Wayne Easter, MP

Letter to Minister Valcourt Regarding ACOA Cuts

We have met the enemy and he is us

By Paul Kershaw, Special to the Sun May 23, 2012

Describe the federal political parties in a single word. That’s what Nanos Research asked Canadians to do in a recent survey.

Profanity featured in many of the descriptors. Beside these, Nanos reported that many Canadians described Conservatives as “untrustworthy.” The NDP is “socialist.” Liberals are “incompetent.”

It turns out that we don’t have much good to say about our political system. Ridiculing elected officials is now a national pastime, as is casting doubt on politicians’ motivations for seeking office, and treating them as punch lines rather than persons to respect.

Lamenting this reality in a previous column, I encouraged Canadians to BEAVER for Politicians — Because Every Adequate Voter Expresses Respect for Politicians, even when she or he dislikes the decisions of certain politicians at certain times. I even encouraged people to post comments on my blog, sharing their reasons for respecting politicians.

I received four posts.

Who can be surprised, when the robocall scandal and Bev Oda’s frivolous spending on luxury accommodation permeate national news?

But what if we turned the table? Asked the federal parties to describe Canadian voters in a single word? What would we learn about ourselves as citizens?

I’m a proud Canadian. Proud enough to know there are many positive monikers to depict us. Kind. Welcoming. Hard-working. Just. Ambitious. Polite. Adaptive. Helpful. Strong. Patriotic.

But an independent national poll by McAllister Opinion Research in fall 2011 gives reason to think many Canadian voters are also fair game for critique.

Nearly half — 45 per cent — of Canadians say that government laws, services and programs “have very little, if any positive impact on the quality of life.” This means nearly half of citizens ignore the positive impact of public schools, universities, medical care, pensions, unemployment insurance or many other programs and services that Canadians use on a daily basis. And where would these 45 per cent be without the laws that enforce contracts, protect our property rights, promote safety, create order from potential chaos on roads? For that matter, who would have built those roads, ports or transit by which the good we depend on are delivered?

Given such disregard for the benefits of public investment, one could understand if political parties might describe nearly half our population as ungrateful.

Half of us may claim government doesn’t matter. But the poll also shows we don’t mean it.

If government has so little value for so many, you’d think Canadians would be keen to cut spending. Right?

Wrong. When asked to identify places to reduce spending, around 90 per cent of Canadians reject spending less in almost all areas of social policy. In fact, the poll shows most Canadians want governments to spend as much, if not more, on issues like families with kids, seniors, medical care, the environment and poverty reduction.

When we glibly suggest government is irrelevant, but want more government spending on social programs, who could blame political parities for describing many Canadians as disingenuous?

The fact is, Canadians are inconsistent in our political rhetoric and social policy priorities. It has become trendy for Canadians to say that government doesn’t matter. But for all our stated discontent with government, there isn’t a single social policy issue for which anywhere near a majority of Canadians would recommend cuts.

Regrettably, this is just the beginning of our political inconsistencies in Canada. Although a majority of Canadians report they want more social spending, we don’t want to pay for it. Indeed, the McAllister poll finds that 47 per cent of Canadians would “vote against any politician who wants to increase taxes on anyone for any reason.”

I had no doubt that anti-tax sentiments had become enormously fashionable across Canada over the last decade. But before the McAllister poll, I didn’t fully appreciate that about half of Canadians are saying they want something for nothing. That’s what it means to propose more spending but rejecting tax increases. In such circumstances, we might excuse political parties if they labelled many of us as free riders.

So long as many Canadians want something for nothing, we are doomed to have political parties we regard as incompetent or untrustworthy. Parties simply can’t deliver more government spending in some areas without spending less on others, or raising revenue — no matter how incompetent that may seem to us. Since so many Canadians oppose both options, parties have to equivocate about their plans when campaigning. This can’t but help engender mistrust when we confront their decisions after elections, whether they cut, raise taxes or just don’t spend more.

I know some think if there were only fewer trips on which officials pay outrageous figures for orange juice, or less generous MP pensions, then there’d be enough money with current levels of taxation to meet the desire for more spending on health, pensions, families, transit, police, the environment, etc. But as problematic as Bev Oda’s waste is, inefficiencies in our governments really are minor compared to the nearly $120 billion a year we spend on retirement subsidies and income, the $135 billion we spend on medical care, $52 billion on the protection of persons and property, and more than $21 billion on defence.

I wish eliminating waste was the answer. It would be a lot simpler than addressing a root cause of the problem. Us. Nearly one in two casually disregard how much everybody depends on public investment in infrastructure, goods and services. Many in the other half nod politely at “death and taxes” jokes, or join in the fun of dismissing most politicians as persons without real jobs. In the process, they fail to expose the error in logic implied by any who suppose we can increase spending in some areas without raising taxes or cutting other expenditures.

The McAllister poll holds up a mirror for Canadians. And the reflection isn’t pretty. Too many of us either don’t mean what we say when we suggest government doesn’t make good with tax dollars, or want something for nothing. Either way, the poll suggests that we all have reason to acknowledge our own shortcomings as political citizens before we are quick to judge the politicians we elect.

Paul Kershaw a professor of public policy and Human Early Learning Partnership scholar at the University of B.C

Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/news/have+enemy/6669046/story.html#ixzz1vt97XAOU

Devil is in the details on Harper’s EI changes: Easter

Liberal MP Wayne Easter is calling upon the Minister of Human Resources, Diane Finley, to clarify what she means by the confusion she created in her statement on EI delivered today.

“The Minister stated that EI recipients – all recipients – will be expected to apply for jobs in their “local communities”. Later in her remarks she said those workers would be expected to apply for jobs in their “region”. Which is it? The difference between the two is from across the road to across the province at a minimum,” stated Easter.

Easter continued, “The Minister has clearly stated that her intention is to create a captive labour force which employers can access; they will be able to pay those workers no more than 70% of what their previous salary was, even for similar jobs. She has also confirmed that she will be able to alter these regulations without having to introduce new legislation to do so. 

Minister Finley claims that those on EI will not be forced to take jobs outside of their communities and yet the Minister of Finance, Jim Flaherty, told the Finance Committee last week that the changes to EI are designed to ensure that the economies of Alberta, British Columbia and Saskatchewan have access to the workforce they demand. To quote the Minister, ‘One of the ways of remedying that is by trying to eliminate disincentives in the EI system’.”

Easter expressed further concern over the lack of public consultation in seasonal industry regions such as Atlantic Canada; the lack of details regarding “frequent” claimants; the fact that Parliament is being bypassed; the degree of Cabinet’s power over future changes; and whether employers still in need of workers, such as is likely in the agriculture sector, will get adequate access to the temporary foreign workers program. 

“These EI changes,” Easter concluded, “directly target Atlantic Canada. Our provinces and our communities will bear the brunt of these changes.”

Speech in the House on Bill C-326, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act

Hon. Wayne Easter (Malpeque, Lib.): Madam Speaker, I am most pleased to rise and support Bill C-326, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and [...]

Read more