It's Not that the Conservatives Lied ... OK, They Probably Lied

With Ryan Sparrow pulling the strings for Diane Finley, and Pierre Poilievre chosen to spout more of his nonsense; the Liberals have asked Parliamentary budget officer, Kevin Page, to do a cost analysis of EI reform.

This was a wise move, because how could we possibly believe a thing the Cons tell us when it comes to money.

They clearly just make it up as they go along.

Review of cost analysis of EI reform could set the stage for a fall election
Ignatieff has opportunity to put forward a no-confidence motion in late September if he is not happy with the working group's results
Gloria Galloway
Globe and Mail
August 20, 2009

Liberals have stroked the potential trigger of a fall election by asking Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page to examine what they say is an inflated Conservative cost analysis of their plan to revamp employment insurance.

Conservative and Liberal MPs who are part of a working group formed to discuss changes to the EI system said progress was made at a closed-door session Thursday. They agreed to get together again in two weeks for another round of negotiations.

Liberal Human Resources critic Mike Savage, one of the working group's co-chairs, said bureaucrats have been asked in the meantime to work on some proposals “that might move the ball.”

But Mr. Savage has also written a letter to Mr. Page requesting an assessment of Conservative calculations that peg the cost of the Liberal proposal to create uniform national standards for EI qualification at up to $4-billion.

“They torqued it up beyond belief,” Mr. Savage said of the Conservative figure. He has asked that Mr. Page's analysis be completed by the end of August and that it be made public.

Mr. Page responded to Mr. Savage's request by asking the Human Resources Department for the data, analysis and assumptions that were used to calculate the cost of the Liberal plan.

Pierre Poilievre, a Conservative member of the working group, dismissed the move to bring in Mr. Page, saying, “We already have a costing.” The Liberals, he said, “are shopping around for a different number that suits them.”

He called the Liberal plan both “expensive and irresponsible.”

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has the opportunity to put forward a no-confidence motion in late September if he is not happy with the working group's results.

The EI Working Group was established in June to explore ways to improve fairness in EI eligibility and to examine the potential for bringing self-employed Canadians into the EI system.

There are currently 58 different regional standards for EI eligibility. A person has to have worked anywhere from 420 to 700 hours in the previous 12 months, depending on the regional unemployment rate, to collect benefits.

The Liberals want to lower the number of hours of work required to 360, a measure that they say would cost an additional $1.5-billion a year. They say, however, that they're flexible on what the qualifying level should be.

The government, at the request of the working group, agreed to determine how much it would cost if the work requirement were set at such hourly levels as 390, 420 and 560. But Human Resources Minister Diane Finley told the meeting yesterday that she had asked her officials to stop that work because the government was not going to support a national standard, the Liberals said.

NDP Leader Jack Layton, whose party initially proposed the 360-hour standard, has said repeatedly that he will vote against the Conservative government on any matter of confidence. Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe has been less unequivocal but he, too, supports the Liberal proposal on employment insurance.

That means any Liberal confidence motion is likely to push the country into an election.

The Globe and Mail reported yesterday that the Conservatives have started to call on Canadians to give them a majority government in the next election.

Conservative talking points sent yesterday to Tory MPs said the Globe story contained false analysis and speculation. It warned against suggesting that the government wants an election this fall.

“It is essential that all Caucus members and activists remember that we are NOT – repeat NOT – pushing for a fall election. We are focused on the economy. We are focused on implementing our economic action plan,” said the memo.

“We will not and should not encourage speculation about a fall election.”

Diane Finley Looks to Her Leader For Guidance, then Lies, Lies, Lies

Stephen Harper may have bought himself a bit of time by promising much needed EI reform, but it would appear given their latest news releases, that it will be just the same old same old. Diane Finley, with Ryan Sparrow pulling her strings, has gone to their three stage plan to deal with any crisis.

1. Pretend you are committed.

2. Blame it on the Liberals.

3. LIE, LIE, LIE!!!

Of course you know that when they placed Poilievre on the 'working group', they never intended to take it seriously. This little SS officer incarnate, snapped to attention, barked 'Heil Harper' then announced that their government will "never" accept Ignatieff's proposal.

Now as a follow up performance, Ms Finley, with carefully prepared speech in hand, and wearing her fire retardant panties, went into one of the worst stand-up routines I've ever witnessed.

Liberals reject $4B price tag on EI proposal
By Norma Greenaway,
Canwest News Service
Calgary Herald
August 7, 2009

OTTAWA — Federal Liberals have dismissed as shameful a Conservative bid to put a $4-billion price tag on the Liberals' key proposal for allowing more jobless Canadians to qualify for employment insurance benefits.

Liberal MP Marlene Jennings said Thursday the Conservatives came up with the number by "throwing everything, including the kitchen sink," into the calculation.

"Shame on them. This seems to be the Conservative solution to the EI problem," she said in an interview.

Jennings was speaking following a meeting of a special Conservative-Liberal working group that has been charged with coming up with ways to improve EI by Sept. 28.

A government analysis said the Liberal proposal to slash the minimum work requirement to qualify for employment insurance benefits to 360 hours across the country could exceed $4 billion a year.

A senior Conservative official circulated a synopsis of the cost analysis to reporters.

It said the proposed change could cost four times more than the $1 billion cited by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff, who has promoted the 360-hour standard as a means of easing the plight of the unemployed during the economic recession.

Under the current system, a person has to have worked 420 to 700 hours in the previous 12 months, depending on the regional unemployment rate, to collect benefits.

Jennings said in an interview the $4-billion figure does not reflect what the Liberals are proposing because, among other things, it included those claiming EI benefits for everything from illness to maternity, parental and compassionate leave.

The government tally estimated reducing the requirement to 360 hours would add 332,580 people to the EI rolls.

The Liberals say their plan would apply only to those qualifying for regular EI benefits — or an estimated 117,000.

Given the government's estimate that the average benefit cost for each claimant is $6,900, the price tag on the Liberal plan would be slightly more than $1 billion, Jennings maintained.

The working group, which plans to meet again next week, has asked government officials to return with cost estimates if the work requirement were set at such hourly levels as 390, 420 and 560, and only if those qualifying for regular jobless benefits were covered.

Human Resources Minister Diane Finley, a member of the committee, has said the 360-hour requirement is "straight out of academic fantasyland" and a non-starter.

Jennings has said the Liberals are willing to negotiate the 360-hour benchmark, and the means to expand EI benefits to the self-employed.

She said the subject of the self-employed was broached for the first time Thursday and that officials have been asked to cost a range of options for another meeting of the working group next Thursday.

Ignatieff has threatened to try to force an election if the government doesn't get serious about EI reform.

Conservative MP Pierre Poilievre, a member of the group, brushed off questions about the credibility of the $4-billion figure. He said the only thing Canadians need to know is that the Liberal proposal is "extremely expensive" and "totally unacceptable." (The only thing Canadians need to know? Is he kidding me? We're not pawns in some chess game from hell, and certainly should not be on a 'need to know' basis with our government.)

The government's $4-billion estimate — a fourfold increase on the $1-billion price tag a recent TD Bank report put on the idea — landed amid stepped-up calls for EI reform from provincial premiers, who are meeting in Regina this week.

The premiers appeared split, however, on how to change the qualification period for collecting EI benefits.

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has supported Ignatieff's call for a single standard, but says 360 hours is too low a bar. Others have balked at setting a single standard, but have supported streamlining the current 58 qualifying standards.

Western premiers agreed earlier this summer to promote three regional categories: urban, rural and remote.

The leaders of the Atlantic provinces stressed that any changes cannot dilute the existing system.

"The first principle on this is do no harm," said Darrell Dexter, Nova Scotia's rookie NDP premier.

The Conservative analysis crunched numbers on four possible scenarios involving a single standard of 360 hours of work and 19 weeks of benefits.

The estimate was based on a forecast unemployment rate of 8.8 per cent in 2009-10, estimated wage and benefit growth, as well as potential labour-market impacts, such as having to raise EI benefits.

The Liberals have insisted they would finance any EI changes out of general revenues, rather than upping premiums for workers or employees.

If they can bail out the auto industry, why can't they help our unemployed?

There were three comments at the end of this piece. One was the usual Harper induced rant about our welfare state, but the other two were important, considering that this was Alberta.

"That's almost $26B less than what Harper gave up when he lowered GST by 2%. Good job Steve"

and:

"Canada has a $2 Trillion economy, and the Americans routinely throw around $1 Trillion bailout packages, so am I to be unnerved by a paltry $4 Billion for EI. The last time a number like that was significant was in 1914 when that was the amount of the British Gold Reserves. Get some perspective here. You do not scare me Ms. Finley."

Job Losses Worse Than Predicted in July

Recent reports by Stats Canada show that almost 45,000 jobs were lost in July; three times what they had predicted. Yet Diane Finley (aka Ryan Sparrow) is refusing to address EI Reform.

Instead the Conservative are hollering from the rooftops "the recession is over! ... the recession is over!"

With no clear plan to steer us back on course, when and if that statement becomes true, and no indication of how they are going to address this unemployment rate; the highest in eleven years; they have chosen to waste our tax dollars, sending our partisan attack ads, rather than doing their damn job.

They work for us, not the Conservative Party of Canada, and we're not in the middle of an election ... yet, though maybe we should be. It's time we gave these guys the heave ho.

Job losses deeper than feared
By Heather Scoffield
Ottawa — Globe and Mail
August 08, 2009

The recession and the rain hammered summer-student employment and eliminated 45,000 jobs in July – pushing the total job losses since the onset of the downturn to 414,000, Statistics Canada said.

The unemployment rate stayed steady an 11-year high of 8.6 per cent, but only because discouraged unemployed people, mainly youth, gave up searching for a job. The labour force shrank by 53,500 people.

“[It's a] classic sign of discouraged workers throwing in the towel,” said Douglas Porter, deputy chief economist at BMO Nesbitt Burns.

The job losses were in both full-time and part-time positions, concentrated in Quebec, and almost entirely in the private sector. The unemployment rate for students spiked to 20.9 per cent, its highest point on record, and more than seven percentage points higher than a year ago.

Are job losses so bad that they will threaten the start of a recovery in the third quarter?

If the pace of such job loss continues, expectations for economic growth to resume in the third quarter will have to be revisited, warned Avery Shenfeld, chief economist at CIBC World Markets.

An economy can still grow if employment stagnates, he explained. But an economy can't muster growth if jobs are being destroyed, hurting consumer spending power.

But he hasn't given up hope that both the economy and the job market will show some improvement in August and September, since auto plants are gearing back up somewhat, and activity in the housing market is on an upswing.

Still, Canada's recovery will lag behind the United States', Mr. Shenfeld said, since second quarter growth in Canada will be much worse than the one-per-cent pace of decline measured in the United States, and the third quarter will be slower here, too.

But the relentless rain that hovered over Quebec during much of past month shouldn't be discounted as a key reason behind the fall in employment, said Philip Cross, chief of economic analysis at Statistics Canada.

“With the record rain, who needs waiters for the patio, or travel-related services?” he said.

Quebec's labour market has avoided the pain felt in Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia during this recession, but there are fears that the job losses experienced elsewhere will hit Quebec with a lag.

July's numbers, showing a loss of 37,100 jobs in Quebec, don't really fit the bill, said Mr. Cross. That's because recessions normally eat away at jobs on the goods-producing side of an economy first, and then spill over into services. But Quebec's job losses in July were mainly in services, not in the manufacturing sector that is key in that province.

But it will take more than a bit of sunshine to turn the job losses around. Other economists argue that rain in July in one region is only a small factor.

“Tourism jobs have been hit hard given recession in the U.S. and Canada, border issues, fall-like weather in July, and the high cost associated with the Canadian dollar are unhelpful events,” said Stewart Hall, economist at HSBC Securities (Canada).

The declines in accommodation and food services in July were partly offset by increased employment in retail and wholesale trade, Statscan said.

The private sector took a heavy blow. Employment fell by 75,000 positions, bringing total job losses since last October to 436,000.

July's private-sector losses were the worst since the record-breaking decline in January. A 35,000 rise in self-employment partially offset the drop, but economists tend to be leery about self-employment numbers in the depths of a recession because self-employment is often a last resort.

The self-employment gain “is not necessarily a good thing as it underscores the lack of opportunity in the formal job market,” said Charmaine Buskas, senior economics strategist at TD Securities Inc. “And as workers have fewer job prospects and bargaining power, wages have obviously suffered.”

Since October, the work force has contracted by 2.4 per cent, all in full-time work. Most of the losses have been in manufacturing, construction, transportation and warehousing.

Analysts had expected to see some improvement in the construction sector, since the real estate market has been flourishing and government money for new infrastructure may be starting to flow. But after three months of little change, construction employment fell 18,000 positions in July, bringing total losses since October to 120,000 – a contraction of 9.6 per cent.

Manufacturing employment didn't change much in July, but has contracted 11.1 per cent since last fall.

By demographic, most of the recession's pain has fallen on young people – who have seen employment drop by 205,000 positions since October – and by men between 25 and 54 years old, who have lost 201,000 jobs.

In July, young people had another bad month, shedding 37,500 positions. Adult men gained jobs, however, rising 14,600 positions. Instead, adult women took a turn dealing with falling employment, losing 21,600 positions.

“It was a particularly bad month for youth employment, as the summer job market was just awful this year,” said Mr. Porter.

By province, eight out 10 provinces saw declines in employment, led by Quebec, where 37,100 positions disappeared. Quebec's job losses during this recession have been far more moderate than in neighbouring Ontario, despite both provinces having a major manufacturing base. But Quebec's unemployment rate rose to 9.0 per cent in July, up from 8.8 per cent in June.

Ontario managed to post a slight employment gain in July, adding 13,700 positions as drops in construction employment were more than offset by gains in the services sector. The unemployment rate in the heavyweight province fell to 9.3 per cent from 9.6 per cent, but is still the fourth highest in Canada and well above the national average.

Average wages rose 3.4 per cent from a year ago, in line with increases seen in the previous two months. For permanent employees, wages were 3.2 per cent higher that a year ago, lower than in June.

Canadian Unemployment Worse Than Statistics Reveal

Though numbers show that the jobless rate is astounding, we have to remember that not all of those out of work are included in the figures. Those who haven't sought employment in the past month don't get counted.

Some have opted to simply live off their severance to wait and see if prospects improve. Others have chosen to accept part-time work or are doing odd jobs in an attempt to stay afloat.

However, all of these people are victims of this recession. The recession that Stephen Harper and his financial wizard, Jim Flaherty, said would not come.

There's jobless, and officially jobless
When Statscan issues its jobs data today, it won't tally those who have given up or postponed their searches
Tavia Grant
Globe and Mail
August 07, 2009

After John Peck was reorganized out of his job at Shell Canada Ltd. in April, he searched for work in communications or consulting for a few months. But few positions were open and the rare ones posted were swamped with applicants.

So, he has stopped looking. The 56-year-old, who received a severance package, is spending a month on Deer Island, N.B., where he's diving, sailing boats and combing beaches.

"It's a good time to wait and see what's happening with the economy, see how things shake out," he explains. "There's a lot more competition right now, and that was part of my decision to take a good chunk of the summer off."

When Statistics Canada reports its monthly job count today, many unemployed people like Mr. Peck - who have either postponed or given up their job search - won't be tallied. That's because people who haven't hunted for jobs in the past month aren't counted as unemployed or as part of the labour force.

The gap between the actual unemployment rate and the official statistics is likely to widen in the coming months, as more people give up their job search to go back to school, or wait until jobs are more abundant, economists say. Many more workers will settle for part-time jobs, even though they want full-time positions.

"Official numbers always understate how bad it is during recessionary periods," said Robert Fairholm, an economist at the Centre for Spatial Economics, a research firm in Milton, Ont. "Things will get worse before they get better for unemployed people."

In a forecast this week, he predicted that Canada's unemployment rate would rise to 10.5 per cent by the first quarter of 2011 if discouraged workers were counted.

Today's Statscan report is expected to show about 15,000 jobs were lost last month (it actually ended up triple), sending the national unemployment rate to 8.8 per cent from 8.6 per cent, according to economists polled by Bloomberg. The economy shed almost half a million full-time jobs - 454,000 positions - between October and June, Statscan figures show.

When involuntary part-time workers are factored into the equation, Canada's unemployment rate would have been 11.3 per cent in June, according to Statscan's so-called R8 series on "underutilized" labour, which is not seasonally adjusted. That's well above the 8.1-per-cent level it showed in the same month last year, though down from the 12.4 per cent it reached in March.

Canada's official unemployment rate is a more accurate depiction of reality than the U.S. measure, though, because it includes people who are both actively and passively looking for work, said Millan Mulraine, economics strategist at TD Securities. The U.S. criteria are more stringent - they stipulate that people have to be actively looking for work - and thus fewer people are counted in the jobless tally, he said.

Employment insurance is another indicator of joblessness; the most recent report showed a record number of Canadians are receiving jobless benefits. That, too, could be skewed in the months ahead as EI benefits run out.

Rick Newton, 46, is one of thousands of Canadians who have fallen out of the country's official bookkeeping. EI benefits for the information-technology specialist dried up last year. So the Burlington, Ont., resident put his job search on hold to go back to school to update his certifications. (my son recently received his permanent layoff notice after 17 years with the same firm. He thinks he may go back to school, so he won't be tallied despite the fact that the company he worked for has closed)

He said it was a "conscious decision" to leave the labour market after a fruitless job search. "I hope to be looking for work again in November."
****
A numbers game

Employment insurance is one indicator of joblessness. But that data could be skewed in coming months as EI benefits run out.

Number of people receiving regular Employment Insurance benefits
May 2009: 778,700

Unemployment rate, 8.6%