Local Line

So bad it might pass

Dhalla's OAS entitlement bill puts politics before common sense

By PETER WORTHINGTON, QMI Agency

Last Updated: April 12, 2010 2:00am

Periodically, a private member’s bill is introduced in Parliament that is so foolish and illogical it has no chance, yet because it’s so asinine rational folk fear it might pass.

Such a bill is C-428, proposed by Ruby Dhalla (of alleged harassed nannies fame), Liberal MP for Brampton. She would reduce from 10 years to three the time an elderly immigrant would have to wait to claim Old Age Security (OAS) or Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS).

Dhalla’s audacious bill can be justified in that she represents a riding replete with many of East Indian origin who’d love to bring aging kinfolk to Canada to reap old age benefits after three years.

Distressing to some is that Bob Rae seconded Ruby’s outrageous bill and gave it instant credibility it didn’t deserve. The ever-preppy turncoat NDP provincial premier now has his eye on being federal Liberal leader and springboarding to the prime ministership.

Rae’s ambitions never fade. He’s the one most likely to inherit Michael Ignatieff’s job, should Iggy get bored with Liberals, or the Liberal Party gets fed up with him. Rae may yet get a chance to do to Canada what he did to Ontario as its premier.

In any event, Dhalla’s bill to reduce the eligibility wait for OAS entitlement from 10 to three years will escalate costs and reduce the amount pensioners should receive. Already, the system is hard-pressed to prevent old gaffers from actually losing ground as the economy struggles and baby boomers grow older.

RCMP and Canadian Forces personnel are acutely aware they’re already scapegoated in having Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) benefits merged rather than stacked, and that the government “claws back” indexed benefits at age 65 — which they’d never dare doing to MPs benefits, which are exempted.

Everyone suffers financially if OAS and GIS are diluted. Ruby Dhalla doesn’t care — not her concern. Getting re-elected is her priority.

No one opposes the bringing of aging relatives to Canada, but not at the cost of adulterating already generous OAS requirements to three years. If the elderly migrate here, let families look after them until the 10-year standard is met.

There’s no indication the Harper government will give in on this issue, but you never know. Ruby Dhalla still wants more apologizing and grovelling for what is known as the Komagata Maru incident.

Komagata Maru incident? What the hell is that, you ask? Well, it was a ship hired in 1914 to take some 370 Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims to Canada. Passengers were prevented from landing at Vancouver, and the ship was sent back to India.

At Calcutta, six months later, passengers rebelled at being moved to shore camps, shots were fired and some 20 were killed. That was called the Budge Budge incident. It involved Brits, not Canadians. It was decided the ship was loaded with Ghadar party people agitating for independence.

Harper has already apologized a couple of times for the Indians being rejected at Vancouver, even though most Canadians haven’t a clue why an apology is necessary, much less why today’s government and taxpayers should pay compensation for something that happened long ago that only history books remember.

Of course it isn’t necessary — it’s more politics for votes that the Tories don’t deserve and won’t get.

Instead, Ruby may grow in popularity. Maybe Bob Rae, too. Ugh.


	LOCAL LINE
Home SFD Retirees SFD History SPFFA History Fires of the Past Photo Albums Local Line Links Events Facebook Scarborough Fire Line of Duty Deaths	So bad it might pass Dhalla's OAS entitlement bill puts politics before common sense By PETER WORTHINGTON, QMI Agency Last Updated: April 12, 2010 2:00am Periodically, a private member’s bill is introduced in Parliament that is so foolish and illogical it has no chance, yet because it’s so asinine rational folk fear it might pass. Such a bill is C-428, proposed by Ruby Dhalla (of alleged harassed nannies fame), Liberal MP for Brampton. She would reduce from 10 years to three the time an elderly immigrant would have to wait to claim Old Age Security (OAS) or Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS). Dhalla’s audacious bill can be justified in that she represents a riding replete with many of East Indian origin who’d love to bring aging kinfolk to Canada to reap old age benefits after three years. Distressing to some is that Bob Rae seconded Ruby’s outrageous bill and gave it instant credibility it didn’t deserve. The ever-preppy turncoat NDP provincial premier now has his eye on being federal Liberal leader and springboarding to the prime ministership. Rae’s ambitions never fade. He’s the one most likely to inherit Michael Ignatieff’s job, should Iggy get bored with Liberals, or the Liberal Party gets fed up with him. Rae may yet get a chance to do to Canada what he did to Ontario as its premier. In any event, Dhalla’s bill to reduce the eligibility wait for OAS entitlement from 10 to three years will escalate costs and reduce the amount pensioners should receive. Already, the system is hard-pressed to prevent old gaffers from actually losing ground as the economy struggles and baby boomers grow older. RCMP and Canadian Forces personnel are acutely aware they’re already scapegoated in having Canadian Pension Plan (CPP) benefits merged rather than stacked, and that the government “claws back” indexed benefits at age 65 — which they’d never dare doing to MPs benefits, which are exempted. Everyone suffers financially if OAS and GIS are diluted. Ruby Dhalla doesn’t care — not her concern. Getting re-elected is her priority. No one opposes the bringing of aging relatives to Canada, but not at the cost of adulterating already generous OAS requirements to three years. If the elderly migrate here, let families look after them until the 10-year standard is met. There’s no indication the Harper government will give in on this issue, but you never know. Ruby Dhalla still wants more apologizing and grovelling for what is known as the Komagata Maru incident. Komagata Maru incident? What the hell is that, you ask? Well, it was a ship hired in 1914 to take some 370 Sikhs, Hindus, Muslims to Canada. Passengers were prevented from landing at Vancouver, and the ship was sent back to India. At Calcutta, six months later, passengers rebelled at being moved to shore camps, shots were fired and some 20 were killed. That was called the Budge Budge incident. It involved Brits, not Canadians. It was decided the ship was loaded with Ghadar party people agitating for independence. Harper has already apologized a couple of times for the Indians being rejected at Vancouver, even though most Canadians haven’t a clue why an apology is necessary, much less why today’s government and taxpayers should pay compensation for something that happened long ago that only history books remember. Of course it isn’t necessary — it’s more politics for votes that the Tories don’t deserve and won’t get. Instead, Ruby may grow in popularity. Maybe Bob Rae, too. Ugh. [Toronto Sun] LANCASTER'S FIREFIGHTERS/FIRE SERVICES EMPLOYMENT LAW E-BULLETIN December 18, 2009 Issue No. 31 *WHERE UNION AGREES TO LOW WAGE INCREASE, RESTORATION TO NORMATIVE LEVELS WILL BE GRADUALIZED, ARBITRATOR RULES* The Facts: After municipalities in the Toronto area amalgamated and formed the City of Toronto in 1998, salary increases for firefighters were established by an interest arbitration board chaired by Martin Teplitsky. However, while all firefighters from the former municipalities were eventually brought to the same salary level, Etobicoke firefighters did not achieve full parity with the other firefighters until January 1, 2001. The Etobicoke firefighters maintained that full parity should have been awarded to them in 1998, thus entitling them to greater retroactivity. Litigation ensued between the Etobicoke firefighters, the Toronto Firefighters' Association and the City of Toronto. The action was settled by an agreement to refer the issue to the original interest arbitration board. The Arguments: The Etobicoke firefighters requested that their salaries be increased, as of 1998, to equal those of the other firefighter groups in Toronto, each of which was awarded the same wage rate in 1998. In the alternative, they submitted that full parity with the other firefighter groups in Toronto should have been achieved earlier than January 1, 2001. While they accepted that the Board's decision was a discretionary one requiring consideration of many factors, it was the Etobicoke firefighters' position that "the most important factor, which should prevail over all others, was pay equity; that is, all firefighters in Toronto should earn the same rate of pay, at the first opportunity, i.e. 1998, regardless of their earnings pre-amalgamation or any other factor." The City did not agree. The Decision: The interest arbitration board, chaired by Martin Teplitsky, reconvened, seven years after it had originally sat, and considered the matter de novo (afresh), but it unanimously denied the Etobicoke firefighters' request. The chair accepted that pay equity was an important factor, but declared that it was not the only factor to be considered: "There are other factors which must be taken into account, one of which, in this Board's opinion, is the dynamic of collective bargaining which may, depending on the circumstances, call for incremental change in working conditions and gradualized improvement in wages." Elaborating further on the role of gradualization in the collective bargaining process, the chair stated: "Gradualization reflects the collective bargaining reality that catch-up may not be achieved all at once, rather over a period of time, in situations where employees have through their own negotiations placed themselves in a position from which they subsequently seek to be relieved." In this regard, the chair found that the salaries of the Etobicoke firefighters "fell behind" in the circumstances at hand because of the give-and-take of collective bargaining: "[T]he Etobicoke firefighters accepted 0% in 1996 and 0% in 1997 – a lower settlement than they otherwise would have achieved – to secure a particular goal in bargaining. They could not reasonably expect their salaries to be restored fully the following year because the effect of immediate restoration would be to deprive the employer of the benefit of its bargain, which involved an ongoing cost. In the ordinary course of bargaining, this self-created falling behind would have been gradually redressed over several years." "Employees should neither benefit nor be harmed by amalgamation," the chair stated, pointing out that to grant the Etobicoke firefighters' request for immediate full parity in 1998 would result in giving them a benefit that they would not have achieved otherwise: "To award an increase in 1998 of more than 5% to Etobicoke firefighters to bring them immediately to full parity with other firefighter groups in Toronto would have given them a benefit from amalgamation that they would not have achieved in free collective bargaining." Striking the appropriate balance between "the competing interests of parity and respect for the collective bargaining process," the board denied the request of the Etobicoke firefighters, ruling that "incremental catching-up of the Etobicoke firefighters is consistent with sound labour relations and with prevailing collective bargaining practices. The alternative, a windfall, would be inconsistent with sound labour relations." Comment: This interest arbitration turned, in part, on the issue of replication – that is, the board should seek to award a collective agreement as close as possible to what would likely have been achieved through collective bargaining had that been possible. In this regard, once the Etobicoke firefighters accepted a lower wage increase in return for an (unspecified) collective bargaining gain, the die was cast. Case Name: Toronto Professional Firefighters Association and Certain Firefighters of the Former City of Etobicoke v. Corporation of the City of Toronto Jurisdiction: Ontario Proceeding: Interest Arbitration Arbitrator: Martin Teplitsky, Chair Date: June 18, 2009 Full Text: http://onlinedb.lancasterhouse.com/images/up-Teplitsky_TorontoFF.pdf

LOCAL LINE

So bad it might pass