The Scottish secession referendum question

Isn't this a light Friday afternoon blog post? Well, we can't help what we are interested in and when.

Yes, the Scots are having one, in case you have missed this development. It's a few years away, incredibly, but things are taking shape now. Polly Curtis at the Guardian does a blog post checking in with various experts on the Scottish National Party's favoured wording for the referendum question on independence. Here is what they propose to ask:

Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?

While it may appear straightforward on first glance, what possible harm could there be in that, etc., there is much more to it. There is the presumptive framing, done by the Scottish National Party, that leads to a yes vote of agreement with the statement, for starters. People generally are predisposed to be agreeable so there is an issue of the yes side being favoured. That's what self-interested framers of referendum questions tend to do.

A second issue is that people may want a degree of greater independence but not necessarily full independence from the UK, so there is an issue of vagueness with what the term "independent country" means. Yet they must say "yes" or "no" in response to the question. There are other procedural issues too, in terms of whether an independent electoral body will have a final say over the choice of question. The Scottish National Party leader is playing nice, at this point, but we know how heated these things can get.

While secession rumblings in Canada have significantly waned, such a referendum is still something of interest to Canadians given the familiarity of the issues as a result of our own experience. Thankfully though, in contrast to the developing Scottish process, we have a Clarity Act that addresses how a secession referendum would be treated by the federal government. So while it's a compelling comparative exercise, the comparison only goes so far.

The Scots have a lot of time to deal with the procedure and wrangle over referendum details, the referendum is being held in the fall of 2014. Which is novel timing. The movement could dissipate or become old hat by then. Or, it could allow for a sustained building of support. I find this two year period interesting and, separate and apart from secession referendums, possibly a useful way to focus a country on a single major constitutional issue. Maybe a partial remedy for the complaint here.

Referendum fans, there you go, one to watch.

More on raising the Old Age Security age eligibility

Update below.

A brief follow-up to yesterday's post on the possibility of a hike in OAS age eligibility here. Here is the first of many analyses likely to come along now that Harper has raised the issue of "major" reforms to Canada's pension system, namely the OAS: "Does Harper really need to raise the retirement age?" The upshot of the piece is that no, he does not.

On the other hand, Canada is different because, unlike most other countries, our public pension commitments are not a substantial threat to our public finances. The Canada Pension Plan is in long-run balance. Old Age Security currently takes only 2.41 per cent of GDP. Very few OECD countries have lower levels of public pension spending as a share of GDP than Canada. To take the extreme example, Italy spends more than 14 per cent of GDP on public pensions -- up from 10 per cent only a few years ago.

How will spending in Canada grow as the baby boomers age? By 2031 -- at the peak of the baby-boom retirement wave -- the share of GDP spent on Old Age Security will rise to 3.14 per cent, for an increase of 0.73 per cent over today’s level. Now, an increase of 0.73 per cent of GDP cannot be ignored, but neither is it disastrous. To provide some scale, David Dodge and Richard Dion project that spending on health will grow from 12 per cent to 18.7 per cent of GDP by 2031, for an increase of 6.7 percentage points. In the fight for government spending dollars in 2031, health is the elephant and the Old Age Security pension is the mouse.

Worth a read.

To be continued.

Update (4:20 p.m.): The PMO's talking points. Don't worry, we're going to phase it in, they say, to stave off criticism. Not dealing with substantive criticisms such as the above though. Yet.

Late night moonwalking

Just too fun to resist. How the Gingrich moon base plan fared in the Republican debate tonight. Predictable responses from his fellow candidates, largely challenging the expense it would represent. Not so predictable, Newt's invocation of Chinese competition on the moon front.

Even as he spoke at the CNN debate, Gingrich's three rivals for the nomination seemed to be struggling not to burst into laughter. Ron Paul, when asked to weigh in on the question, dismissed the notion of colonizing the moon, quipping: "We should send some politicians to the moon."

To be continued, hopefully.

67

Harper is talking pension reform in Davos and one big change could be coming:

In the wake of Harper's speech, it now appears that the Conservative government could be poised to gradually change the Old Age Security system so that the age of eligibility is raised to 67 from 65.

More from Canadian Press:

On pensions, the government will move to ensure that demands on the Old Age Security benefit don't bankrupt the system.

"Our demographics also constitute a threat to the social programs and services that Canadians cherish," he said. The Canada Pension Plan "does not need to be changed" because it is fully funded, but officials point to an OAS bill that will soar as the population ages.

Current recipients of CPP and OAS won't be affected by the changes, Harper added.

OAS is a cornerstone of the retirement security system and, together with the Guaranteed Income Supplement, has been the main reason poverty among seniors in Canada is so low.

But since the population is aging and the number of taxpayers is dwindling, the program is seen as unsustainable in its current form.

Officials noted that the cost of OAS is pegged to rise to $108 billion a year in 2030 from $36 billion in 2010. That's because the number of Canadians over 65 will rise to 9.3 million in 2030 from 4.7 million in 2010.

The government has been contemplating changes to the retirement security system for years. One option could be to raise the age at which people can claim benefits.

There's been no ground laid, politically, for such a change to the pension system. So they're going to have a hard sell on it if this is indeed the plan. The Conservative priorities will once again come under serious scrutiny. These are core government services being eyed for dialing back.

And given that we have done so well during the financial crisis, weathered the storm and are relatively strong on the international financial scene, as we are constantly told by this government, it would be surprising to learn that we apparently have to take similar measures to an Italy - who are on a financial precipice - and who grappled with raising their pension age eligibility to 67 in the last few months. Granted, the Harper proposal would be to raise OAS age eligibility, not CPP, so there is a big difference. But given the tenuous savings situations for many Canadians these days, this change, if it were to be brought forth in the budget, would be significant.

Maybe Canadians will now start to wake up to the choices this government is making, a possible upside to this news.

Update (6:00 p.m.): Harper's words in Davos are vague. But they are being interpreted as having implications for OAS:

Our demographics also constitute a threat to the social programs and services that Canadians cherish.

For this reason, we will be taking measures in the coming months.

Not just to return to a balanced budget in the medium term, but also to ensure the sustainability of our social programs and fiscal position over the next generation.

We have already taken steps to limit the growth of our health care spending over that period.

We must do the same for our retirement income system.

Fortunately, the centrepiece of that system, the Canada Pension Plan, is fully funded, actuarially sound and does not need to be changed.

For those elements of the system that are not funded, we will make the changes necessary to ensure sustainability for the next generation while not affecting current recipients.

So Newt wants to build a moon base

I don't know, these things never seem to end well. Always too many hatches and lasers and super villains around.

Where to start with Newt's big announcement yesterday? It is a very serious announcement made during a presidential nomination contest, after all, it deserves some kind of attention, at least.

So let's start here at this fun thread in the Guardian. Check out the 6 pm entry and others around that time for example. Wink, wink, we know why Newt's big on space travel. Seriously. Tourism to the moon for honeymooners. Come on.

As those items in the Guardian demonstrate, Newt's been lunar obsessed for over twenty years now. Some might even call him a lunatic, pardon the pun. So this is not exactly original stuff from him. Hard to imagine it didn't catch fire over all that time. And now, as Americans are still in recovery mode from their great financial crisis that impacted the world, we'll see how in touch with the electorate Newt is with his "let's build a moon base by 2020." Sounds kind of expensive.

Besides, if Newt really wanted to do splashy visionary things with science, it's not so hard to find more pressing issues on earth that could do with much more U.S. government public investment and attention. Climate change is this generation's JFK moon shot and it's right under Newt's nose. Promise to solve that and the world would take note. But that kind of thinking is just not on with today's anti-science Grand Old Party.

P.S. Newt-Harper 2012.

Taking yes for an answer

A bunch of nice national headlines from the last few days.

"The Bob Rae bounce: Liberals continue to gain steam."

"Tories Lead, Liberals Gain But Remain in Third Place in Canada."

"Liberals’ momentum gets boost from lacking NDP leadership."

"Federal Vote Intention Tightens."

"New poll shows NDP support plummeting in Quebec."

Things are heading in the right direction. Good news.

Chart of the day

On Obama's likelihood of re-election, as the red line goes up, the blue line goes up.

Fun with statistics:) (h/t)

Let's not be arresting bloggers in Canada

Updated below.

There's a case going on in Fredericton, New Brunswick that deserves some attention: "Fredericton blogger's arrest attack on civil liberties." This blogger, Charles LeBlanc, who blogs here, was arrested last week on charges of criminal libel. His computer was seized in the course of a search warrant execution. Here's a good overview of the entire mess:



Note the legalities as described near the end of the video. I don't know how many online defamation suits there are in Canada at the moment but it is an extraordinary thing to be charged criminally for it and to have one's computer seized.

The Fredericton police and Crown deserve every scrutiny they get here.

P.S. Dude, lose the jacket.

(h/t)

Update: More on the law of criminal defamation, furthering the point on how rare the charge is.

Update II: Dr. Dawg had a post on this in September, writing about another recent charge of criminal libel emanating out of the G20. He sets out the principal criminal libel provision in the Criminal Code, section 298.

Note that in the case Dawg links to, the LeBlanc case above, and one other pointed out to me on Twitter this afternoon, there is a common thread. These rare cases where criminal libel charges have been issued all involve alleged defamation against police officers.

The coming public service job losses

There's a new study out by the CCPA on federal public service job cuts. The study suggests between 11,000 to 22,000 jobs could be lost in the Ottawa area and between 60,000 to 70,000 jobs across the country. This would be done in the next few years and up to 2015. David Pugliese reviews a colleague's report on the study and notes this point: "Canadian Forces and RCMP Rank-and-File Spared the Job Losses That Will Affect Thousands of Government Workers, New Study Notes." Additionally, Correctional Service Canada is unscathed and is going to be adding jobs. Clearly, it looks like the government is picking and choosing winners and losers with these cuts, based on their political priorities. That suggests that the cuts are not all about austerity and budgeting.

There is a bigger picture to consider as well. Conservatives philosophically distrust government. They don't believe in government the way that progressives do. It's not that far fetched with this government to speculate that these cuts are likely part of a dismantling agenda, making it that much harder for a future non-Conservative government to have an effective public service in place in order to help achieve progressive goals.

The cuts will no doubt be carefully messaged and massaged as sensible cutbacks following strategic operating reviews. But the alternative view should be considered as well.

You can call it what you like

Fun exchange from last night's train wreck Republican debate. Newt looks like he wants to strangle Romney. Seriously.

Clement's G8 hangover continues

A lot going on in this thorough Canadian Press story on the latest documents to be uncovered relating to the G8 spending in Tony Clement's riding of Muskoka. I'll just go with this excerpt as one that jumped out:

Mr. Dodds’ recollections also raise questions as to why Auditor General Sheila Fraser found no paper trail when she tried to determine how projects were selected. She was told no federal departments or agencies, other than Infrastructure Canada, were involved in the decision-making and could, therefore, provide no documentation.

The memo says FedNor compiled documentation on all 242 proposed projects, which it passed on to Infrastructure Canada.

How on earth does that happen, that the Auditor General finds no paper trail when indeed the paper trail is long. What is the penalty for that? Is the new Auditor General going to re-open this file?

Also appears that Tony Clement should, properly, be called back before that parliamentary committee to explain the discrepancies between what he testified and what the documents now show. What is said at parliamentary committees needs to matter and it should be pursued.

Questions, questions...that don't seem to be going away.

All the action is in Quebec

If you're like me these days, when you see a story involving the Bloc, you might yawn a little bit and gloss over it. Is it more infighting in the sovereignty movement, things not moving fast enough, yadda yadda. But this one from the weekend could make waves: "Fonds publics: Gilles Duceppe dans l'embarras." (Translation) La Presse ran a blockbuster of a story, pardon the pun, which could prove serious.

Apparently party personnel were paid, over many years, with parliamentary funds that were not to be used for partisan purposes. The sum involved is said to be about $1,000,000. If the Bloc (or Duceppe) has to repay that sum, it's not going to be that easy. There is legal advice being sought at the internal Commons committee that governs these issues. It should also be noted that Duceppe states that everything was done properly, on advice.

Nevertheless, Duceppe has been forced to back away from any intention of moving in on the PQ leadership of Pauline Marois, something he had just stepped up in recent weeks. So what incredible timing that La Presse story on Saturday had. Can you say intrigue with a capital i?

What does this mean in Quebec? The Bloc might be in more trouble than they already are, financially. They take a real credibility hit due to the severity of these allegations. They always seem to have made a strong moral appeal to their cause and that is punctured. Further, there seems to be a rift in the party. Daniel Paille fired the Duceppe holdover staff at issue on becoming leader in early December and the La Presse report became public a month later at a very well timed moment.

This is more fuel for the anti-politician mood in Quebec. In the wake of the Charest difficulties, it will likely add to public cynicism.

Pauline Marois is probably left to solidify her PQ leadership now, but given how weakened she's become, her principal rival Duceppe exiting in this manner might not make a difference to her fortunes. Charest might benefit if the PQ continue to reel, particularly if it truly becomes a two way race toward a 2013 election now. The ADQ has just folded itself into the CAQ, showing that the forces of change are still on the move in the province, manifesting themselves in the form of the CAQ.

Federally in Quebec, we see these continued troubles for the Bloc, we saw the floor crosser from the NDP. Then, this week, we see the Conservatives doing a bit of a circular firing squad thing where a Conservative organizer decried the lack of attention by the party in the province and noted "...there is an opportunity for the Liberals to retake a fair bit of ground in the province,particularly if the party goes through with the democratic renewal measures under consideration at its convention." Well, Liberals have taken some of those steps, i.e., the supporters resolution and possibly with a few policy measures that will be of interest to Quebecers (marijuana legalization, preferential balloting).

So many moving pieces! Lots going on in that province, no easy answers or conclusions. Situation: fluid.

Inspirational

Wow, what can you say about Giffords' spirit and recovery. She is truly inspirational.

Late night

The victory speech by Newt Gingrich in South Carolina last night. If you missed it, there's a notable mention of Stephen Harper by Gingrich. It happens shortly after the 20 minute mark. You may wish to fast forward to that moment if your blowhard threshold is low.

Long story short, in the course of criticizing President Obama on his decision to nix the Keystone pipeline, Gingrich played up the point that Prime Minister Harper is a Conservative and is "pro-American." Thereby seeming to roll with the whole ethical oil position in doing so. Otherwise, why mention the political leanings of Harper?

It was an entertaining little spectacle of a moment. Gingrich embracing Harper is likely a turnoff to most Canadians. After all, to anyone watching, as a lot of Canadians were, elsewhere in the same speech, Gingrich tars Obama as the "food stamp" President with the obvious racial undertones accompanying that label. Gingrich also commonly refers to Obama as a radical and a Saul Alinsky organizer and he did so in this speech as well. Hard to imagine that this is the kind of embrace and speech the Harper communications types - who are so careful with the Harper image - wish to be associated with. Harper didn't appear in public the day the Keystone decision was announced, it was left to a statement for Harper's reaction and for Joe Oliver to speak in public about. Think Mr. Harper was pleased to see his name so clearly associated with the project in Gingrich's widely watched speech? Probably not.

As for the Republican race, what a disaster. Gingrich actually has a shot now, at least he does until people take their next close look at him. Will leave off here with Andrew Sullivan's take:

My take away? This is the Republican crack-up people have been predicting for years. Gingrich is on a roll. I think he can win this - and then lose this in a way that could change America history. That is a brief impression in one moment of time. But I cannot see Romney winning this at this point. They are just not into him, and he's an awful candidate.

Dr. Doom on Canada

Nouriel Roubini in the Globe today:

What's your assessment of how well Canada is doing in the current global environment?

It's a mixed picture. The overall fundamentals are better than many advanced economies. The fiscal situation, the balance sheet, is better. The banks have been better regulated. But now, with weakness in U.S. and Europe, growth will be below trend. Household debt is rising. There is some frothiness in the housing market. I don't see a bust as in the U.S., but I would not rule out a 10-per-cent correction.

And at that point the Globe interviewer proceeds to ask Roubini about how many Twitter followers he has. I would have thought there would be a follow-up question on Canada's economy given what he said on the housing market but that's just me I guess. Plus this interview style just seems whack and a little off given the interview subject. For example, "Why have you never married?" Um, excuse me? Anyway, read on for Roubini's take that the European austerity push is wrong and for more dire economic predictions for 2013 and beyond.

All of which would have consequences for Canada's economy in the next few years and the political dynamics. Which parties are going to be the ones who speak credibly on economic issues in view of these uncertain times is a question for Canada's opposition political parties to step up and answer. We know that the Conservatives claim to occupy this space but it can't be ceded to them (and won't be, of course).

It's a tough road for parties of the center and left. In Britain, Ed Miliband is struggling to provide a credible alternative position to the coalition. Here, see Caplan today urging the NDP to start ramping up (last paragraph, although the CCPA doesn't align itself with partisans, come now). There's been little in the way of economic policy making a splash in the NDP campaign, not eye catching to the broader public that is.

And of course the Liberals will be conscious of this too and will need to develop economic policies as a party in the next few years, policies that were non-existent at the just concluded policy convention. It may be a prominent feature of the coming leadership race as well, at least, you'd think the smart candidates would speak to economic issues with a view to this backdrop.

Roubini's that guy who called the U.S. housing collapse so he's always a noteworthy commentator to take in and colour our worlds, doom and all. Happy Saturday!