates were falling, not rising).

Then along came a global financial meltdown. (No one argues, by the way, that it was caused by teachers, nurses and civil servants.) Surpluses dissolved into deficits: not huge, by historic or international standards, but significant. And some political leaders made tackling the deficit their defining crusade. Showing they could manage their own finances helped them pretend they were in control of the worrisome events around them. In that effort, public sector workers and their unions presented a politically convenient target.

It’s not that public sector compensation costs caused the deficit (which didn’t exist, remember, until 2008). Nor would squeezing public employees be central to the deficit reduction exercise. At the federal level, direct compensation accounts for only 8.5 cents of each dollar in total government spending, and that ratio has been stable. Achieving, say, a wage freeze instead of paying a normal two-per-cent annual increase, on that small share of spending, could make no noticeable difference to the fiscal trajectory.

Nor was strike activity crippling the economy and service delivery. In fact, the incidence of work stoppage (measured by days lost per worker to strikes and lockouts) fell in 2012 to the lowest since statistics began in 1946: down over 95 per cent compared to the strike-happy 1970s. Public sector workers are less likely to go on strike, not more: they’ve accounted for one-third of all work stoppage days in the last decade, even though they now make up over half of all union members.

No, tilting at public sector unions is all about politics, not economics. Governments want to change the channel from persistent economic stagnation and embarrassing scandals. Workers in the private sector suffered during the recession, politicians argue (not that they act to support private sector workers, either). So it’s about time public sector workers suffer, too. The logic of this ideology of “shared misery” may be bizarre, but it’s politically potent.

Thus began the latest chapter in a long-standing Canadian tradition: when times are tough, blame the unions. And then take away their right to strike. It’s happened over 200 times in Canada in the last 30 years.

The latest example is Bill C-4. It would give the federal government unilateral power to define who can strike and who can’t (contrary to past practice and international convention). The government won’t detail how this will happen until after the law is passed. In a true Catch-22, the bill would also neuter the arbitration process for workers who can’t strike. And the whole process is buried within a 321-page omnibus bill, debate on which was curtailed two days after it was introduced. Bill C-4 is an affront to democracy — both in Parliament, and in the workplace.

The attack on public sector labour rights is usually justified by the claim that unions have soaked taxpayers through their irresistible demands. This claim is not supported. In practice, public sector bargaining tends to follow economy-wide trends, but with a lag. Public sector wages were much lower before public sector unionization took off in the 1970s. Wages caught up in the 1980s, then fell behind again during the austere 1990s. The public sector did better in the mid-2000s. But more recently, bargaining has clearly responded to tough times: for four years running, public sector settlements have lagged well behind private sector deals, and behind the general growth of earnings in the overall economy.

Average earnings in the public sector are five to 10 per cent higher than economy averages (depending on how they are measured) — but education and credentials are significantly higher, too. Comparing similar occupations and credentials, it’s largely a wash. Women make more in the public sector than in the private sector, but men make less. The whole wage scale is compressed (with a higher bottom and a lower top). But overall public sector compensation is not out of whack — and powerful economic and political pressures tend to keep it that way.

Governments are the only employer with the power to “solve” their labour relations problems by simply dictating a settlement. The potential for misuse of this confluence of fiscal interest and political power is enormous. Most private sector employers would love to outlaw strikes and dictate wage outcomes, but they can’t — and for good reason. Where public employees provide a genuinely essential service (like fire, police, and some health services), there’s no debate: in place of strikes or lockouts, a neutral arbitration system should replicate collective bargaining outcomes without work stoppage. But other public sector workers must have the same rights as anyone else in our society to organize themselves and promote their interests, up to and including withdrawing their labour if that’s necessary to get a deal.

Jim Stanford is an economist with the trade union Unifor. Tuesday night at the Canadian War Museum, in a debate hosted by the Macdonald-Laurier Institute and moderated by former House speaker Peter Milliken, economist Jim Stanford and professor Tom Flanagan debated the resolution “The right to strike has no place in the public sector.”

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen

Scrap proposed changes to federal labour legislation in Bill C-4.

Posted on by

http://psacbc.com

Less than a week after reconvening Parliament, the Conservative government introduced Bill C-4, an omnibus budget bill that proposes to radically change our rights as federal public sector workers, and, by extension, is an attack against the rights of all Canadian workers.

Bill C-4 takes away the democratic rights of federal public sector employees and seriously undermines the health and safety protections in the Canada Labour Code covering workers under federal jurisdiction.

Bill C-4 is all about making it easier for the government and Treasury Board to come after federal government workers in the next round of bargaining and to strip away our long-standing negotiated rights.

Bill C-4 proposes amendments to federal labour laws that will not modernize the public sector. Rather, they are regressive and set back rights 30 years.

Bill C-4 is past second reading in Parliament and has been referred to the committee stage.

Please take action now. Email your MP and ask them to oppose these unfair and radical changes to labour legislation that affects Canadian workers.

http://psacbc.com/bargaining/email/scrap-proposed-changes-federal-labour-legislation-bill-c-4

Health & Safety At Work Under Threat With Harper Government Bill C-4: The Budget Implementation Act

Posted on by
The lives of almost one million Canadian workers will be placed in danger as a result of cynical amendments that the Conservative government is making to the Canada Labour Code. Buried deep in the government’s latest budget bill tabled on October 22 are amendments to the health and safety provisions of the Code that have nothing to do with balancing the budget, and everything to do with putting workers’ lives at risk. Watch this video to learn more on how you can help stop this.

Why labour unions are concerned about the new budget bill — and you should be too

Posted on by

By H.G. Watson  | November 21, 2013  http://rabble.ca

Photo: flickr/Kim Elliott

It’s almost a yearly tradition now — with a new session of Parliament comes a new omnibus bill to stir up controversy. This year, Bill C-4 — the budget implementation bill — has raised the ire of Canada’s national labour unions, for good reason. And while we might not notice the impacts now, if Bill C-4 passes, we soon will.

So, what’s in this bill?

Bill C-4, like omnibus bills before it, makes amendments and changes to all sorts of legislation. As reported by Macleans, it will extend solicitor-client privilege under the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act and potentially give the minister of immigration new powers to approve economic class applicants.

But what changes impact labour?

The bill gives the federal government exclusive right to determine what public services workers are essential — a designation that is currently negotiated by the employer and the union. Under the current system, if they can’t reach an agreement they go to the Public Service Labour Relations Board.

Bill C-4 simply calls for consultation, after which the government can still declare the workers essential. In this new proposed system, the final decision rests with the government.

And there’s more. If over 80 per cent of workers in a bargaining unit are deemed essential — essential workers are deemed so if their work is needed to ensure the safety and security of the public — they go right to arbitration. Do not strike. Do not pass GO. Do not collect $50.

At the same time, the bill dissolves and combines The Public Service Labour Relations Board and the Public Service Staffing Tribunal and creates the Public Service Labour Relations and Employment Board. This new board will oversee all grievances brought by workers in the federal public service.

Lastly, the bill makes some major changes to the health and safety provisions in the Canada Labour Code — a statute that applies to all federally regulated industries. As the Labour Code currently stands, officials called health and safety officers, who are designated by the minister of labour, investigate workplaces and deem them dangerous if need be.

If the amendments contained in Bill C-4 pass, the minister would be directly responsibly for leading the investigations, and the definition of “danger” would be “an imminent or serious threat to the life or health of a person exposed to it.” The current definition notes that the danger only has to be a hazard or condition that could reasonably cause injury or illness.

And why is labour concerned about this?

In a nutshell: unions believe that workers are being stripped of their rights to collectively bargain and protect themselves in unsafe workplaces.

“Obviously we are not pleased with this bill,” said Robyn Benson, the president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC), a union that represents 180,000 workers in the federal public service.

She is concerned that if the bill passes, far more of the workers in PSAC will be deemed essential and thus unable to strike should they decide to do so after a round of bargaining their new contracts with the federal government.

“I think that [Clement] will probably, for example, try to deem every customs officer essential when that’s not in fact the case,” she explained. “I don’t believe collecting taxes at the border has anything to do with [that].”

The health and safety concerns extend past the federal public service and include industries like airlines, rail and telecommunications. PSAC representatives believe that the dissolution of the health and safety officers could politicize workplace monitoring and that the new definition of danger leaves too much room for interpretation.

And much like previous omnibus budget bills, the Conservatives are being criticized for including non-budgetary items in Bill C-4, like changing the essential worker designation. “It’s an anti-democratic and anti-parliamentarian tactic,” said Alexandre Boulerice, the NDP labour critic. He worries that because of the scope of the bill, many of the changes contained within — including some of sweeping ones concerning labour — won’t get enough time for proper scrutiny before the parliamentary committees.

Clement declined to be interviewed for this story, but he told The Globe and Mail earlier this month that these changes would transform and modernize “the public service negotiation architecture.” He’s told other media that he believes it ridiculous that the government has to negotiate with labour unions to determine what services are essential — an arrangement that according to Benson had been working with previous Treasury Board presidents, including Vic Towes. According to her, Clement also refused to consult with PSAC during the writing of Bill C-4.

So why make these changes?

Benson believes that these changes are coming for one reason — the federal public service is negotiating a new collective agreement in 2014 and the federal government is preparing to do battle with the public sector unions.

She has no plans to stop battling these changes, now or at the bargaining table next year. “We have told this government from the day that I was elected that I was not going to expect any concessions,” she said. “And I believe that our membership is solidly behind us and will stand up to be counted.”

Clement, for his part, has already started his own campaign to support his cause. He told media that he will stay mum on who is to be deemed essential, but has been sure to stress that it is for the cause of public safety. At question period earlier this month, he also addressed a concern from within his own party about the absenteeism rate of public service workers, noting that he will address the issue next year at the bargaining table.

And what does it mean for the federal public service?

It means that once the new year begins, they may find themselves involved in drawn-out labour negotiations that will have impacts felt beyond federal public service workers. War drums are already beating. On Twitter and in the media, both have Benson and Clement have taken shots at each other.