August 7, 2013 http://www.operationmaple.com/
Crazed clerics are not the only ones possessed of an evangelical fervour. Young Tim Hudak, leader (at least for now) of the Ontario Progressive Conservative Party, is well-known for wanting to bring back some of that old-time religion in the form of union-bashing and dismantlement, something he likes to describe eupehmistically as workplace democracy.
Happily, the agenda clumsily yet avidly embraced by Mr. Hudak and his federal brethren is transparent to many, as the following Star letter makes clear:
Re: A Conservative banner you won’t see, Aug. 10
Susan Delacourt misses the point. While home ownership is the dream of all middle-class and would-be middle-class Canadians, the changes to tougher mortgage restrictions by the Conservative government is not the problem.
The problem is that fiscal Conservatives like Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Mayor Rob Ford, not to mention the wanabee premier Tim Hudak, bash unions and are thereby responsible for the loss of middle class and fair wage jobs.
In the name of fiscal responsibility we have seen in the last decade the radical decline of good paying employment. Unions protect not only their members but, by raising the bar on wages and benefits, also protect non-members. But, these fiscal elites bash unions and give jobs to the minimum-wage-paying private for profit sector.
The real culprit in the decline of the middle class and the smashing of their dreams is not changes to mortgage lending, but rather the overall decline of wages and salaries. The growth in wealth of the 1 per cent does not make for a sound economy. Unions are the major defence against the one-sided economy we now have.
If the middle class hopes to regain some of its vitality (and surely the entire country depends on this) then it’s time for union bashing to end. Conservatives like the prime minister and the mayor and Mr. Hudak believe that divide and conquer, by creating jealousy on the part of non-union workers of those lucky enough to be protected by group action, is the way to keep wealth in the hands of the few. That’s the secret agenda.
It’s really time the electorate woke up to this Machiavellian plan and took back their power.
Stephen L. Bloom, Toronto
By David P. Ball
Published August 14, 2013 From: http://thetyee.ca
One of Canada’s top constitutional lawyers is taking the Conservative government to court over increasing restrictions on who can speak at energy board hearings — and what they are allowed to say.
Decrying federal changes to the National Energy Board Act as a “chilling effect” and “breach of constitutional free speech,” Clayton Ruby launched a court challenge yesterday on behalf of ForestEthics Advocacy, an organization he chairs.
The lawsuit, which has not yet been given the go-ahead by a judge, is challenging increased limits on who can address the board on applications for such projects as oil sands pipelines. The reforms force participants to prove they are directly impacted by a project, for instance if it crosses their property.
“This is part of a pattern of muzzling to keep the Canadian public from getting concerned,” Ruby told The Tyee. “These are vital issues, and the government wants as little discussion about them as possible; they want silence… you can no longer talk about certain subjects, they narrowed the scope of what you can say, they will not hear you if you are indirectly affected, and the process requires a nine-page application form, even for a one-page submission.”
Ruby cited as proof of the “muzzling” rules barring citizens from discussing climate change or impacts of the oil sands in general during pipeline or tanker hearings, even when they transport bitumen proven to escalate greenhouse gas emissions.
Compared to the more-than-thousand submissions to the board’s Enbridge Northern Gateway hearings — completed earlier this year, and almost exclusively in opposition — current hearings into the Line 9B oil sands pipeline through southern Ontario allowed only 175 submissions, despite blockades and growing public protest.
But Minister of Natural Resources Joe Oliver retorted that the board has not impinged on free speech, since it “permits submissions from individuals impacted by the project.”
“The democratic right to express a public opinion is honoured in Canada,” Oliver said in an emailed statement. “The board must hear from those who are directly affected and may choose to hear from those with information or expertise relevant to the scope of the hearing.
“Focusing submissions ensures the review is informed by the facts material to the scope of the hearing and protects it from being used as a tool to delay decisions. This concern arose in the context of the Northern Gateway hearing when over 4,000 people registered to be heard, but only 1,179 actually showed up at the hearings.”
Oliver came under fire in 2012 when he accused some Northern Gateway critics of being “foreign-funded radicals” in a widely reported open letter. That allegation started a firestorm where organizations such as Tides Canada and the David Suzuki Foundation were ordered to appear before a Senate committee in Ottawa and faced tax scrutiny over their pipeline advocacy.
Ruby described the government’s approach as creating a “chill effect on free speech,” because small organizations are scared of losing their charitable status, and increased hearing restrictions will dissuade citizens from participating.
“These hearings — which they view as troublesome — will no longer cause them any trouble,” Ruby claimed. “They’ve turned the National Energy Board from a final decision-maker into an advisory board. The final decision is now made by Mr. Harper and his cabinet, not by the board.”
David P. Ball is a frequent contributor to The Tyee.
From: http://www.liberalsenateforum.ca
Statements & Hansard
Statement made on 26 June 2013 by Liberal Senator Catherine Callbeck of Prince Edward Island.
Honourable senators, I would like to take a few minutes to close out this inquiry that I have had on the Order Paper for some time. It deals with the eligibility criteria of the Old Age Security Allowance. It is a very simple issue, but it is an important one.
As it stands now, certain low-income seniors are being denied the OAS Allowance under the Old Age Security Program, simply due to marital status.
Under the Old Age Security Program, as it is right now, there are two benefits called “Allowances” available to low-income seniors aged 60 to 64.
For the OAS Allowance, in order to be eligible, a senior must be aged 60 to 64 and his or her spouse must receive the basic OAS pension and the Guaranteed Income Supplement. Together they are considered low-income.
The second one is the Allowance for the Survivor. It is designed for widows and widowers aged 60 to 64 who have a low income.
I am happy that we have these two benefits because they have helped many seniors. In total, almost 88,000 seniors benefit from these allowances right now.
However, we have some low-income seniors aged 60 to 64 who cannot even apply for this allowance. If that person has never married or is divorced, he or she is not eligible to apply for the allowance. It creates a very unfair situation. It means that we are treating some seniors differently from others.
We could easily fix this problem by expanding the OAS Allowance for all low-income unattached seniors between the ages of 60 to 64.
CARP, which is a national advocacy group for seniors, once again called for the expansion of this program in its pre-budget submission in 2013. The submission notes that almost 20 per cent of single older women live in poverty, and that unattached older women as a group have one of the highest rates of poverty in Canada.
It is unacceptable that the federal government is excluding one group of low-income people who really need assistance. They are excluded just because they have never been married or they are divorced.
I would urge the federal government to fix the criteria so that everyone in that age group will be treated fairly.
By Jim Stanford August 12, 2013 http://rabble.ca
Last week’s Labour Force numbers provide more evidence that Canada’s labour market is still mired in a three-year funk. Following one year of decent recovery from mid-2009 (the trough of the recession) to mid-2010, driven mostly by extraordinary monetary and fiscal stimulus, further progress has been stalled ever since.
Most headlines focus on the unemployment rate, but that is a misleading indicator — especially during sluggish times (when many workers give up looking for non-existent jobs, and hence disappear from the official unemployment rolls). The Canadian unemployment rate rose to 7.2 per cent in July, and is now just a smidge below the U.S. rate (7.4 per cent). Conceivably those two lines could cross imminently, casting some additional symbolic doubt on the Harper government’s broken-record claim that Canada survived the recession much better than other industrial countries. As previously noted, adjusted for population, Canada’s labour market performance since 2008 has clearly been worse than most other industrial countries.
The employment rate is a better indicator of labour market performance (relative to population trends), and by that measure July’s performance was even worse than the headline unemployment number seems to suggest. Labour force participation declined one-fifth of a percentage point in July; its decline has continued despite the so-called “recovery.” Indeed, at 66.5 per cent of the working age population this month’s participation rate (tied with April) is now at the lowest level since early 2002. This exodus of workers from the formal labour market helps to artificially suppress the official unemployment rate.
The employment rate also declined a fifth of a point, to 61.7 per cent. That’s lower than June 2010, the level reached after just the first year of stimulus-fuelled recovery (and not much better than the miserable 61.3 per cent recorded at the trough of the recession). Summer of 2010 is when governments shifted from stimulus to austerity, and the recovery stalled. (Erin Weir’s post illuminates the strong link between austerity and the falling employment numbers.) Job-creation for the past 3 years has only just kept up with population growth. The decline in the unemployment rate over the past three years is thus purely due to Canadians abandoning the labour market in droves. That’s hardly an accomplishment; it implies isolation, inactivity and poverty.
At the pre-recession participation rate (67.8 per cent), July’s unemployment rate would have been over 9 per cent. Add in involuntary part-time workers and other pools of hidden unemployed (e.g. those waiting for a job to start), and Canada’s true unemployment rate is over 12 per cent — or over 2.3 million people.
The painful reality is this: Labour is not scarce; jobs are scarce. And Canada’s labour market is not healthy; it’s been stalled in recession-like conditions for years. So much for the myth of Canadian exceptionalism.
Jim Stanford is an economist with CAW.