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.
"OnTheIce" said "The department does not analyze every measure that we introduce," Oliver told the hearing as he responded to a question.
That says more about this Finance Minister than I ever could.
Because politicians and pencil pushers would offer a far better analysis than experts in the field?
Because the people we hire to run the government should check their facts before proposing legislation they are going to be responsible for. Putting forward legislation proposed by people and business groups is fine, but would we really trust bankers to write banking legislation without checking it first; or oil lobbyists to write environmental legislation?
"DrCaleb" said "The department does not analyze every measure that we introduce," Oliver told the hearing as he responded to a question.
That says more about this Finance Minister than I ever could.
Because politicians and pencil pushers would offer a far better analysis than experts in the field?
Because the people we hire to run the government should check their facts before proposing legislation they are going to be responsible for. Putting forward legislation proposed by people and business groups is fine, but would we really trust bankers to write banking legislation without checking it first; or oil lobbyists to write environmental legislation?
So you want them to analyze the analysis?
Rather than do their own analysis in-house, the opted for the same from a 3rd party and decided that the information provided was suffice. As mentioned, if they don't do it internally, they look for those outside the government to provide the analysis and that happens in all departments.
"Zipperfish" said but would we really trust ... oil lobbyists to write environmental legislation?
That's essentially what's happening now.
Yea, I remembered things like the 'clean waterways act' and all the other bullshit they cram in to omnibus 'budget' bills after I wrote it.
"OnTheIce" said
So you want them to analyze the analysis?
Rather than do their own analysis in-house, the opted for the same from a 3rd party and decided that the information provided was suffice. As mentioned, if they don't do it internally, they look for those outside the government to provide the analysis and that happens in all departments.
Analyzing it just once would be nice. The quote I gave implies they don't do it just that one time. There is no 3rd party, just the 2nd party that did the study.
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.
Because . . the people of Canada hired the CFIB to draft legislation.
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.
Because . . the people of Canada hired the CFIB to draft legislation.
No, we elected politicians to make legislation and I'd rather them have information from experts rather than some bureaucrat with no experience in business or policy.
You hire experts to provide expert opinions. The Government is using a source that actually has people on the ground running business in Canada. They know far more than some egg-head sitting in a room looking at numbers and coming up with public policy.
This 'interest' group, as they are called, have helped influence some very important business and financial decisions this Country has made in the last 40 years.
The problem isn't necessarily one of knowledge, but of conflict of interest. A lobby group is going to act in the interests of the group for which it is lobbying. Public corporatons have an o0bligation to their shareholders which can also create a conflict.
The budget watchdog's study said that overall, the credit would create about 1,000 "person-years" of employment with a price tag of $555,000 for each person-year.
I don't get it, they want to spend $555k per person-year unemployed. Shit, fire the entire EI bureaucracy, and give every out of work Canadian $80K. We would have enough money left over to get the navy some ships.
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.
Because . . the people of Canada hired the CFIB to draft legislation.
No, we elected politicians to make legislation and I'd rather them have information from experts rather than some bureaucrat with no experience in business or policy.
You hire experts to provide expert opinions. The Government is using a source that actually has people on the ground running business in Canada. They know far more than some egg-head sitting in a room looking at numbers and coming up with public policy.
This 'interest' group, as they are called, have helped influence some very important business and financial decisions this Country has made in the last 40 years.
As I said, I have no problem with interest groups proposing changes that they think would benefit Canada or our Economy. 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.
Minister Oliver seems to be in favour of the rubber stamp approach, something every Conservative government for the last generation has lambasted the Liberals for doing.
"Zipperfish" said The problem isn't necessarily one of knowledge, but of conflict of interest. A lobby group is going to act in the interests of the group for which it is lobbying. Public corporatons have an o0bligation to their shareholders which can also create a conflict.
^^ That. Government has an obligation to the people, not to any corporation or SIG. If a proposal good for business, and/or it's good for people, then by all means! If it's chock full of bullshit, it dies the death it deserves.
This EI rate cut appears to have two wildly different predictions, with one favouring the SIG, and the other detrimental to the same SIG's members. One of them must be wrong, and if the Minister had done some fact checking before rubber stamping this legislation, perhaps we'd know which one is right.
As I said, I have no problem with interest groups proposing changes that they think would benefit Canada or our Economy. 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.
Minister Oliver seems to be in favour of the rubber stamp approach, something every Conservative government for the last generation has lambasted the Liberals for doing.
I think you're doing a lot of assuming here.
Special interest groups don't draft legislation. They may provide information to assist or to make policy, but it's the staff that goes over that information and develops legislation if the information fits.
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.
That says more about this Finance Minister than I ever could.
"The department does not analyze every measure that we introduce," Oliver told the hearing as he responded to a question.
That says more about this Finance Minister than I ever could.
Because politicians and pencil pushers would offer a far better analysis than experts in the field?
"The department does not analyze every measure that we introduce," Oliver told the hearing as he responded to a question.
That says more about this Finance Minister than I ever could.
Because politicians and pencil pushers would offer a far better analysis than experts in the field?
Because the people we hire to run the government should check their facts before proposing legislation they are going to be responsible for. Putting forward legislation proposed by people and business groups is fine, but would we really trust bankers to write banking legislation without checking it first; or oil lobbyists to write environmental legislation?
"The department does not analyze every measure that we introduce," Oliver told the hearing as he responded to a question.
That says more about this Finance Minister than I ever could.
Because politicians and pencil pushers would offer a far better analysis than experts in the field?
Because the people we hire to run the government should check their facts before proposing legislation they are going to be responsible for. Putting forward legislation proposed by people and business groups is fine, but would we really trust bankers to write banking legislation without checking it first; or oil lobbyists to write environmental legislation?
So you want them to analyze the analysis?
Rather than do their own analysis in-house, the opted for the same from a 3rd party and decided that the information provided was suffice. As mentioned, if they don't do it internally, they look for those outside the government to provide the analysis and that happens in all departments.
but would we really trust ... oil lobbyists to write environmental legislation?
That's essentially what's happening now.
but would we really trust ... oil lobbyists to write environmental legislation?
That's essentially what's happening now.
Yea, I remembered things like the 'clean waterways act' and all the other bullshit they cram in to omnibus 'budget' bills after I wrote it.
So you want them to analyze the analysis?
Rather than do their own analysis in-house, the opted for the same from a 3rd party and decided that the information provided was suffice. As mentioned, if they don't do it internally, they look for those outside the government to provide the analysis and that happens in all departments.
Analyzing it just once would be nice. The quote I gave implies they don't do it just that one time. There is no 3rd party, just the 2nd party that did the study.
Because . . the people of Canada hired the CFIB to draft legislation.
Because . . the people of Canada hired the CFIB to draft legislation.
No, we elected politicians to make legislation and I'd rather them have information from experts rather than some bureaucrat with no experience in business or policy.
You hire experts to provide expert opinions. The Government is using a source that actually has people on the ground running business in Canada. They know far more than some egg-head sitting in a room looking at numbers and coming up with public policy.
This 'interest' group, as they are called, have helped influence some very important business and financial decisions this Country has made in the last 40 years.
I don't get it, they want to spend $555k per person-year unemployed. Shit, fire the entire EI bureaucracy, and give every out of work Canadian $80K. We would have enough money left over to get the navy some ships.
Because . . the people of Canada hired the CFIB to draft legislation.
No, we elected politicians to make legislation and I'd rather them have information from experts rather than some bureaucrat with no experience in business or policy.
You hire experts to provide expert opinions. The Government is using a source that actually has people on the ground running business in Canada. They know far more than some egg-head sitting in a room looking at numbers and coming up with public policy.
This 'interest' group, as they are called, have helped influence some very important business and financial decisions this Country has made in the last 40 years.
As I said, I have no problem with interest groups proposing changes that they think would benefit Canada or our Economy. 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.
Minister Oliver seems to be in favour of the rubber stamp approach, something every Conservative government for the last generation has lambasted the Liberals for doing.
The problem isn't necessarily one of knowledge, but of conflict of interest. A lobby group is going to act in the interests of the group for which it is lobbying. Public corporatons have an o0bligation to their shareholders which can also create a conflict.
^^ That. Government has an obligation to the people, not to any corporation or SIG. If a proposal good for business, and/or it's good for people, then by all means! If it's chock full of bullshit, it dies the death it deserves.
This EI rate cut appears to have two wildly different predictions, with one favouring the SIG, and the other detrimental to the same SIG's members. One of them must be wrong, and if the Minister had done some fact checking before rubber stamping this legislation, perhaps we'd know which one is right.
As I said, I have no problem with interest groups proposing changes that they think would benefit Canada or our Economy. 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.
Minister Oliver seems to be in favour of the rubber stamp approach, something every Conservative government for the last generation has lambasted the Liberals for doing.
I think you're doing a lot of assuming here.
Special interest groups don't draft legislation. They may provide information to assist or to make policy, but it's the staff that goes over that information and develops legislation if the information fits.
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.
Didn't the special interest group just write the legislation, and didn't the Minister state that they didn't really review it (rubber stamp)?