True, Canada rode out the 2008 financial meltdown better than most. Our prime minister was quick to take credit for that, but the credit should have gone to the previous administration for rejecting the banking industry’s demands for deregulation. Ironically, had Harper’s party succeeded in persuading the government of the day to accede in the banks’ demands, he would have had a much rougher ride.

He was lucky – lucky that our banks were regulated and unable to join in the high-risk global derivatives market, lucky that he had inherited large surpluses. Even before the financial crisis hit, Harper shifted our budget from surplus to deficit. That’s bound to happen if you slash revenues while spending more. Our first quarter in deficit arrived before we had spent a single cent in stimulus investments in response to the recession.

While the media, pundits and politicians focus on the relatively minor question of whether we’ll have a small surplus or small budgetary deficit this year, they’re ignoring the problem of the national debt. Stephen Harper – a person who likes to call himself a fiscal conservative – has increased the national debt to its highest level ever – over $600 billion.

Twenty-four per cent of that debt was accumulated by Stephen Harper as he borrowed money to give out economically foolish boutique tax cuts. It’s one thing to bribe voters with their own money. It’s a step beyond shameless to borrow money to do it. The interest payments on the debt will cost Canadians $29 billion this year alone.

One might imagine that Harper’s high-spending ways would come to an end in tough times. Not so: The current federal civil service is larger than it’s ever been before. While spending on environmental science and support for veterans was slashed, more bureaucrats were hired to audit environmental groups, to work in Corrections Canada and Canadian Border Services. One big growth area in federal employment has been in information officers; their numbers are up by 15 per cent as they work to control – and limit – our access to government information.

Since Harper became prime minister, productivity has fallen, innovation has grown stagnant and our exports have tilted back to what previous industrial strategies sought to avoid. For years, successive governments sought to move us away from relying on raw resource exports, to create wealth through value-added production. To use a Conservative-branded turn of phrase, Harper’s “laser-like focus” on putting all our eggs in the bitumen basket did not include processing the bitumen before shipping it out.

And now, it seems, his luck has run out. Maybe he didn’t see Saudi Arabia coming. But the OPEC oil shock of the early ’70’s was not that long ago. Of all global commodities, oil is the one that is most open to manipulation, creates the most security threats and launches the most wars.

Anyone who understands economics knows that an economy is more resilient to nasty shocks when it is diversified. Truth is, Canada was never all that dependent on the oil sands, which amount to only two per cent of GDP. It’s not that large a contributor to our national revenue. And many sectors of the Canadian economy will benefit from the lower dollar.

If I were prime minister right now, I would be finding every policy tool available to give those sectors that benefit from an 80 cent dollar some rapid ramping-up to expand their workforces. One prime example is tourism. For some inexplicable reason, Harper appears to hate tourism. Policy after policy has hurt the sector – from eliminating the GST-HST rebate for foreign visitors (a cheap goodwill gesture), to added visa requirements, to slashing the budget for tourism ads, to undermining seasonal employment through the EI system.

Over the last few years, not one penny was spent in the U.S. market to promote Canada as a dream vacation. Where ten years ago Canada was in the top seven for world tourism destinations, we’re now 18th.

The only spectacular photographs of Canadian wilderness paid for by the Government of Canada in the U.S. were used to promote the Keystone pipeline. Just one Keystone ad in the New Yorker last year cost over $200,000. Still, tourism employs over 600,000 Canadians and contributes over $30 billion to our economy.

It was announced recently that Harper is prepared to spend over $20 million for a major ad campaign targeting Europe, the U.S. and Asia. The international PR firm FleishmanHillard has won the contract. And the ads will promote the oil sands.

When will someone stand up to say “the economist is naked?”

The post Harpernomics 101: Oil, debt and fantasy math appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Also known as International Workers’ Day, May 1, a national holiday in more than 80 countries, recognizes the achievements of the global labour movement.  Sadly, under the guise of “austerity,” many of these gains have been threatened.

“May Day 2013 – and beyond – is a time for Canadians to ‘push back’ against the various moves by the Conservatives to weaken everything from union rights to pay equity, public pensions to EI,” said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands.

Also, the expansion of temporary foreign worker programs has been dragging down workplace rights and protections, along with wages.   The program changes announced in the budget implementation bill will mean nothing if, as in the past, enforcement is weak.

The Conservatives have sabotaged employees’ right to strike by bringing in back-to-work legislation against Air Canada, Canada Post, and Canadian Pacific Railway workers, and have refused to support workers victimized by mainly transnational corporations exporting jobs to lower-waged countries.

Bill C-377, now in the Senate, will allow the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) to police how trade unions spend money over $5000.  Even Conservative Senator Hugh Segal has called this “bad legislation, bad public policy and a diminution of both the order and the freedom that should exist in any democratic, pluralist and mixed-market society.”

As well, Canada’s minimum age laws are woefully inadequate.  In some provinces, these laws have actually been weakened, dropping the minimum age to 12 years.

“The Green Party reminds Canadians of the Supreme Court of Canada ruling that placed collective bargaining under the protection of the Charter, and stated clearly that labour rights are human rights,” said Green Party Labour and Employment Critic Brian Timlick. “We fully support those rights and are working to create a society where they are genuinely respected and put into practice.”

“We support the impressive efforts of groups like Common Causes and the Québec Coalition against Employment Insurance Reform which have launched rallies against recent EI and other cuts,” said May.

The post Greens: Conservatives Working Against Workers appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Well, by most definitions, tariffs are taxes, and so are payroll taxes. There has been a very steep increase year on year of employment insurance, which has to be paid by both the worker and by the employer. These are increased taxes.

The post Budget 2013 appeared first on Elizabeth May.

“Canadian women in a wide variety of roles, jobs, and lifestyles across the country deserve to be recognized for their courage, determination, and sacrifices,” said Green Party Leader Elizabeth May, MP Saanich-Gulf Islands.

The list of changes affecting women negatively since the Harper Conservatives came into power in 2006 includes:

• In 2006, Stephen Harper’s first policy announcement as prime minister was to cut Canada’s year-old, $5-billion national child-care plan, supported by all provincial governments, despite protests from child-care advocates and the provinces.
• In 2006, Status of Women Canada (SWC) funding was temporarily cut by $5 million, forcing the closure of 12 of its 16 regional offices; changing the SWC Women’s Program mandate to exclude “gender equality and political justice;” redrafting funding criteria so that advocacy groups and women’s service providers, such as rape crisis centres, are ineligible for funding.
• In 2007, offices for the National Association of Women and the Law, a well-respected organization that had made valuable contributions to improving women’s human rights in Canada, were closed.  Funding was also eliminated for other women’s organizations like the Canadian Research Institute for the Advancement of Women (CRIAW).
• In 2009, the Public Sector Equitable Compensation Act allowed public sector employers to consider “market demand” when setting compensation levels – preserving the policy of paying men more than women for equal work
• In 2010-2011, Status of Women Canada spent just over $10 million on violence against women – an inadequate response to a serious problem which directly affects an estimated one in six Canadians and costs the economy nearly $7 billion dollars a year in missed work, medical, policing, and justice expenses.  Advocates have called on the federal government to work with the provinces and territories to develop a national strategy and action plan to combat violence against women.
• The challenges facing First Nations women are particularly worrying.  Sisters in Spirit, supported by the Green Party and others, have demanded an open, public inquiry into the alarmingly high rates of murdered and missing aboriginal women – without success.

“Not only have key programs and organizations been cut or eliminated in recent years, but there has been little or no progress in reducing violence against women and girls across Canada,” said Rebecca Harrison, Green Party Women’s Issues Critic.  “There have been few initiatives to deal with other issues facing women, including poverty, poor health, inadequate housing, and too few full-time jobs.”

In its October, 2012, gender gap ranking, the World Economic Forum revealed that Canada had slipped three spots compared to 135 other countries in terms of gender equality.   In fact, we have dropped from the world’s Top 20 countries mainly because of low female representation in politics.   Canada is now 21st – behind the Philippines, Latvia, Cuba and Nicaragua.

“As we celebrate the women of today, we should also confront the fact that, with cuts to Old Age Security and Employment Insurance, for example, women of the future will know even greater insecurity,” said May.  “Our best gift to them is to fight to protect and restore our social programs and create a more egalitarian society.”

Note: Our media advisory for Ms. May’s International Women’s Day event in Vancouver.

The post Green Party Exposes Worsening Conditions for Canadian Women appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I fully support the opposition day motion put forward by the New Democratic Party. I wonder if, when addressing the mistakes that are being made to the employment insurance program, we could not just reach back to the spring and include the egregious changes that were made in Bill C-38 that will make it increasingly difficult for Canadians who are dependent on seasonal industries, whether fishing, tourism or forestry, to be able to continue in those industries? It is a real threat to their employers as well.

Chris Charlton: Mr. Speaker, I absolutely agree with the leader of the Green Party. The changes that were made in Bill C-38 to the provisions impacting those who are seasonally employed are absolutely outrageous.

The reason we focused on this particular part of the EI system for today’s motion is that, one, it is a stand-alone discrete item and, two, we in the NDP kind of want to give the minister the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps she did not understand her own program. We want to give her the opportunity, in this one very specific way, to say, “You know what? You’re right; there is a mistake in the program design. I recognize it now and I’m prepared to fix it”. That is why we cast the motion as narrowly as we did.

The member is absolutely right. We could spend the entire rest of this Parliament talking about things that need to be fixed with Canada’s employment insurance system.

The post Opposition Motion—Employment Insurance appeared first on Elizabeth May.

There are aspects of the bill that I think we need to pay some attention to, in committee, amending it to make sure it applies appropriately to children who are critically ill and children who are missing and to further refine those circumstances.

However, I take the points of the hon. member for Newton—North Delta on the chiseling away of EI benefit rights. I am particularly concerned about what we did in Bill C-38, with taking seasonal workers and placing them in a circumstance where they are almost treated as if they were recidivists in a criminal justice system instead of workers in Canada who happen to be in industries that require of them that they are not working year round.

I wonder if my hon. friend has any comments on that.

Jinny Jogindera Sims: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for her very thoughtful comment and question.

All of us, right across Canada, know the impact of the EI changes. As I said, we are hearing about them here. Particularly hard-struck are seasonal workers.

Whether it is on the west coast, whether we are talking about agricultural workers in the Niagara Peninsula, whether we are talking about seasonal workers in the north or on the west coast, I will say that those groups of workers are beginning to feel as if they have done something terribly wrong, simply because their particular area of work is seasonal due to climate. It is not something they control. We live in a country that has a huge geography, and the workers are being punished because their employment is seasonal.

The post Helping Families in Need Act (Bill C-44) appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, what we are looking at is a stepwise process. The minister says she is not interested in telling people they have to leave the communities where they live, but the government is now creating three different tiers for people, including one I find quite offensive, the idea that there is something wrong with a “repeat user”, because that is actually the foundation for seasonal tourism, seasonal fishery and seasonal forestry.

What I see coming is a shrinking in the number of people available for an appeal. Some bureaucrat somewhere will say, “We think there is suitable work for you”, and if the unemployed person says, “I am afraid I cannot get that job or do that job”, for whatever the reasons are, that person will be cut off. Then the appeal is down for however many thousands of people are appealing, and 75 people will make the decision. Then in another year, the government may come back and say it is going to have to ask people to move farther to find work.

I think this is a progression toward closing down seasonal and remote areas. I would ask my friend for his comment.

Rodger Cuzner: Mr. Speaker, the member speaks from a position of understanding, her family members being restaurateurs back in Cape Breton for a great number of years. I am sure she did not lead too many to harbourside tables in the middle of February.

There is a lack of understanding on the part of the government about the importance of seasonal industries and how they operate. That is what is riddled throughout this legislation, and that is why I will be supporting this motion today.

The post Business of Supply – Opposition Motion—Employment Insurance appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague from St. John’s South—Mount Pearl for a very clear description of the different worlds that exist within one country. Canada is one country, and we all love it. I am grateful that yesterday the hon. member for Calgary Centre reminded us of that.

I hear Conservative members of Parliament talk about how employees are not looking hard enough for work, even though we know that they do. However, I want to focus the question on the employers.

In seasonal industries, the employers have benefited from EI. They need the system. It can be fixed, it can be tweaked, and things can be done, but essentially, when employers lay off employees at the end of a summer season, whether the employers are in fisheries, forestry, tourism or mining, they want to know those people are willing to come back to them for the same jobs they held before they were laid off.

This is an employer benefit, and I am going to ask the hon. member if he thinks the government has given sufficient concern to employers’ dependence on this system.

Ryan Cleary: Mr. Speaker, that is a good question. I have spoken with employers since these proposed changes were announced, and employers in seasonal industries such as those the hon. member mentioned—tourism or the fishery, for example—are concerned that the EI changes are going to cause them to lose skilled workers. Yes, they are seasonal workers and do not work 52 weeks of the year, but in the fish plants, the tourism industry, the crafts industry and so on, we are talking about a skill set that could be lost because the workers will have to move away as a result of the changes in the EI regulations.

That is a very good question. Employers are very concerned.

The post Business of Supply – Opposition Motion—Employment Insurance appeared first on Elizabeth May.

Elizabeth May: Madam Speaker, as my hon. friend from Beauséjour may be aware, the Green Party has put out a press release expressing a deep concern about the way this is going to go.

I will ask the member a hypothetical question because I do not think the Conservative Party recognizes the real-life experience of seasonal workers. If people are laid off from a job in a lumber mill but know they will be back in four months, they will be told to take another job somewhere else. If they get fired in that other job because they are not very good at it, they will lose benefits. Would that not be the case under this new scenario?

Hon. Dominic LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, our colleague again identifies one of the perverse consequences of these proposed changes. That is exactly what will happen. If people are unable, because of their skill level or their experience, to do a job that they are forced to take because they fear that their benefits will be cut off if they do not take it, and then they lose that job, through no fault of their own, the fact that they were terminated will mean that they will not have access to employment insurance benefits, and those people who had worked previously at a seasonal job may not be able to get that job back. It is a very unfortunate and complicated circumstance.

The post Business of Supply – Opposition Motion—Employment Insurance appeared first on Elizabeth May.

The post Assault on Seasonal Industries in C-38 appeared first on Elizabeth May.