Budget 2012
- Thread starter GAP
- Start date
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,221
- Points
- 1,160
As much as I despise the opposition parties, they have a point, the CPC took a already underhanded method and doubled it. Not good for the party or the country.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 6,977
- Points
- 1,040
The easiest question to ask is: how much time does one bill consume; how much time would it take if broken into pieces? Indeed, would it all be possible if all the components had to be dealt with separately?
I do not claim that expediency is an excuse, but nevertheless expediency may be the reason. If there is six years worth of legislative work in there as piecework, I understand why the government wants to deal with in one bill.
I do not claim that expediency is an excuse, but nevertheless expediency may be the reason. If there is six years worth of legislative work in there as piecework, I understand why the government wants to deal with in one bill.
Isn't this what both parties do in the States when they want to ram pork through. Even if it is not abused now it will DEFINITELY be abused be later. Not a great precedent to be starting.
Please separate the bills again and stop throwing votes to the NDP.
Please separate the bills again and stop throwing votes to the NDP.
- Reaction score
- 7,346
- Points
- 1,160
Brad Sallows said:
I have to admit I haven't been following this issue at all.
Is the Government preventing committees from sitting to review aspects of the bill independently? If so that would be a matter of concern to me.
If, on the other hand, it is just a matter of the opposition relishing the prospect of 6 years of contentious political issues by stretching the matter out, and the government diminishing that opportunity by organizing things so that CBC has to decide which of 6 nasties they are going to promote for a year..... Well, I can see the merit in Concurrent Activity.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,221
- Points
- 1,160
Kirkhill said:
It's my understanding that the various committees will not get a chance to comment or review the various aspects of the BIA that pertain to their committees. I know from what they are doing to the Act that I enforce that very little committee, public comment or even advice from the department is playing a part. The goal was set from elsewhere and end will justify the means. Legislate in haste, repent at leisure.
Latest civil servant perk to go: severance for keeping your job
Tories negotiating to eliminate lucrative benefit for federal employees
By Jason Fekete, Postmedia News June 8, 2012
Article Link
$1.2B: 'Severance' paid in 2011-12 to workers who stayed in their jobs or left voluntarily
$850M: Additional payments expected this year
66%: Portion of union deals still unsettled
OTTAWA - The federal government paid $1.2-billion in voluntary severance last fiscal year to 91,613 public servants who either remain in their jobs, retired or quit on their own -- a perk unheard of to most Canadian taxpayers who are footing the bill.
Business groups and spending watchdogs say the voluntary payouts are both "staggering" and "outrageous," considering Canadians in the private sector are generally only paid severance when they lose their job -- not if they continue working or leave on their own.
"It's outrageous. If taxpayers knew what is contained in federal union contracts, we'd have a rebellion on our hands," said Gregory Thomas, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
"The contracts that the public is saddled with are too rich. It's an unbelievable deal that most federal government employees have."
All told, taxpayers are on the hook for more than $1.5-billion in regular and voluntary severance to 102,589 public servants in 2011-12, according to new federal numbers obtained by Postmedia News.
The total severance payout includes the $1.2-billion to more than 90,000 employees who voluntarily requested the payments, as well as additional cash for those who received regular severance benefits (payment upon termination of employment regardless of circumstances), according to Public Works and Government Services, the department responsible for the payments.
"It is a staggering amount of money paid out to people who are not losing their jobs," said Dan Kelly, senior vice-president with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which represents more than 109,000 small-business owners across the country.
The numbers include payments to federal departments, agencies and most Crown corporations, but don't factor in large, independent corporations like Canada Post and Bank of Canada, which pay their employees separately.
The government also is projecting it will spend at least another $850-million in the 2012-13 fiscal year on accumulated severance payouts (including for resignation and retirement) owed to federal employees as per collective agreements signed by successive governments over several years.
The Conservative government, as of October 2010, halted the accumulation of severance benefits for resignations and retirements, but is renegotiating a number of collective agreements with public-sector unions to cover what is already owed.
Along with the more than $2-billion needed to cover the severance expenses for 2011-12 and 2012-13, the government also has earmarked $900-million to cover "workforce adjustment" payments owed to thousands of employees who will be laid off because of federal budget cuts.
More on link
Tories negotiating to eliminate lucrative benefit for federal employees
By Jason Fekete, Postmedia News June 8, 2012
Article Link
$1.2B: 'Severance' paid in 2011-12 to workers who stayed in their jobs or left voluntarily
$850M: Additional payments expected this year
66%: Portion of union deals still unsettled
OTTAWA - The federal government paid $1.2-billion in voluntary severance last fiscal year to 91,613 public servants who either remain in their jobs, retired or quit on their own -- a perk unheard of to most Canadian taxpayers who are footing the bill.
Business groups and spending watchdogs say the voluntary payouts are both "staggering" and "outrageous," considering Canadians in the private sector are generally only paid severance when they lose their job -- not if they continue working or leave on their own.
"It's outrageous. If taxpayers knew what is contained in federal union contracts, we'd have a rebellion on our hands," said Gregory Thomas, federal director of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation.
"The contracts that the public is saddled with are too rich. It's an unbelievable deal that most federal government employees have."
All told, taxpayers are on the hook for more than $1.5-billion in regular and voluntary severance to 102,589 public servants in 2011-12, according to new federal numbers obtained by Postmedia News.
The total severance payout includes the $1.2-billion to more than 90,000 employees who voluntarily requested the payments, as well as additional cash for those who received regular severance benefits (payment upon termination of employment regardless of circumstances), according to Public Works and Government Services, the department responsible for the payments.
"It is a staggering amount of money paid out to people who are not losing their jobs," said Dan Kelly, senior vice-president with the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, which represents more than 109,000 small-business owners across the country.
The numbers include payments to federal departments, agencies and most Crown corporations, but don't factor in large, independent corporations like Canada Post and Bank of Canada, which pay their employees separately.
The government also is projecting it will spend at least another $850-million in the 2012-13 fiscal year on accumulated severance payouts (including for resignation and retirement) owed to federal employees as per collective agreements signed by successive governments over several years.
The Conservative government, as of October 2010, halted the accumulation of severance benefits for resignations and retirements, but is renegotiating a number of collective agreements with public-sector unions to cover what is already owed.
Along with the more than $2-billion needed to cover the severance expenses for 2011-12 and 2012-13, the government also has earmarked $900-million to cover "workforce adjustment" payments owed to thousands of employees who will be laid off because of federal budget cuts.
More on link
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The article makes it sound like people are getting a bonus for staying in their jobs - that's not exactly how it was. In the end it's a reduction in benefits.
Our union wanted us to vote for continuing to accumulate retirement severance AND pay raises. I voted 'No', because I didn't personally feel that I needed that money, compared to a greater need elsewhere in society, and consequently I didn't think it was right to fight for it at this time. The 'No' side prevailed (no doubt for a variety of reasons as varied as the individuals voting), so they froze everyone's "severance" and made an equivalent payment in kind, at current levels. I agree - it's a bit strange. Rest assured, my portion went right back into the Canadian economy. :nod:
Our union wanted us to vote for continuing to accumulate retirement severance AND pay raises. I voted 'No', because I didn't personally feel that I needed that money, compared to a greater need elsewhere in society, and consequently I didn't think it was right to fight for it at this time. The 'No' side prevailed (no doubt for a variety of reasons as varied as the individuals voting), so they froze everyone's "severance" and made an equivalent payment in kind, at current levels. I agree - it's a bit strange. Rest assured, my portion went right back into the Canadian economy. :nod:
Conservatives backtrack on health care cuts for some refugees
Gloria Galloway OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail Tuesday, Jul. 03 2012
Article Link
Doctors say the federal Conservative government’s decision to backtrack on cuts to health benefits for some refugees and not others is proof that the rationale for the move does not hold water.
After defending the plan to eliminate supplemental benefits such as payments for prescription drugs, vision care and dental coverage for refugees who do not qualify for provincial plans, the federal immigration department quietly rescinded the cuts last Friday afternoon – but only for refugees who are brought here by the government through the Resettlement Assistance Program and those who are victims of human smuggling and have received a temporary resident permit.
"Our intention was never to have this policy impact government-sponsored refugees who have been living in UN refugee camps, who arrive in Canada as permanent residents, but who do not initially qualify for provincial social support," Alexis Pavlich, a spokeswoman for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, said in an e-mail. "It is important to note that the supplemental benefits for this limited group is less than two per cent of the overall spending on the Interim Federal Health Program."
Those sponsored by church groups and other humanitarian organizations, and those who seek asylum after fleeing a country that Canada has deemed to be unsafe, are “out of luck,” Philip Berger, chief of family and community medicine at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, said in a telephone interview on Tuesday. And they will also be entitled to medical health coverage “only if of an urgent or essential nature” – a proviso that was removed last week for government-sponsored refugees.
Other cuts to refugee health services will remain in place. Treatment under the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) will be denied to refugees who come from a country that Canada has declared to be safe, and to those whose claims have been rejected but are still living in Canada. The only exceptions under the changes, which took effect on Saturday, will be in cases where the person has a disease that poses a risk to public health or safety.
More on link
Gloria Galloway OTTAWA — The Globe and Mail Tuesday, Jul. 03 2012
Article Link
Doctors say the federal Conservative government’s decision to backtrack on cuts to health benefits for some refugees and not others is proof that the rationale for the move does not hold water.
After defending the plan to eliminate supplemental benefits such as payments for prescription drugs, vision care and dental coverage for refugees who do not qualify for provincial plans, the federal immigration department quietly rescinded the cuts last Friday afternoon – but only for refugees who are brought here by the government through the Resettlement Assistance Program and those who are victims of human smuggling and have received a temporary resident permit.
"Our intention was never to have this policy impact government-sponsored refugees who have been living in UN refugee camps, who arrive in Canada as permanent residents, but who do not initially qualify for provincial social support," Alexis Pavlich, a spokeswoman for Immigration Minister Jason Kenney, said in an e-mail. "It is important to note that the supplemental benefits for this limited group is less than two per cent of the overall spending on the Interim Federal Health Program."
Those sponsored by church groups and other humanitarian organizations, and those who seek asylum after fleeing a country that Canada has deemed to be unsafe, are “out of luck,” Philip Berger, chief of family and community medicine at St. Michael’s Hospital in Toronto, said in a telephone interview on Tuesday. And they will also be entitled to medical health coverage “only if of an urgent or essential nature” – a proviso that was removed last week for government-sponsored refugees.
Other cuts to refugee health services will remain in place. Treatment under the Interim Federal Health Program (IFHP) will be denied to refugees who come from a country that Canada has declared to be safe, and to those whose claims have been rejected but are still living in Canada. The only exceptions under the changes, which took effect on Saturday, will be in cases where the person has a disease that poses a risk to public health or safety.
More on link
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,221
- Points
- 1,160
GAP said:
As I recall in 2006-8 there was concerns that the rates of pay for Civil Services would not attract the people they wanted who would be drawn to the private sector because of high pay, better career aspects and more flexiablity in the workplace.
- Reaction score
- 4,845
- Points
- 1,060
Public servants get to be everyone's whipping boy, no matter what the reason.
They are easy to pick on.
They are easy to pick on.
J
jollyjacktar
Guest
Meh, as far as the MSM is concerned they cannot do anything right from any angle of an issue. Paying too much $$$? They're wrong. Not offer enough $$ to attract the right kind of personnel? They're wrong. Seems as if there is no correct answer solution out there. They have it in for the Harper government, period.
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 6,977
- Points
- 1,040
Public servants are the whipping boy because they are visible. When a private sector employer cuts benefits or cuts its work force, it just goes ahead with it with little to no media fanfare.
The reason these oddball benefits look bad is because they are inconceivable (ie. contrary to common sense) to most people.
The reason these oddball benefits look bad is because they are inconceivable (ie. contrary to common sense) to most people.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,221
- Points
- 1,160
this article is better than most
The government is right to pay out severance
By Dan Gardner, The Ottawa CitizenJuly 10, 2012
The rule of law is like a 1960s-era Jaguar. It looks sleek and shiny in the showroom. Everyone wants it. But after you buy it and take it for a drive, it breaks down, so you get it fixed, and it breaks down again, and pretty soon it’s costing you a fortune and it’s such a pain that you wonder if maybe you should sell it or just send the damned thing to a junkyard.
I’m sure Tony Clement understands that feeling.
As president of the Treasury Board, Clement is responsible for paying the public service. And that job has him handling a very hot file these days.
For many decades, civil servants were entitled to severance pay without severance — if they quit voluntarily, or retired, the government handed them a substantial cheque just as if they had been laid off. This was odd. Such a valuable perk essentially doesn’t exist in the private sector. And it costs the government an estimated $500 million a year.
So the government has decided to get rid of it, a move widely supported because, really, severance pay without severance is pretty much indefensible. But there’s a problem.
The government can’t simply wash its hands and walk away. “Severance pay” is a benefit in the employment contracts which the government negotiated, accepted, and signed. It is on the hook.
And then there’s the matter of outstanding debt. Current employees are owed a lot of “severance pay.” The latest estimates suggest it’s in range of $6 billion.
So for the government to be rid of this system, it had to get the unions to agree to the change, which meant giving them something in exchange. And it had to start sending out big “severance pay” cheques to civil servants who will keep showing up for work as always.
Which is what it did. Civil servants got a special 0.75 per cent wage increase over three years as compensation for scrapping the “severance pay” system, while cheques for tens of thousands of dollars each have been landing in mailboxes. It’s like Christmas for civil servants. And the taxpayer is Santa Claus.
The reaction was predictable.
“To spend billions of dollars in severance package for people that are not losing their jobs, people that have the best form of job security in the country, that have gold-plated pensions to leave to, just seems nuts,” fumed Dan Kelly, head of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Of course Kelly agreed that the “severance pay” perk should be taken away from civil servants. Everyone does, apparently. But he and many others just don’t think civil servants should be compensated for the loss.
The government should have just told its employees to “forget it,” wrote Kelly McParland in the National Post, even though this would “undoubtedly run into some legal issues.”
Ah, yes. “Legal issues.” Isn’t the rule of law annoying? Sure it sounds great in principle. But this is ridiculous. Couldn’t the government just send the damned thing to the junkyard?
It could, actually. With legislation, the government can do pretty much whatever it wants. In this case, all it had to do was pass a bill that changes the contracts without compensation.
Governments occasionally do that sort of thing. Remember the Pearson airport deal?
Shortly before being ousted from power, the Progressive Conservative government signed a contract to have a consortium run Pearson airport. The Liberals said it was cronyism and promised to get out of it if elected. They won. But backing out of the contract would have incurred massive penalties, as prescribed in the contract. So the Liberals introduced legislation that scrapped the contract without compensation.
The bill passed the House of Commons. But in chamber of sober second thought, many Senators believed this was a matter of great principle.
The rule of law is the foundation of a modern, free society, they said. If the government can change the law retroactively whenever it wishes it is not truly bound by the laws that bind all others. It is above the law. And government above the law is a frightening thing.
The Senate blocked the legislation. The government ultimately paid up, as required by its contractual obligations.
Yes, there was also politics involved. The Senate was heavily PC at the time. But there really was a fundamental principle at stake, and it was upheld, even though doing so was very expensive and it would have been so much easier to take the principle and the contract to the junkyard.
In scrapping the “severance pay” benefit the Harper government is doing what previous Liberal and Conservative governments should have done long ago, as even Liberal critic John McCallum graciously agreed in a recent interview. But just as importantly, the government is doing it the right way: by honouring its contractual obligations and thus, implicitly, honouring the rule of law.
And it’s doing that despite the cost and the yowling from people who don’t understand or appreciate that an essential principle is at stake.
Of course that’s where my metaphor with the 1960s-era Jaguar breaks down like a 1960s-era Jaguar. The rule of law isn’t just cool in the showroom, expensive on the road. It’s also of inestimable value — practical value. It’s not like a sport car. It’s not a luxury. We need it.
Sending it to the junkyard is not, and should never be, an option.
Dan Gardner’s columns appear twice a week. Email: dgardner@ottawacitizen.com.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
The government is right to pay out severance
By Dan Gardner, The Ottawa CitizenJuly 10, 2012
The rule of law is like a 1960s-era Jaguar. It looks sleek and shiny in the showroom. Everyone wants it. But after you buy it and take it for a drive, it breaks down, so you get it fixed, and it breaks down again, and pretty soon it’s costing you a fortune and it’s such a pain that you wonder if maybe you should sell it or just send the damned thing to a junkyard.
I’m sure Tony Clement understands that feeling.
As president of the Treasury Board, Clement is responsible for paying the public service. And that job has him handling a very hot file these days.
For many decades, civil servants were entitled to severance pay without severance — if they quit voluntarily, or retired, the government handed them a substantial cheque just as if they had been laid off. This was odd. Such a valuable perk essentially doesn’t exist in the private sector. And it costs the government an estimated $500 million a year.
So the government has decided to get rid of it, a move widely supported because, really, severance pay without severance is pretty much indefensible. But there’s a problem.
The government can’t simply wash its hands and walk away. “Severance pay” is a benefit in the employment contracts which the government negotiated, accepted, and signed. It is on the hook.
And then there’s the matter of outstanding debt. Current employees are owed a lot of “severance pay.” The latest estimates suggest it’s in range of $6 billion.
So for the government to be rid of this system, it had to get the unions to agree to the change, which meant giving them something in exchange. And it had to start sending out big “severance pay” cheques to civil servants who will keep showing up for work as always.
Which is what it did. Civil servants got a special 0.75 per cent wage increase over three years as compensation for scrapping the “severance pay” system, while cheques for tens of thousands of dollars each have been landing in mailboxes. It’s like Christmas for civil servants. And the taxpayer is Santa Claus.
The reaction was predictable.
“To spend billions of dollars in severance package for people that are not losing their jobs, people that have the best form of job security in the country, that have gold-plated pensions to leave to, just seems nuts,” fumed Dan Kelly, head of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. Of course Kelly agreed that the “severance pay” perk should be taken away from civil servants. Everyone does, apparently. But he and many others just don’t think civil servants should be compensated for the loss.
The government should have just told its employees to “forget it,” wrote Kelly McParland in the National Post, even though this would “undoubtedly run into some legal issues.”
Ah, yes. “Legal issues.” Isn’t the rule of law annoying? Sure it sounds great in principle. But this is ridiculous. Couldn’t the government just send the damned thing to the junkyard?
It could, actually. With legislation, the government can do pretty much whatever it wants. In this case, all it had to do was pass a bill that changes the contracts without compensation.
Governments occasionally do that sort of thing. Remember the Pearson airport deal?
Shortly before being ousted from power, the Progressive Conservative government signed a contract to have a consortium run Pearson airport. The Liberals said it was cronyism and promised to get out of it if elected. They won. But backing out of the contract would have incurred massive penalties, as prescribed in the contract. So the Liberals introduced legislation that scrapped the contract without compensation.
The bill passed the House of Commons. But in chamber of sober second thought, many Senators believed this was a matter of great principle.
The rule of law is the foundation of a modern, free society, they said. If the government can change the law retroactively whenever it wishes it is not truly bound by the laws that bind all others. It is above the law. And government above the law is a frightening thing.
The Senate blocked the legislation. The government ultimately paid up, as required by its contractual obligations.
Yes, there was also politics involved. The Senate was heavily PC at the time. But there really was a fundamental principle at stake, and it was upheld, even though doing so was very expensive and it would have been so much easier to take the principle and the contract to the junkyard.
In scrapping the “severance pay” benefit the Harper government is doing what previous Liberal and Conservative governments should have done long ago, as even Liberal critic John McCallum graciously agreed in a recent interview. But just as importantly, the government is doing it the right way: by honouring its contractual obligations and thus, implicitly, honouring the rule of law.
And it’s doing that despite the cost and the yowling from people who don’t understand or appreciate that an essential principle is at stake.
Of course that’s where my metaphor with the 1960s-era Jaguar breaks down like a 1960s-era Jaguar. The rule of law isn’t just cool in the showroom, expensive on the road. It’s also of inestimable value — practical value. It’s not like a sport car. It’s not a luxury. We need it.
Sending it to the junkyard is not, and should never be, an option.
Dan Gardner’s columns appear twice a week. Email: dgardner@ottawacitizen.com.
© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen
Brad Sallows
Army.ca Legend
- Reaction score
- 6,977
- Points
- 1,040
>So for the government to be rid of this system, it had to get the unions to agree to the change, which meant giving them something in exchange.
Not necessarily true. Union vocabulary only has two words for bargains:
1) "Win" - a gain they obtain for nothing in return
2) "Tradesies" - something exchanged for something else of equal value
If one side of the bargaining table can "win", so can the other. That implies the existence of "lose" - a gain lost for nothing in return. The government should have removed the "win", period.
Not necessarily true. Union vocabulary only has two words for bargains:
1) "Win" - a gain they obtain for nothing in return
2) "Tradesies" - something exchanged for something else of equal value
If one side of the bargaining table can "win", so can the other. That implies the existence of "lose" - a gain lost for nothing in return. The government should have removed the "win", period.
Colin Parkinson
Army.ca Myth
- Reaction score
- 9,221
- Points
- 1,160
Unions will often throw small groups to the wolves as a bargaining chip. As a Rescue specialist in the CG, we asked to be compensated for that work (ther was no job description for the work at the time) , that request was always bargained away to gain a benefit for another larger group.
Federal Crown lawyers reach 15.25 per cent tentative pay deal
Tuesday July 10, 2012 Tess Kalinowski Staff Reporter
Article Link
In a move that breaches the atmosphere of restraint in Ottawa, federal Crown lawyers have reached a tentative settlement that would give them a 15.25 per cent wage increase by May 2014.
The agreement with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, is expected to go to a ratification vote in August. It would give 2,700 federal Crowns, represented by the Association of Justice Counsel, a 12 per cent increase next year alone. That includes a 10 per cent “pay restructure.”
Federal Crown attorneys prosecute drug and terrorism offences. They also negotiate civil cases.
The relatively high settlement essentially corrects about 20 years of lagging wages that has prompted many to leave the federal Crown for the private sector or even provincial Crown offices, said Lisa Blais, association president in Ottawa.
The average federal Crown wage is about $106,000.
“Our salaries have sunk like a stone, not just compared to the private sector. We don’t even try. But compared to our provincial comparators,” she said. “This deal we hope, when and if it’s ratified, will curb that tide.”
The agreement also gives the most experienced lawyers a lump-sum payment of about 4.6 per cent annually.
Junior lawyers will, however, lose overtime provisions that were not available to senior federal Crown attorneys.
More on link
Tuesday July 10, 2012 Tess Kalinowski Staff Reporter
Article Link
In a move that breaches the atmosphere of restraint in Ottawa, federal Crown lawyers have reached a tentative settlement that would give them a 15.25 per cent wage increase by May 2014.
The agreement with the Treasury Board of Canada Secretariat, is expected to go to a ratification vote in August. It would give 2,700 federal Crowns, represented by the Association of Justice Counsel, a 12 per cent increase next year alone. That includes a 10 per cent “pay restructure.”
Federal Crown attorneys prosecute drug and terrorism offences. They also negotiate civil cases.
The relatively high settlement essentially corrects about 20 years of lagging wages that has prompted many to leave the federal Crown for the private sector or even provincial Crown offices, said Lisa Blais, association president in Ottawa.
The average federal Crown wage is about $106,000.
“Our salaries have sunk like a stone, not just compared to the private sector. We don’t even try. But compared to our provincial comparators,” she said. “This deal we hope, when and if it’s ratified, will curb that tide.”
The agreement also gives the most experienced lawyers a lump-sum payment of about 4.6 per cent annually.
Junior lawyers will, however, lose overtime provisions that were not available to senior federal Crown attorneys.
More on link
Similar threads
