Tag Archives: Budget 2026

QP: Zombie statistics to justify gas tax whinging

Posted on by

The PM was in town but not at QP for reasons unknown, while Pierre Poilievre was off in Toronto giving another speech to the Canadian Club. That left it up to Luc Berthold to lead off in French, dredging up the false zombie statistic about the number of Canadians who are a mere $200 away from insolvency (guys, that stat doesn’t say what you think it says, and it’s never been accurate), before whining that the government voted down their Supply Day motion on removing all gas taxes (even though the clean fuel standard is not a tax, or even a charge). Steven MacKinnon listed all of the supports for Canadians that the Conservatives voted against, before noting that wages in Canada have been rising at 4.7 percent year-over-year, while that figure is just 3.5 percent in the U.S. Berthold complained that gas is twenty percent cheaper in the U.S. than in Canada, called the government’s policies inflationary, and again made a plea for the government to cut all gas taxes. MacKinnon reminded him that in February (the last month for which there are statistics), inflation was at 1.8%, which is within the Bank of Canada’s target band. Melissa Lantsman took over in English to repeat the same first question, and Tim Hodgson got up to remind her that they already cut gas taxes by 28¢/litre with the consumer carbon levy, and have the enhanced GST credit and income tax cut. Lantsman also complained that their Supply Day motion was voted down, and again all gas taxes be cut, and Hogson noted that while this government cut gas taxes by 28¢/litre, the Americans have not cut theirs at all. Shuvaloy Majumdar took over and made the same plea to cut gas taxes, and this time Sean Fraser got up to expound on the two visions of Canada, where the Conservatives’ was to cut taxes for the wealthy while the Liberals are building a strong economy. Majumdar repeated the falsehood about $200 from insolvency, and Patty Hajdu got up to proclaim how much families are saving thanks to the current government.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she raised the issue of the added aluminium tariffs, to which Dominic LeBlanc appreciated her concern, and he assured her that they were working on the issue, and that he has raised it with this American counterparts. Normandin worried about businesses suffering from this, and LeBlanc repeated his assurances. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay took over to ask the same again (because they need more clips), and LeBlanc repeated the same assurances yet again.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The thing about windfall taxes

Posted on by

In the discussion over “pausing” the excise tax on gasoline and diesel, and the Conservatives’ demands that all other fuel charges be scrapped (including the clean fuel standard which is not a charge or a tax), versus the NDP’s call for a price cap and windfall tax, there hasn’t been a lot of discussion about what those will mean.

Enter economist Kevin Milligan, who has a good thread explaining the problem with windfall taxes, and why those advocating for them have a lot more explaining to do when it comes to just how they see them being implemented.

Adam asks a fair question here that has been bandied about. Let me offer two arguments against a windfall tax that I would wager FIN officials would make when advising cabinet on what to do. I'll also offer my own assessment of the two arguments.1/

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:15:37.601Z

Why would FIN argue against an oil/gas windfall tax?FIN Arg #1: Ideally we set taxes in advance and then let firms and people make their choices based on those taxes. Changing taxes <i>ex post</i> risks upsetting investors who would view this as a mark of an unstable unserious country.

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:17:39.157Z

My response: Yes, ideally we set taxes ex ante and let firms/people decide what to do. Changing that ex post is like reneging. All true. But I do think FIN overindexes on this argument. Every time we change taxes we literally 'renege' on the status quo./3

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:19:52.099Z

If you took the 'no tax changes ex post' argument completely as sacrosanct, it essentially argues for no tax changes ever. That's silly.I also note the "no ex post changes because we're not a banana republic" argument only gets hauled out when it's a tax *increase*. Why not symmetric? Hmmm…/4

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:21:48.449Z

Why would FIN argue against an oil/gas windfall tax?FIN Arg #2: How do you define a "windfall"? What is this year's profit? What is last year's profit? You realize these are accounting numbers, subject to lots of choice variables for shifting between tax years, right? /5

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:24:09.737Z

Fin Arg #2 cont'd: The concern is that you'd end up with a lot of accounting gaming and not as much revenue as you'd think. A lot of time/effort/dollars spent on creating the tax law to minimize gaming. A lot of time/effort/dollars spent by firms avoiding a windfall tax law./6

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:25:51.216Z

My take on accounting and windfall taxes:I recall reading historical precedents around WW2 (?) that outlined how much effort it was relative to the revenue. I recall that being persuasive. (Don't have the source at my fingertips….)But I take the windfall tax accounting issue seriously./7

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:28:08.463Z

So, my advice to those who advocate for a windfall tax? The thing you could do to overcome government resistance is to look seriously at the accounting issues involved.Chanting slogans is one thing. Overcoming implementation barriers is maybe less fun, but necessary to gettin stuff done./end

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:31:43.152Z

It only boils down to 'let the rich have their way' if you assume that windfall tax advocates aren't capable of getting their accounting shit together. Why be so defeatist?I outlined a path for advocates. If the response is 'gee that sounds hard' that's not my prob.bsky.app/profile/open…

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:40:14.904Z

I'm not here to blow sunshine and tell you that hard things are easy. Hard things are hard. If you're determined you can do them. But if you don't want to do the work then I'm not going to take the proposal seriously.

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T15:42:31.333Z

It’s clear that Avi Lewis hasn’t actually thought any of this through. He was on Power & Politics last night and kept trying to handwave away the questions about this plan, and it just kept boiling down to “oil companies bad.” I do think it’s a problem that we’re not seizing on this opportunity to make long-term investments to get off of our dependence on fossil fuels like the French did with their transition to nuclear in the seventies and eighties (because so much European power relied on Middle Eastern fossil fuels up until the oil embargo in the seventies), but nobody seems to want to have that conversation, and Carney has been pretty adamant that he thinks there is a future in the fossil fuel sector. It’s too bad we have no grown-ups who can have a serious conversation about this.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia fired missiles into Kyiv early this morning, killing thirteen so far including twelve-year-old child and wounding several others. This was after more missile and drone attacks were made through the day, which included hitting an apartment building in Odesa. Ukraine’s army has been introducing new drone infantry capabilities, which has resulted in retaking more territory from Russian occupation.

Continue reading →

QP: Chirping about excise taxes

Posted on by

The PM was finally present today, sure to make a victory lap before taking off again. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he listed the supposed taxes on fuel (not all of which are taxes), and he took credit for Mark Carney taking off the excise tax, and invited him to remove all others. Carney praised the government’s “comprehensive” plan for affordability which is not just the excise tax, but their other tax cuts. Poilievre decried the effect on the working class, lied about “printing money,” and returned to his demand about removing other taxes. Carney noted that he is the federal prime minister and the biggest taxes on Gasoline are provincial, before he noted that inflation is on target and salaries are rising at twice the rate of inflation. Poilievre turned to English to repeat his first question, and this time, Carney repeated his response and added that Poilievre’s plan would substantially raise the deficit. Poilievre repeated his lie about money printing, and Carney raised his record as a central bank governor and repeated his point about inflation and wages rising faster. Poilievre kept going about the lie about “money-printing,” and tried to claim economic superiority, and Carney retorted that he feels like he is in the presence of students before praising the IMF’s latest projections for the Canadian economy. Poilievre shrugged this off as “Liberal arrogance,” and repeated his demand to cut all gas taxes. Carney said that to learn a lesson, you needs to have ears to hear, and that some on the opposition benches were listening, before he praised the increase in wages. 

John-Paul Danko just got warned by the Speaker for chirping about Poilievre’s education. #QP

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-04-15T18:26:55.427Z

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he raised the recent White House changes to steel and aluminium tariffs, and wondered what the response was. Carney assured him that they are working on it, and engaging stakeholders to build a strong Quebec and Canada. Blanchet carried on worrying about these changes, and Carney insisted that negotiations are ongoing, but we are still starting off with the best agreement in the world with the U.S. Blanchet carried on with the worries about companies in this situation and Carney notes that since his election, tariffs have come down, and they are still working toward more progress, before patting himself on the back for the Terrebonne victory.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Embracing dumb populist measures

Posted on by

Apparently, everyone is getting in on the dumb populist moves when it comes to gasoline prices—prime minister Mark Carney included. In the morning, Carney announced that he was going to suspend the excise tax on fuel (10¢/litre for gasoline, 4¢/litre for diesel) until Labour Day in order to help with the rising cost of gasoline thanks to the Iran conflict, and gearing it to the summer travel season. This is not quite what the Conservatives have been demanding, which is to remove the excise tax, the GST and the clean fuel standard (which they deliberately misconstrue as a tax when it’s not even a charge). In both cases, it’s crass populism that is bad economics. If prices are rising due to external factors, credible economists will tell you the best thing to do is increase transfers to lower-income households because they need it most. Just cutting fuel prices at the time when they’re rising because of a global shortage encourages people to buy more, which exacerbates the shortage. And yes, we produce most of the gas we consume in this country, but not all parts of the country do, and the east coast in particular will be more vulnerable to the global shortage, and this could be very bad. This is certainly not the technocratic government that we were promised under Carney.

Hmm. Around the world I see oil/gas price caps, subsidizing demand for things in short supply.We have seen this before. Doesn't end well!

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-14T16:52:07.899Z

Blake provides some solid technocratic economist advice.But in the age of slopulism there just doesn't seem to be any appetite for policy that delays gratification even minimally. bsky.app/profile/blak…

— Kevin Milligan (@kevinmilligan.bsky.social) 2026-04-14T16:57:34.839Z

Yeah, that's bad. Dumb populism.Think about it this way: If you had a pot of cash to hand out, who would you send it to? I'm guessing you wouldn't say: “Folks who drive a lot are obviously the neediest; that's who deserves my cash.. Also, I would love to subsidize reliance on foreign oil.”

— Justin Wolfers (@justinwolfers.bsky.social) 2026-04-14T23:23:40.959Z

Pierre Poilievre, meanwhile, has decided that his latest line of attack is to claim that Carney has been “badly educated” in economics, which is…hilarious. Poilievre has no economics training, but because he watches crypto bros on YouTube, he thinks he’s got a better economics understanding that someone with degrees from Harvard and Oxford, and was the governor of the central bank for two G7 countries. And when called out on it, he and Andrew Scheer are doubling down on it. The Dunning-Kruger Effect here is just blinding.

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2043853978019213462

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2043857793158131911

Tonda MacCharles: Pierre Poilievre called you badly educated in economicsMark Carney: Did he? Wow.

— Scott Robertson (@sarobertson.bsky.social) 2026-04-14T14:44:59.393Z

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2044206811390325191

Not to be outdone, Avi Lewis has his own plan for gas prices, which is to cap them and then charge windfall taxes on oil companies. Capping prices during a shortage will have the same effect as discounting prices, because the supply problem is not changed, and windfall taxes are tricky beasts because those companies will demand all kinds of government support the moment there is any kind of downturn.

It's mindless populism all the way down.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-04-14T21:54:32.368Z

https://twitter.com/andrew_leach/status/2044145727388139992

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-04-14T13:08:04.657Z

Ukraine Dispatch

A Russian missile strike on Dnipro killed at least five civilians. Ukraine has signed a deal with Norway for Norway to produce Ukrainian drones.

Continue reading →

QP: “Half-measures” on gas taxes

Posted on by

While the PM was meeting with the president of Finland, Question Period got underway without him, in spite of the fact that he could have used it to take a victory lap after last night’s by-elections wins. Pierre Poilievre was also not present, leaving it up to Andrew Scheer to led off, and just like their Supply Day motion, he demand the government cut all gas taxes, not just the excise tax (even though the clean fuel standard is not a tax or a charge in any way). François-Philippe Champagne stood up go proclaim today’s “good news”—that the IMF projects Canada to have the second-fastest growing economy in the G7, and that they have already announced the suspension of the fuel excise tax. Scheer insisted this was just a half-measure, to which Tim Hodgson stood up to praise the excise tax pause along side their other affordability measures. Pierre Paul-Hus took over in French to make the same demand, and Champagne repeated his same response en français. Paul-Hus listed the other “taxes” they wanted cut, not all of which are taxes, and Joël Lightbound stood up to pat himself on the back for all of their affordability measures. John Barlow took over and returned to English to continue to decry just how much of a half-measure this was, to which Steven MacKinnon praised not only pause in the excise tax, but that it also applies to jet fuel on domestic flights. Barlow hit back on their hypocrisy over this given they used to decry how this would make the planet burn, but again demanded all taxes on gas be cut, which would increase consumption even More. Heath MacDonald praised how much this pause would help farmers.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and she decried how much the allocation of funding for Francophone news was reduced after Corus got access to the regional fund. Marc Miller praised their supports for French-language media. Normandin said that the digital services tax could funded all of these outlets, and Miller reiterated that they were looking at more options. Martin Champoux repeated the same question once again, and Miller repeated his same response.

Continue reading →

QP: The scourge of gasoline taxes

Posted on by

On a rainy Monday in the Nation’s Capital, with the three by-elections underway in the GTA and Terrebonne, the PM was in town but not in QP. Pierre Poilievre was also absent, leaving it up to Melissa Lantsman to lead off, and she decried the price of gasoline, and demanded the government cut “gas taxes” (even though the clean fuel standard is not a tax and is not actually a government charge). François-Philippe Champagne declared that they will not take lessons from the Conservatives, that there is a conflict in the Middle East that they are monitoring, and that they just met with their provincial counterparts. Lantsman demanded action, like cutting those taxes, rather than just monitoring the situation. Champagne reminded her that they already cut taxes, and that they are helping with other programmes like dental care. Lansman tried one more time, and this time, Patty Hajdu got up to pat herself on the back for the various programmes the government has put into place that help with affordability writ large. Gabriel Hardy took over in French to again demand all gas taxes be removed, to which Steven MacKinnon reminded him that they already took off the consumer carbon levy. Hardy tried again, decrying that we weren’t like Norway (erm, really), and repeated his demand. Champagne took this one, and reminded him of their tax cuts thus far. Jason Groleau took over to make the same demand, and Joël Lightbound reminded him of the other investments they have made to reduce costs. 

Alexis Deschênes led for the Bloc, and raised the supposed ethical conflict of the finance minister with the high-speed rail project. Champagne dismissed this as ad hominem attacks, and that he followed all of the rules. Deschênes tried again, trying to tie this to the Terrebonne by-election, and MacKinnon got back up to chide him for his dishonourable question. Deschênes took one last swipe, and MacKinnon again insisted that Canadians have been waiting for a high-speed train for 50 years now, and that this will change the mobility landscape in Canada.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Poilievre’s big foreign trip

Posted on by

As Pierre Poilievre heads to London and Berlin for his first actual foreign trips as opposition leader, his office released his itinerary, which includes attending a CANZUK reception in London after meeting with parliamentarians and business leaders, and then delivering a keynotes speech in Berlin, along with meeting with officials and business leaders and touring an LNG facility.

And there’s the rub. This is going to turn into another tedious exercise of Poilievre doing a little song and dance about “Look! Europe wants our oil and gas!” when really, European leaders, after much badgering and hectoring, actually said something like “Sure, we’d like it if it was available and the right price,” neither of which is going to happen. We’ve seen this before. Certain political show hosts in our country like to engage in this very same badgering and hectoring whenever they interview a visiting European leader in order to say “Look! There’s a business case! Trudeau was wrong!” But they ignored the caveats and the economics.

The reason why LNG to Europe is never going to happen include:

  1. There is no local supply of natural gas on the east coast, so most of the feed stock would be imported from the US, raising prices locally, and if you think a cross-country pipeline is feasible, that will also increase prices in the east coast;
  2. It would take years to build an export facility, and it would take years to convert the one existing import terminal (which serves not only the local market, but also feeds into the northeastern US market);
  3. Even if these facilities existed, there has been no interest by European buyers in signing a long-term contract, which is one of the reasons why proposals for east coast LNG terminals never got off the ground. Also remember that these facilities essentially need to operate for a good thirty or forty years to make their money’s worth, and Europe is already rapidly decarbonizing.

Of course, Poilievre will ignore all of that, and declare that Europe wants our LNG, and we’ll go through this whole exercise yet again. It’s so tiresome that nobody actually wants to listen to reality on this subject.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-02-27T23:56:01.183Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia says a temporary ceasefire has been reached around the Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant in order to ensure repairs. Ukraine is setting up a joint venture with allies to produce more air defence ammunition.

https://twitter.com/KyivIndependent/status/2027352819905249375

Continue reading →

Roundup: Damage control over India’s foreign interference

Posted on by

Consider it an own-goal, as the government spent the day doing damage control over the statement by that unnamed senior official who declared that India was no longer engaged in foreign interference or transnational repression. Out of the gate first was Liberal backbench MP Sukh Dhaliwal, who condemned that official and questioned his suitability for the role.

This seems…unlikely, especially in light of reporting a few days ago that another Sikh activist had been warned of a credible threat to life. Either the government is naively believing India, or it is misleading Canadians with this statement. globalnews.ca/news/1170676…

— Jess Davis (@jessmarindavis.bsky.social) 2026-02-26T11:27:33.313Z

As the day progressed, more ministers needed to get involved. Gary Anandasangaree had to come out and say that no, they remain concerned about security issues, while Anita Anand went on TV to very carefully parse what that official said, and insist that they have an ongoing dialogue with the Indian government and that they are working toward dealing with these issues, and tried to very carefully walk the line of doing the whole “Everything’s fine!” line that Carney seems to be demanding as he departed for the trip, and trying to also let the Sikh community know that their concerns are being heard, but not really succeeding at that because their spokespeople were also on the political shows to talk about how they’re feeling like they’re being gaslit.

Honestly, this whole thing feels like another case of ineptitude at the highest levels of Carney’s government. He’s so quick to try and tout these trade deals and “strategic partnerships” that he both ignores real optics questions, and dismisses the concerns about things like, oh, human rights, or international obligations, or anything like that, and keeps bringing it back to his whole CEO shtick, which is frankly not a good look for a government. Things like rights and international law matters, and if Carney is going to keep sweeping this under the rug in order to get his hands on the dollars on offer, it shows those “Value(s)” he wrote a book about to be pretty hollow.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-02-26T22:27:01.610Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia launched 420 drones and 39 missiles in the early hours of Thursday morning, injuring at least 26 people. It also appears that Russia has employed nuclear-capable cruise missiles as part of their recent attacks.

Continue reading →

QP: Screaming about strychnine

Posted on by

The PM was off to Mumbai, and Pierre Poilievre was in Toronto for his big “foreign policy” speech (which wasn’t much new, really), which meant the b-team was in charge today. Melissa Lantsman led off with a return to the dogpile on Lina Diab, to which Steven MacKinnon called it shameful that the opposition was using this as a wedge issue. Lantsman tried again, and this time Gary Anandasangaree listed the reductions in immigration and asylum levels, and the increase in removal levels. Chris Warkentin took over, and decried “inflationary spending” as killing the hopes of youth. François-Philippe Champagne pronounced there was good news in that Canada had the highest level of foreign direct investment in eighteen years. Warkentin tried again with added bombast, and Champagne praised the government’s record on affordability measures that the Conservatives voted against. Dominique Vien took over to ask the same in French, and Champagne repeated his same points. Vien tried again, and Champange hoped that they would return to their ridings next week to listen to how these benefits help people. 

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and yet again returned to the pension software question, to which MacKinnon praised the modernisation project, and that 7.7 million Canadians are already being served by it. Normandin raised that the National Assembly in Quebec called for an inquiry (which seems to be well outside of their bailiwick), and Patty Hajdu got up to again praise the modernisation project, and that if anyone has an issue, and that they are confident as they transform the next to payment programmes. Sébastien Lemire tried the same again, and Hajdu again reiterated that the system needed to be modernised as the old system was fraught with problems. 

Continue reading →

QP: Dog-piling on Diab

Posted on by

The PM was in town but not present, in advance of his big upcoming trip, while Pierre Poilievre was also absent. Michelle Rempel Garner led off, and claimed that by the end of the year, there will be three million people in the country on expired work permits and demanded a plan. Lina Diab gave some boilerplate about how people can extend their permits and those with expired permits are expected to leave. Rempel Garner ginned up the outrage some more, and Dian listed how intakes are down, and that they have exceeded their francophone targets while the population decreased slightly. Rempel Garner cited a CBC story where Diab’s own caucus colleagues have no confidence in her, and demanded she be replaced. Diab listed measures that the government has taken to reform the immigration system. Rempel Garner pointed out that Diab can’t answer basic questions in committee and again demanded she be replaced. Diab switched to French to repeat her same lines about targets being met. Pierre Paul-Hus took over in French, and he quoted statistics about “fake” asylum seekers and claimed that appropriate security checks aren’t being done, and Steven MacKinnon got up to praise the minister and read the same script about targets being met. Paul-Hus took swipes at Diab, and MacKinnon went on a tear about how the Conservatives have no immigration policy.

Christine Normandin led for the Bloc, and yet again raised the pension software, and apparently Quebec’s National Assembly passed a motion to decry federal waste. (Huh?) MacKinnon got up to deliver the well-worn lines about the scale of the project and that it is within budget. Normandin tried again, and Patty Hajdu insisted that the Bloc are patently wrong, and that they are moving three major systems to the new software. Sébastien Lemire took over to ask the same again, and Hajdu assured him that they are working to resolve all outstanding cases.

Why exactly is the Quebec National Assembly weighing in on federal software transformation? Do they have nothing better to do? #QP

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-25T19:34:35.135Z

Continue reading →