Log In
Register
Home
Topic RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Email this2:40 pm
December 12, 2009
Offline
Buried in Annex 3, the Government of Canada is proposing to eliminate the legal tender status of the following outmoded bank notes that are still in circulation but no longer printed by the Bank of Canada, ostensibly to, "better manage the money supply."
From page 384 of the Budget Plan:
Maintaining a Robust Currency Regime
Canadians need secure bank notes that they can use with confidence
and pride.Payment technologies continue to evolve, but cash remains a resilient payment instrument. However, large denominations facilitate illicit activities such as counterfeiting, money laundering and tax evasion.
The Government proposes to introduce legislative amendments to facilitate the maintenance of high-quality bank notes in the money supply and to provide greater clarity on the bank notes that can be used as legal tender. These changes would allow the Government to better manage the money supply so that it is safe and secure for Canadians.
Following these legislative amendments, the Government intends to initiate the process to remove the legal tender status of bank note denominations no longer issued by the Bank of Canada (i.e., $1000, $500, $25, $2 and $1). The Bank of Canada would continue to honour these bank notes and exchange them at their face value.
In addition, legislation governing the declaration of currency and monetary instruments is in place to protect Canadians and the integrity of the Canadian financial system, while supporting the efficient flow of travellers at the border. The Government will propose targeted amendments to ensure that this legislation remains up to date.
The Bank of Canada will still honour and exchange them at face value, either by mail/courier or through financial institutions that participate in that facilitation process; however, they will no longer be accepted as legal tender bank notes anywhere. Practically, this doesn't amount to much, except for the $1 and $2 bank notes, which I assume might still be exchanged on occasion. 🙁
Cheers,
Doug
9:28 pm
October 21, 2013
Online
Thanks for looking into these things, Doug.
9:22 am
December 12, 2009
Offline
Loonie said
Thanks for looking into these things, Doug.
No problem, Loonie. The best stuff is usually at the end of the budget, in the annexes. 🙂
There was a lot of talk in the budget about "gender pay equity," but such is fluff. I was also disappointed in the lack of details on improving service delivery at both CRA and Service Canada for Employment Insurance calls. They talk about adding funds to hire additional employees, contingent on case volumes and such, but what I want is details. Also, throwing more money at a "bloated beast" doesn't accomplish much, in my opinion. What I wanted to see is for them to add two-way messaging to their secure online message centres so you could raise a case number, or respond to an existing one, using My Service Canada Account or your CRA Account. I think that alone would reduce call centre call volumes and being told, "we're sorry, we cannot take your call right now. please hang up and try again later." Anyone disagree?
Cheers,
Doug
9:52 pm
October 21, 2013
Online
Might be a good idea, Doug. I avoid calling them as much as possible due to their unreliability in accuracy. There needs to be some way for them to be held accountable for their answers, or else there is no point in giving them.
I don't know who would want to go work for them until they have figured out how to issue paycheques reliably. To be fair, this is a problem they inherited from the previous govt, but they are a long way from having it fixed. I would have reverted to an old fashioned non-computer set-up by now! Hand-wringing is not good enough. A small business person would simply HAVE to provide a timely solution, even if it meant they stayed up nights poring over ledgers.
I'm not convinced it's bloated as they seem very busy when one tries to phone, but it appears they need better training or rules that are more transparent, or both. This is not new, however.
10:28 pm
December 12, 2009
Offline
Loonie said
Might be a good idea, Doug. I avoid calling them as much as possible due to their unreliability in accuracy. There needs to be some way for them to be held accountable for their answers, or else there is no point in giving them.I don't know who would want to go work for them until they have figured out how to issue paycheques reliably. To be fair, this is a problem they inherited from the previous govt, but they are a long way from having it fixed. I would have reverted to an old fashioned non-computer set-up by now! Hand-wringing is not good enough. A small business person would simply HAVE to provide a timely solution, even if it meant they stayed up nights poring over ledgers.
I'm not convinced it's bloated as they seem very busy when one tries to phone, but it appears they need better training or rules that are more transparent, or both. This is not new, however.
It's partially the Conservatives' fault, but I blame the institutional so-called "deep state," the upper echelons of the federal public service for the Phoenix pay fiasco. Centralizing pay operations makes sense but, get this, apparently it was just your run of the mill PeopleSoft HR and payroll system; however, of course, the government (the mandarins, not their political masters) wanted all these add-ons and customizations and I bet that's where it got all fudged up. 
As to "bloated beast," no I didn't meant the front line CRA and Service Canada agents; I meant the multiple layers of unnecessary management in both agencies and the federal government itself. 😉
Cheers,
Doug
2:51 am
October 21, 2013
Online
I odn't know much about payroll systems, especially large modern ones, but it's interesting that I haven't heard of any other organizations having such an extensive problem. it really does make you wonder what on earth has gone on here. If it were a business, the Department of Labour would be after them for not paying employees. I don't know if this has happened here but i haven't heard it. I am just flabbergasted that it seems to go on and on, people are suffering, and yet the government's responses seem so limp.
5:59 am
September 11, 2013
Offline
Loonie, I don't wonder, I know exactly what's going on. Having had extensive experience with the federal civil service and the mandarins at both lower and higher levels I can assure you this is typical of the quality of the "work" that goes on inside those walls, just that hardly anything ever comes to light like this has. Based on many comments on here over the years about large financial institutions, I'm beginning to wonder if it's not about gov't per se, it's about any large bureaucracy - though I still assume govt's worse because at the end of the day it never goes bankrupt, just keeps rolling on.
9:00 am
December 12, 2009
Offline
Bill said
... Based on many comments on here over the years about large financial institutions, I'm beginning to wonder if it's not about gov't per se, it's about any large bureaucracy - though I still assume govt's worse because at the end of the day it never goes bankrupt, just keeps rolling on.
*applause*
Great points, Bill. I appreciate your perspective after having, presumably, worked in the federal public service for many years. Incompetence as the operative word almost doesn't seem to do it justice, does it? That's a salient point, too, that perhaps it's more of an "institutional issue" rather than a political one...up until this comment that you just made and the Phoenix pay system debacle, I used to get so fed up with the political partisanship and games being played, I actually called for going back to just having the Queen and Governor General name the Head of Public Service that Head reports to them on a regular basis. A lot of power in unelected hands, I know, but we'd (presumably) get more done...or would we? I don't know anymore. Also, like you said, when these fiascos happen in government, government just writes it off, takes its "licks" and moves on. A billion here, a billion there, "oh, that's only $30 for every man, woman and child. 6 Starbucks coffees. Oops. Our bad," they'll say. 🙁
Cheers,
Doug
10:45 am
October 21, 2013
Online
It seems to me that the challenge may be one of how to change organizational culture in an institution which can, will, and must endure.
We have to recognize that government is a different kind of organization than private business. Businesses can and do come to an end, but government, by its nature, cannot. Further, the ultimate "bosses", i.e. who is in power, change regularly, making for an inconsistent kind of management which is inevitably wasteful as one undoes what the previous one did; and, although I am in favour of democracy, there is no guarantee that those bosses know anything about what they are charged with doing. A certain amount of inefficiency is built in to a democratic system, making it a perennial target for criticism.
Attempts over the last decade or so to change the internal culture of the RCMP may be illustrative. There have been revelations of bad behaviour, some heads have rolled; they even brought in a civilian head. But, to judge from ongoing news reports, the culture has not fundamentally changed,and it seems nobody really knows how to change it.
I worked for a different level of government for some years and found that my major frustration was not so much upper management itself. Certainly a lot of time was wasted there, but the underlying problem was changing whims as different governments came and went. One year they would be gung-ho about something or other; but by the time that had trickled down and gone into effect, a new government would come to power, priorities changed, and upper management had to spend their time writing new programmes and policies and managing transitions rather than doing anything truly productive. If you stuck around long enough, the earlier ideas would come back into vogue. The people who knew most about what actually worked, the front line workers and lower level managers, had no say in the major decisions, which then put them into "resistance" mode, making them less effective than they might have been. And the cycle would repeat. And, thus, Dilbert became a must-read.
Another case in point is the community college system in Ontario. Ranks of highly paid managers have been growing at a phenomenal rate over the last several years, yet students are increasingly being taught by underpaid temporary teachers who flit in to teach one course a week etc.
11:15 am
September 11, 2013
Offline
Hard to change organizational behaviour when human nature remains constant.
The perfect day for an incumbent politician, bureaucrat or civil servant at any level is when absolutely nothing happens, except that they are another day closer to the golden pension day. So it's not incompetence, as far as I can see, as much as everyone has a vested interest in absolutely nothing, especially change of any kind, ever happening. This coincides very nicely with the risk-averse nature of those who are attracted to public sector jobs. Just keep your head down, keep the pay, benefits and pensions gravy train (quietly) going. It's why my mainstay political approach is to always vote for anyone but the incumbent - constant turnover means zero politicians' pensions to pay. Doesn't seem to have caught on.
My TD branch tells me $100 bills are the largest denomination available. Guess that's fine, especially as we're going cashless.
2:00 pm
December 12, 2009
Offline
Bill said
Hard to change organizational behaviour when human nature remains constant.The perfect day for an incumbent politician, bureaucrat or civil servant at any level is when absolutely nothing happens, except that they are another day closer to the golden pension day. So it's not incompetence, as far as I can see, as much as everyone has a vested interest in absolutely nothing, especially change of any kind, ever happening. This coincides very nicely with the risk-averse nature of those who are attracted to public sector jobs. Just keep your head down, keep the pay, benefits and pensions gravy train (quietly) going. It's why my mainstay political approach is to always vote for anyone but the incumbent - constant turnover means zero politicians' pensions to pay. Doesn't seem to have caught on.
My TD branch tells me $100 bills are the largest denomination available. Guess that's fine, especially as we're going cashless.
I'm starting to adopt that voting approach, Bill. Unless the Conservatives have some wacky or dictatorial leader (i.e., Stephen Harper) hell bent on crime & justice and "focus on the family" agendas, I might just vote for them next time, which would be kind of weird because, although they're not in power, locally the Conservative MP is the incumbent (he's never been in cabinet, though).
I tend to like the Green Party and Elizabeth May.
Cheers,
Doug
7:49 am
July 10, 2011
Offline
I've always said if you don't vote for Conservatives your dooming this Country and ever since I've started saying it it's held true.. Justin V Trump is the greatest example of #LiberalIncompetence you could ever ask for.. There is simply no excuse for Leaving the Liberals in power anywhere in this Country..
Please write your comments in the forum.