Gordon Campbell: The June 15-21 Version

Photo: Darryl Dyck / CP

Premier Gordon Campbell is making a plea for sanity on Employment Insurance reform. Canadian western leaders met today to debate a new kind of employment insurance program that wouldn’t act like an “equalization program”. The concept is that currently unemployed Canadians can qualify for Employment Insurance based upon their hours worked, as well as the local unemployment rate. The higher the unemployment rate, the easier it is to get help. While traditionally that means the maritimes have been easier to get E.I. than the west, changing economic conditions means that even western leaders want to change the system.

“We have an equalization program. EI shouldn’t be used for equalization.”

So here’s Premier Campbell’s proposal. Instead of 58 different regional economic standards, he would change it to just two. Urban and rural areas. Those who work in urban areas with large labour markets would have to work more hours than those in rural ones. The B.C. Premier says that 58 economic regions is a symptom of fractured federalism, and that it creates an animosity between different regions in Canada. By creating an urban standard for hours, that means that workers in Ottawa wouldn’t have E.I. faster than workers in Vancouver, or in Quebec City.

It’s an interesting idea, but it begs the question of what qualifies as an urban area, and what qualifies as rural. What would be the cutoff point, and who would decide it? Would it be based on population or on population density? The size of the marketplace, or the size of the workforce? You see, it really doesn’t mean it will simplify things. But at least it’s an idea that tries.

Of course, that’s only Gordon Campbell’s idea for this week. One has no idea what it will have morphed into a few weeks from now. As Olaf perceptively points out, Mr.Campbell was signing a different tune in an op-ed only a few weeks ago:

If you’re out of work, you should know that your EI eligibility entitlements are the same as all Canadians – one country with one set of citizenship rights. If 420 hours of work is sufficient to qualify for EI in one province, that should be the standard for every province. If the cost of that universal standard is too prohibitive, the federal government should establish a common eligibility period that is affordable without increasing employer costs.

[...]

The federal government and provinces should work in partnership to do the best we can for all of Canada’s workers, regardless of where they live or are employed. They pay equivalent national taxes and all should receive equivalent national benefits. We must unite in providing Canadians more effective support as we move through these trying times.

That’s a pretty unequivocal argument for a single and universal standard for benefits, and it’s one that runs counter to the new urban and rural scheme being proposed by Mr.Campbell this week. If the premier truly believes that all Canadians should be protected under universal citizenship rights, “regardless of where they live or are employed”, then what is this talk about urban and rural regional eligibility? He also says he’s against the current secondary “equalization program” that E.I. provides to different economic regions, but isn’t that exactly what dividing eligibility based on urban and rural areas would be?

[A big h/t to Olaf. He deserves all of the credit for this one]

Liberals In-and-out Expense Audit Caused Ignatieff To Back Down?

The Harper and Ignatieff showdown is over and through it all the Liberals are still leading in the polls, according to the most recent EKOS offering. A tiny lead was carried over from the confrontation, although the Liberals have slipped to a 33-32 lead over the Conservatives, hinting that an actual election would have been anybody’s game. That’s down 2 points for the Liberals from the same polling company a week ago, a significant drop that could possibly indicate the short-term consequences of Mr.Ignatieff’s performance.

The survey was conducted during the critical time of election speculation, June 10-16, in a sample of 3,422 Canadians. A tiny error margin of 1.7% is still greater than the discrepancy in the lead for the Liberals. That’s how tight it is right now. Worse for Michael Ignatieff, the poll indicated that while 32% of respondents approve of the official opposition leader, a greater number, 34% disapprove.

Given what was at stake, however, in a showdown largely initiated by the Liberals themselves, it seems as though Mr.Ignatieff walked away with a less than ideal settlement. A deal to form a study panel to examine employment insurance over the summer isn’t exactly the kind of iron will that many Liberals must have been hoping for after the former hand-sitting performance of Stephane Dion. [If anything, as Scott Feschuk quips wryly, a summer "study panel" is the perfect weapon for Stephen Harper to keep the troops in order.]

But perhaps what actually kept the Liberals from pulling the trigger, despite the massive downside to such a gamble, is the same problem it’s always been in recent years. Economics. Elections Canada is currently analyzing nearly a million dollars worth of expenses that were filed by Liberal candidates in the 2008 election campaign, and is now auditing the Liberal party to produce detailed invoices and documents to prove that a mandatory riding services package was actually worth the $2,500 each candidate paid. The idea being, that Elections Canada is mighty suspicious that the riding services package fee to the party was merely a means of sending $770,000 to Liberal headquarters from the local fund-raising campaigns of 307 different constituencies.

The problem here is that until Elections Canada is happy with the audit, they won’t release the election expenses rebates from 2008, worth somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3.5 million. There’s little question that the party would be unable to continue without that kind of funding. But the Liberals are saying there’s no scandal here, and that the services were legitimately provided by the headquarters in the form of buttons, posters, brochures, photos, lawn signs, and all the rest.

Nevertheless, the rigorous accounting must have played some part in the preparedness of the party to fight another election in less than a year from the previous one. According to the Liberals, only four of the 307 candidates from the last election have received expense rebates, compared to 84 Conservatives. The party says it would have been no big deal, since candidates would have simply borrowed against their expected rebates. But would the banks have willingly lent money based on an uncertain outcome in the audit? It doesn’t sound plausible.

“We Don’t Want Your Advice; We Want You To Do As You’re Told”

Sheesh, this story sounds a lot like the one I just wrote about the office of the Parliamentary budget officer, does it not?

I wondered how long it would take for the media to discover that the infrastructure stimulus spending has everything to with patronage, and nothing to do with what is good for the nation. [Deputy Minister Louis] Ranger [whose retirement was announced yesterday] was pushed out of the job and told, “We don’t want your advice” regarding the spending projects. Indeed, the woman who is the ADM in charge of the file has been specifically told by the Minster’s office, “We don’t want your advice; we want you to do as you’re told.”

The money quote, however: “[Mr.Ranger] holds a bachelor’s degree in economics from the University of Ottawa and a master’s degree in economics from the Transport Research Centre of the University of Montreal, where his thesis, apparently, dealt with infrastructure funding. Why would the Tories want his advice?”

Some background context.

United States Sought To Bring Charges Against Abdelrazik

You can file this one under the heading “better late than never”. After months of stalling, and two weeks after being ordered by a federal court to repatriate stranded Sudanese-Canadian Abousfian Abdelrazik, Justice Minister Rob Nicholson said that the government will comply with the court order. Aaron Wherry has the chronology of events that led to the shocking revelation today in Question Period:

Mr. Cotler moved to the case of Abousfian Abdelrazik, the Canadian still bunking at our embassy in Sudan, awaiting an answer to the cruel riddle of his situation. “Mr. Speaker, Abousfian Abdelrazik is another abandoned Canadian citizen. In spite of the Federal Court’s severe rebuke, this government continues to violate Mr. Abdelrazik’s rights by refusing to bring him home,” Mr. Cotler posited. “The government has had two weeks to read a judgment that is unequivocal in its findings of fact and conclusions of law. Every day it waits is a continued violation of Mr. Abdelrazik’s rights. Does the government plan on appealing the court’s decision while delaying justice at Mr. Abdelrazik’s expense, or will it heed the court’s order and immediately return Mr. Abdelrazik home to Canada?”

It was here that something truly astonishing happened.

[...]

“Mr. Speaker,” he began simply, “the government will comply with the court order.”

There was never any doubt that the government would have to comply with the court order, or else explain in some way that is more convincing that they are unable to do so. As Chris Selley writes, it’s all over but for the thousands of unanswered questions.

It’s interesting that this occurred on the same date that WikiLeaks has produced a document from July 19, 2006, that suggests the Conservative government was asked by the U.S. to extradite Mr.Abdelrazik to the U.S. for terrorism charges. The document reads:

U.S. Embassy DCM [Deputy Chief of Mission] John Dickson made a demarche this afternoon regarding Abdelrazik. He said that he had sat in with Ambassador Wilkins on conference calls today – Lebandon and Abdelrazik. He had been asked to deliver a message from the White House, specifically from senior levels of the Homeland Security Council[...]

Dickson’s main message was that the U.S. would like Canada’s assistance in putting together a criminal case against Abdelrazik but at this point, it was not enough to charge him; the same might be true for Canada. If Canadian police or security agencies shared what they had, it might prove to be enough for the U.S. to proceed, as the threshold for prosecution there was lower than here.

Dickson recalled that with Abdullah Khadr, Canadian authorities had not been prepared to share information until he had been formally charged in the U.S. He recognized that this might again be the case but wanted to be sure that the U.S. request would be given due consideration. He suggested that there was surprise in Washington at the short notice regarding Abdelrazik’s release, and that this matter had not come up in the context of recent visits, example Chertoff.

I responded that I would convey the U.S. request, noting that his Embassy had been advised of the impending release shortly after we heard about it. I reassured Dickson that the Canadian position was unchanged, i.e. that Abdelrazik would be given the usual consular assistance, and that if and when he provided our Embassy in Khartoum with a confirmed travel itinerary, he would be issued a one-way travel document.

Dickson probed whether Canada wanted Abdelrazik back and how he would be handled if he returned. I repeated that as a Canadian citizen, he had the right to return to Canada, if he wished. I also noted that while we might get a sense of Abdelrazik’s intentions shortly after his release, the question of possible outcomes would likely be a matter of continuing discussion here and between our governments.

Continuing discussion indeed! One is left to wonder exactly what the U.S. knows about Mr.Abdelrazik, why they wanted him extradited to the U.S., and what they intended to charge him with, and under what evidence. Canada’s position way back in 2006 appears to sound exactly as it should have been. That they weren’t willing to share information with the U.S. unless he was formally charged; that he would receive regular consular assistance; and that as a Canadian citizen he was free to return to Canada at his pleasure. In fact the document suggests the government would be issuing him a travel document to do so. But that was three years ago, and he remained trapped in Sudan since that time. What transpired between the Canadian and U.S. governments that kept Mr.Abdelrazik detained indefinitely since this Embassy briefing?

For now, we’ll have to wait until Mr.Abdelrazik returns to Canada in order to give us the full inquiry that this case deserves. In the meantime, as Chris Selley documents the keystone capers of Parliamentary Secretary to the Foreign Affairs Minister, Deepak Obhrai, the government still appears to have no clue how they intend to comply with the courts.