In keeping with the new spirit of glasnost blowing through his office, on Wednesday Stephen Harper permitted the media to watch his maiden speech of the year to the Conservative caucus.
In the event, it was more painted floozy than maiden, shamelessly extolling the virtues of seven years of Harper rule.
He lauded the best job creation record in the Group of Seven and set out his government’s four priorities going forward – families, safe streets, pride in country and personal financial security.
“Canadians want to be prosperous, safe and strong. That’s our focus; that’s why we serve. Let’s get back to work,” he urged his cheering troops.
Mr. Harper must wish all his audiences were as obsequious. No sooner had he shown his face in the House of Commons for Question Period than the leader of the opposition started suggesting the prime minister’s performance over the last seven years has not been quite as infallible as he claimed at caucus.
Tom Mulcair raised the issue of youth unemployment, currently running at about twice the national average of 7.1%. “Why aren’t young people part of the prime minister’s four priorities?” he asked.
Mr. Harper dismissed the very presumption. “There is no better place for a young person to be today than in Canada,” he said.
Next, Mr. Mulcair claimed the government has some explaining to do when it comes to funding First Nations’ education, which he argued is running at one third below provincial levels.
Bob Rae, the interim Liberal leader, chimed in on the subject of First Nation graduation rates, which he said are 20 years away from catching up with the rest of the country, and on the government’s Employment Insurance reforms, where unemployed single mothers like Marlene Giersdorf, 30, from Prince Edward Island find themselves cut off from benefits.
Confused? Depending on who you listen to, Canada is either the new Arcadia or on the edge of an abyss.
So how are we doing after seven years of Mr. Harper? Since we’re dealing with consummate politicians here, it won’t surprise you to learn none of them are lying – but neither are they telling the whole truth.
Unemployment among 15- to 24-year-olds has risen from 11% pre-recession to around 15%, with more than a quarter-million fewer youths working than four years ago. The Harper government has introduced several measures that have failed to dent a rate that remains stubbornly high.
“We have a youth unemployment crisis,” said Scott Brison, the Liberal Party finance critic during Question Period.
But the opposition’s fulminating needs to be put in some kind of context.
For one thing, while youth unemployment is high, it is far lower than in previous recessions (nearly 20% in the early 1980s). For another, Canada is performing strongly when compared to almost all its competitors: unemployment among 15- to 24-year-olds in the Eurozone is 24%, which masks horrendous rates of nearly 60% in Greece and Spain.
Thirdly, the duration of unemployment tends to be relatively short. A study last year found the average was less than 11 weeks, while nearly 70% of those affected were moving from school to the labour market.
Mr. Harper is justified in several his claims, particularly on the government’s overall employment record. There are half a million more jobs than at the pre-recession peak in third-quarter 2008.
On First Nations education, the government is on less firm ground. The Aboriginal Affairs department released figures in fall last year that said First Nations students were funded to an average of $13,542 per capita, a level it claimed was comparable to provincial funding.
What it didn’t mention is an unknown number of them attend provincial schools and are often funded at higher levels than the First Nations average. That means many students on reserves receive below-average funding.
On EI reform, it’s the opposition parties who are conning Canadians. They’ve focused on the plight of Ms. Giersdorf, who was told she was being cut off from EI because she was “unwilling to change her job demands” and consider work in Charlottetown, 46 kilometres from her home.
Let’s hope the system is flexible enough to compensate for cases like hers. Mr. Harper suggested it should be, saying EI “will continue to be available for all people who cannot find employment that is close by, that they are able to get to and that is within their qualifications.”
But, as the opposition parties know full well, the new rules are not designed to hit the Ms. Giersdorfs of the world. Rather, they are meant to target the crab fishermen who make two trips to sea and earn enough insurable earnings to qualify for maximum EI benefits for the rest of the year.
It seems entirely reasonable to ask those fishermen to take a job within an hour commute at 80% of their previous hourly wage or face losing their benefits.
Perhaps one day there will be perestroika in our political process – a restructuring that allows a compromise between the thick gloss of self-congratulation from the government and prognostications of the end of days from the opposition. In the meantime, we must make do with photos of breakfast with Stanley the cat.
Original Article
Source: national post
Author: John Ivison
No comments:
Post a Comment