CKA Forums
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/

EI rate cut: Ottawa skipped internal study in favour of inte
http://www.canadaka.net/forums/current-events-f59/ei-rate-cut-ottawa-skipped-internal-study-in-favour-of-inte-t110810-15.html
Page 2 of 3

Author:  andyt [ Fri Nov 21, 2014 9:07 am ]
Post subject:  Re: EI rate cut: Ottawa skipped internal study in favour of inte

No. The SIG did the study, the minister accepted the findings without checking them himself and wrote legislation based entirely on the findings of the study. Now we have a different study, that says the opposite. Guess it was smart of Oliver not to check the business group's study, it would have just made him confused. Much easier to rubber stamp and go play golf or something.

Author:  DrCaleb [ Fri Nov 21, 2014 9:48 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

OnTheIce wrote:
You're also assuming that the staff just take any report and make legislation based on that without any checking. You're incorrect in that assumption.


And yet, my opinion is based on the article, which says they take the SIG's data and don't do any fact checking on it. Seems pretty clear to me.

Author:  andyt [ Fri Nov 21, 2014 9:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: EI rate cut: Ottawa skipped internal study in favour of inte

Quote:
Joe Oliver told the parliamentary finance committee that Ottawa's decision to introduce the measure was based on the research of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

"The department does not analyze every measure that we introduce," Oliver told the hearing as he responded to a question.

"If we don't do it, we look to those who have expertise and we did in this case to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business."


Seems pretty clear to me. Of course fool us for taking that Lieberal CBC at its word, they probably made the whole thing up.

Author:  OnTheIce [ Fri Nov 21, 2014 10:52 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

DrCaleb wrote:
OnTheIce wrote:
You're also assuming that the staff just take any report and make legislation based on that without any checking. You're incorrect in that assumption.


And yet, my opinion is based on the article, which says they take the SIG's data and don't do any fact checking on it. Seems pretty clear to me.


It doesn't say that at all.

Do you know how many staff surround the Minister and what goes into producing legislation? If you actually think they just took this report and say down to draft legislation, you're awfully naive.

Just because they didn't do the analysis themselves, doesn't mean they didn't go over the report to ensure it contained valid data to be used in legislation.

Either way, they'd get hammered for the decision. If they did this report internally, they'd be accused of not speaking to experts and because they did speak to experts, they're being criticized for doing so.

Author:  Zipperfish [ Fri Nov 21, 2014 12:09 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

OnTheIce wrote:
It doesn't say that at all.

Do you know how many staff surround the Minister and what goes into producing legislation? If you actually think they just took this report and say down to draft legislation, you're awfully naive.

Just because they didn't do the analysis themselves, doesn't mean they didn't go over the report to ensure it contained valid data to be used in legislation.

Either way, they'd get hammered for the decision. If they did this report internally, they'd be accused of not speaking to experts and because they did speak to experts, they're being criticized for doing so.


The CFIB may be experts but they are also a lobby group, and are not mandated to provide objective information. Indeed the numbers they produced seem very different from what the Parliamentary Budget Office is saying. It doesn't seem as if there was any independent assessmetn done, and it doesn't appear the Minister even knows how the CFIB arived at their numbers.

Author:  DrCaleb [ Fri Nov 21, 2014 12:26 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

OnTheIce wrote:
Do you know how many staff surround the Minister and what goes into producing legislation? If you actually think they just took this report and say down to draft legislation, you're awfully naive.


Intimately. And the article implies that's exactly what they did.

OnTheIce wrote:
Just because they didn't do the analysis themselves, doesn't mean they didn't go over the report to ensure it contained valid data to be used in legislation.


Do you see the contradiction in that sentence? If they did the former, then they didn't do the latter. The minister himself says they didn't do the former, and they don't always do the latter.

OnTheIce wrote:
Either way, they'd get hammered for the decision. If they did this report internally, they'd be accused of not speaking to experts and because they did speak to experts, they're being criticized for doing so.


No, they wouldn't. If the PBO report had been closer to the CFIB report, then they wouldn't get hammered for this legislation. Had they done an internal review that showed the CFIB numbers or the PBO numbers to be closer to estimates, they wouldn't be getting hammered on this.

They have plenty of actuaries and accountants in their own department that do studies like this all the time. Why exclude them?

Author:  OnTheIce [ Fri Nov 21, 2014 12:37 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

DrCaleb wrote:

Do you see the contradiction in that sentence? If they did the former, then they didn't do the latter. The minister himself says they didn't do the former, and they don't always do the latter.


Again, if you think they rubber stamped this report without any of their staff looking at it, you're mistaken.

DrCaleb wrote:
No, they wouldn't. If the PBO report had been closer to the CFIB report, then they wouldn't get hammered for this legislation. Had they done an internal review that showed the CFIB numbers or the PBO numbers to be closer to estimates, they wouldn't be getting hammered on this.


Maybe we can analyze every subject 3 or 4 times? Or maybe we just take the reports from the experts and move forward.

DrCaleb wrote:
They have plenty of actuaries and accountants in their own department that do studies like this all the time. Why exclude them?


Assuming of course, that they never looked at the report, right?

Author:  DrCaleb [ Fri Nov 21, 2014 12:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

OnTheIce wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:

Do you see the contradiction in that sentence? If they did the former, then they didn't do the latter. The minister himself says they didn't do the former, and they don't always do the latter.


Again, if you think they rubber stamped this report without any of their staff looking at it, you're mistaken.


Quote:
"The department does not analyze every measure that we introduce," Oliver told the hearing as he responded to a question.


The ministers words are pretty clear.

OnTheIce wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
No, they wouldn't. If the PBO report had been closer to the CFIB report, then they wouldn't get hammered for this legislation. Had they done an internal review that showed the CFIB numbers or the PBO numbers to be closer to estimates, they wouldn't be getting hammered on this.


Maybe we can analyze every subject 3 or 4 times? Or maybe we just take the reports from the experts and move forward.


I guess you don't understand how studies are conducted then? 3 or 4 times is a minimum. Internally. If you want a 2nd or 3rd party, multiply accordingly.

On everything I do, I get at least 2 co-workers to look at it before I send it off to the departments involved before I ever attempt to get management approval for anything. It needs that level of verification so we don't screw something up!

OnTheIce wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
They have plenty of actuaries and accountants in their own department that do studies like this all the time. Why exclude them?


Assuming of course, that they never looked at the report, right?


Yes, if the Minister is to believed.

Author:  OnTheIce [ Fri Nov 21, 2014 12:53 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

DrCaleb wrote:
I guess you don't understand how studies are conducted then? 3 or 4 times is a minimum. Internally. If you want a 2nd or 3rd party, multiply accordingly.

On everything I do, I get at least 2 co-workers to look at it before I send it off to the departments involved before I ever attempt to get management approval for anything. It needs that level of verification so we don't screw something up!



So this study was the exception to the rule then?

Only one source, no checking, no other input?

Author:  DrCaleb [ Fri Nov 21, 2014 1:04 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

OnTheIce wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
I guess you don't understand how studies are conducted then? 3 or 4 times is a minimum. Internally. If you want a 2nd or 3rd party, multiply accordingly.

On everything I do, I get at least 2 co-workers to look at it before I send it off to the departments involved before I ever attempt to get management approval for anything. It needs that level of verification so we don't screw something up!



So this study was the exception to the rule then?

Only one source, no checking, no other input?


I really don't understand how you read things like that into people's posts. I try to use the fewest and most concise words that I can in order to avoid misunderstanding.

But around and around and around we go.

Author:  OnTheIce [ Fri Nov 21, 2014 1:20 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

DrCaleb wrote:
OnTheIce wrote:
DrCaleb wrote:
I guess you don't understand how studies are conducted then? 3 or 4 times is a minimum. Internally. If you want a 2nd or 3rd party, multiply accordingly.

On everything I do, I get at least 2 co-workers to look at it before I send it off to the departments involved before I ever attempt to get management approval for anything. It needs that level of verification so we don't screw something up!



So this study was the exception to the rule then?

Only one source, no checking, no other input?


I really don't understand how you read things like that into people's posts. I try to use the fewest and most concise words that I can in order to avoid misunderstanding.

But around and around and around we go.



Just reading what you give me, Caleb.

You keep telling me that Oliver used one report from one source and ran to make legislation and then and then you tell me that studies are typically conduced in a very different manor.

So my question to you is, as you're very well versed in the legislature and the MOF"s office, why was this time an exception to the rule?

Author:  DrCaleb [ Fri Nov 21, 2014 1:30 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

OnTheIce wrote:
Just reading what you give me, Caleb.

You keep telling me that Oliver used one report from one source and ran to make legislation and then and then you tell me that studies are typically conduced in a very different manor.


No, I am not. The article did. Quoting, once again from the article:

Quote:
The Harper government passed up conducting its own internal analysis on the job-creation potential of its $550-million small-business job credit, relying instead on numbers produced by an interest group, the finance minister revealed Wednesday.


Pretty clear, I think.

OnTheIce wrote:
So my question to you is, as you're very well versed in the legislature and the MOF"s office, why was this time an exception to the rule?


My question to you is; when did I claim that? You are reading my words, right? You aren't adding your own internal commentary, then attributing that to me, are you?

To add to your internal commentary, I very much doubt this is either the first time or the last time they, or any department, does this. Just the latest.

Author:  OnTheIce [ Fri Nov 21, 2014 6:19 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

DrCaleb wrote:
My question to you is; when did I claim that? You are reading my words, right? You aren't adding your own internal commentary, then attributing that to me, are you?



DrCaleb wrote:
OnTheIce wrote:
Do you know how many staff surround the Minister and what goes into producing legislation? If you actually think they just took this report and say down to draft legislation, you're awfully naive.


Intimately. And the article implies that's exactly what they did.


You're also the foremost expert in studies and the process behind them, as you expressed above:

DrCaleb wrote:
I guess you don't understand how studies are conducted then? 3 or 4 times is a minimum. Internally. If you want a 2nd or 3rd party, multiply accordingly.

On everything I do, I get at least 2 co-workers to look at it before I send it off to the departments involved before I ever attempt to get management approval for anything. It needs that level of verification so we don't screw something up!


So, being well versed on the process of studies and having an intimate knowledge of the FMO and his staff, why was this particular occasion different?

Why did they stray so far off course and listen to only one report?

Author:  Xort [ Sat Nov 22, 2014 6:29 am ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

DrCaleb wrote:
I do have a problem with legislators rubber stamping that legislation. They need to do some fact checking and a little independent set of eyeball sanity checks before they propose it in the house.

Unless they are rubber stamping something a scientist said right?

Author:  DrCaleb [ Sat Nov 22, 2014 2:58 pm ]
Post subject:  Re: Re:

OnTheIce wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:
OnTheIce wrote:
Do you know how many staff surround the Minister and what goes into producing legislation? If you actually think they just took this report and say down to draft legislation, you're awfully naive.


Intimately. And the article implies that's exactly what they did.


You're also the foremost expert in studies and the process behind them, as you expressed above:

DrCaleb wrote:
I guess you don't understand how studies are conducted then? 3 or 4 times is a minimum. Internally. If you want a 2nd or 3rd party, multiply accordingly.

On everything I do, I get at least 2 co-workers to look at it before I send it off to the departments involved before I ever attempt to get management approval for anything. It needs that level of verification so we don't screw something up!


So, being well versed on the process of studies and having an intimate knowledge of the FMO and his staff, why was this particular occasion different?


You asked if I knew what goes into producing legislation. I do. I've been asked to participate in that before. I didn't claim intimate knowledge of the FMO, only to the legislative process. As I've stated before I work in the Government of Alberta, Treasury Board and Finance. Similar department, Provincial government.

The latter quote you used is in relation to my job, not the legislative process.

Your mistake for thinking that the former relates to the later.

OnTheIce wrote:
Why did they stray so far off course and listen to only one report?


That's an excellent question. My guess is 'laziness' or 'cost cutting'.

Page 2 of 3 All times are UTC - 8 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB ©