Tag Archives: Pensions

Roundup: A primer on inflation calculation

Posted on by

Bank of Canada governor Tiff Macklem testified at the Commons finance committee earlier in the week, and a whole lot of people, including a certain “Food Professor” charlatan and numerous Conservative MPs, demonstrated that they don’t understand math or inflation as they all misconstrued the numbers that Macklem gave. And they’re the same number he has given before—that the carbon price has had a 0.15% effect on inflation, and if you removed it, going from $65/tonne to 0, it would have a temporary effect of reducing inflation by 0.6%.

A whole bunch of people–said charlatan, those MPs—insisted that because 0.6% is 16 percent of the 3.8% of headline inflation, that it means that the carbon price is responsible for 16% of inflation, which is wrong and not how inflation is calculated. Removing it wouldn’t actually mean inflation would go from 3.8% to 3.2% because the carbon price is not driving it. Energy and food prices are doing a lot of the driving there (and food prices are being hugely affected by climate change), and even if it did move to 3.2%, the Bank isn’t going to start lowering interest rates until it reaches the two percent target. Essentially, you’d be killing the carbon price and undoing the work it’s doing to lower emissions on the basis of a bad lie that it has made life unaffordable.

Meanwhile, here’s economist Stephen Gordon breaking down how inflation is calculated, with the inevitable conclusion that the carbon price is just noise—it’s not driving inflation, and it’s better to focus on the things that are.

A threat to democracy

A bunch of people got the vapours yesterday when Mark Miller called Pierre Poilievre a threat to democracy. Apparently these same people have convenient amnesia, or wishful thinking that he’s only kidding in what he’s doing and saying, because nobody learned a gods damned lesson from the Trump years.

Ukraine Dispatch:

While rallying Ukrainian troops, president Volodymyr Zelenskyy counselled patience and not to expect instant success (the latter comment directed primarily toward Western allies). A UN report says that 40 percent of Ukrainians need humanitarian support as a result of the conditions brought about by Russia’s invasion.

https://twitter.com/ukraine_world/status/1719348496640200777

Continue reading →

Roundup: A “dull as hell” House

Posted on by

Jean Chrétien gave an interview yesterday to mark the 30th anniversary of his election win to form government in 1993, and there’s one part in it that sticks out for me in particular, which was about his time in politics, pre-dating his becoming prime minister, which has to do with the use of television in the Chamber:

“When I became a member of Parliament, there was no TV… In the House of Commons, we had no television. In those days in the House of Commons, we didn’t have the right to read anything. We had to get up and speak. It was fun. Today, they all come with speeches prepared by kids in the office and it is dull as hell, rather than have a real debate like we had in those days.”

This is spot on. It wasn’t just the arrival of the cameras that changed things, it was the relaxation of the rules around prepared speeches. It used to be that you weren’t allowed them, with very limited exceptions—the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne, the budget, and if you needed some particular help with specific facts or figures or translation (because simultaneous interpretation was a later arrival into Parliament). When they relaxed the rule around prepared speeches, it meant MPs started reading speeches into the record; time limits started to mean that they didn’t just speak up to that twenty-minute mark, but they were expected to fill the time entirely, which again, makes for very bad prepared speeches. There’s no actual debate either—during “debate” on a bill, the period for “questions and comments” is usually reserved for recitations of established talking points, with no actual exchange. One question, one response is not actually debate. Without relying on prepared speeches, and actually being allowed to debate, it would have made for actual tension or frisson between them, and to force them to know their material.

The other thing with the arrival of television is how it changed the nature of Question Period. It became very much about trying to a) get on TV, and b) providing clips for the evening news, which is one reason why parties started to do things like asking the same question in English and in French, so that they could get clips for both news services. With the advent of social media, however, the incentives changed again, and it was about creating content for those social feeds, which could include bad behaviour to drive up engagement. This is where we’re at now. It’s not exciting, and like Chrétien says, it’s “dull has hell” because you’re just watching badly scripted performances meant entirely for the consumption of clips. Politics should not be about this.

Ukraine Dispatch:

A civilian was killed in the Kherson region early Wednesday after Russians bombed the area. Russians are ignoring their losses and pressing on at Avdiivka, Debris from downed Russian drones downed power lines near a nuclear plan in the western part of the country, knocking out power for hundreds of people. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that Ukraine will strike back if Russia attacks their power grid again this weekend. Here is a look at some Ukrainian sappers who have returned to the job of de-mining after they lost limbs doing the work.

Continue reading →

QP: The worst kind of reading of scripts

Posted on by

The prime minister and all other leaders were present today, and if anything, it promised to be a sour note all around. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, and he cited a “devastating” report about food bank use, blaming carbon prices. Justin Trudeau took the opportunity to mark the passing for Senator Ian Shugart, the former Clerk of the Privy Council. Poilievre said that Shuguart was his deputy minister and was a great public servant. He then returned to French to quote from the same report on food bank use. Trudeau cited the assistance they have delivered to Canadians, such as the Canada Child Benefit, child care and dental care, while the Conservatives would only those supports. Poilievre switched to English to reiterate his first question about the carbon price. Trudeau praised his government’s record in reducing poverty and reiterated the threat that the Conservatives would only cut supports. Poilievre cited a Nova Scotia quoted in the report and again blamed the carbon price, and Trudeau noted that Poilievre was part of a government that raised the age of retirement, and that it was about time he finally defended the CPP. Poilievre again quoted from the report on housing pressures and demanded more homes. Trudeau said that Poilievre has put forward no plan on housing and he lacks credibility on the file, while the housing minster was currently in BC signing new agreements. 

Yves-François Blanchet led off for the Bloc, and wanted the prime minster to acknowledge that Quebec would be financially viable on their own. Trudeau dismissed this as trying to reopen old fights that have long been settled, and listed off investments the federal government has made in the province. Blanchet again tried to get Trudeau to “admit” the province’s fiscal viability, and Trudeau again talked around the issue about growing the economy in the province together. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and blamed food prices on greedy CEOs, and Trudeau listed more programmes they have rolled out to help Canadians. Singh repeated the question in French, to which Trudeau listed off those programmes en français. 

Continue reading →

Roundup: Stop ignoring the premiers’ role in pharmacare

Posted on by

Over the weekend, the Star ran a brief interview with Dr. Eric Hoskins, former Ontario health minister and the person that Justin Trudeau initially tasked with writing a report on getting to pharmacare, about the current situation between the government and the NDP over getting to just that. Hoskins says he’s trying to have high-level engagements with both parties, because this could be the last opportunity to get this to work in a long time, but some of that means getting the NDP to back down on their arbitrary timelines (which is more than reasonable considering how much their stupid timeline demands has meant a poor rollout of dental care, because proper implementation can take time).

This having been said, I was struck by the fact that the story completely left out the role of the premiers in this, and I cannot stress this enough, because healthcare delivery is a provincial responsibility, you cannot in any way, shape or form, get to national, universal pharacare without the provinces on board. And no, this isn’t something that they can just opt-in to over time, like the NDP seem to think—they need to be in on it from the ground floor, so that they can shape the direction of the Canada Drug Agency, and negotiate a national formulary rather than just the federal government pulling it out of their asses and, again, expecting the provinces to sign onto it (again, like the NDP seem to think). Hoskin’s whole report premised on the provinces being active participants in the process, because this affects them fundamentally. And it’s the provinces who have been the biggest hold-up for moving forward with this—only PEI has moved ahead, and thanks to the gradual build-up they’ve implemented with the federal government, they have a low-cost co-pay system running in the province, which is a wild step-up from the virtually nothing they at the provincial government level before.

The way that media keep talking about pharmacare is that this is something the federal government will do on high, and will somehow pay for entirely themselves, which again, is not how this would work. The PBO’s report cites a figure that the federal and provincial governments together would be paying (using whatever a methodology that may or may not survive reality), but doesn’t have any breakdown about what the cost-share would be, because of course that would need to be negotiated. It would be great if the national conversation, particularly that is happening in media, could actually include the crucial role of the provinces, but we all know that legacy media is allergic to the issues around jurisdiction, and it means a much worse discourse as a result.

Ukraine Dispatch:

Russian forces intensified their push toward Avdiivka in the east, and Kherson in the south, while six people were killed in a Russian missile strike on a postal distribution centre in Kharkiv. Russian forces claim that they foiled several attempts by Ukrainian forces to cross the Dnipro river near Kherson over the past day. Meanwhile, here is a look at Ukrainians preparing for another winter of attacks on the electricity grid, as they prepare firewood and candles.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Fantasy readings of court decisions

Posted on by

In the wake of last week’s Supreme Court of Canada decision in the Impact Assessment Act, there has been a lot of fantasy being projected on what the decision said (hint: it’s not what most everyone says, no matter which sentence they’ve cherry-picked). There’s a lot of blame on the Act for projects not moving forward, as even though many of them had approvals in hand already and the economics for those projects didn’t make sense with current oil prices (as many were conceived of when there was a belief that we were reaching peak oil and that prices would start to skyrocket as a result—oops), or as with certain LNG projects that never got off the ground, they couldn’t get buyers to sign contracts for what they hoped to produce. That’s why the handwringing over Qatar supplying Europe with LNG is particularly funny, because we just don’t have the LNG capacity on the east coast—there is no ready supply of natural gas to liquefy, so without another massive pipeline project, it would mean importing product to liquefy and re-sell to the Europeans, which is not exactly a cost-savings for them when they can get it much cheaper from Qatar.

Meanwhile, here’s Andrew Leach calling out these kinds of fantasies, particularly when they’re coming from the Alberta government.

As a bonus, Leach also calls out the excuses for inaction on the energy transition:

Ukraine Dispatch:

No word on any fresh attacks against Ukrainian cities. Meanwhile, artefacts that were stolen from occupied territories were confiscated when they were attempted to be smuggled into the US, and have now been returned to Ukraine.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Picking a fight over the CPP

Posted on by

Prime minister Justin Trudeau decided to get into a new federal-provincial scrap yesterday by releasing an open letter to Alberta premier Danielle Smith on the issue of her proposal to withdrew from the Canada Pension Plan and create their own provincial one. Trudeau said that he would fight for the stability of pensions in the country, and that his Cabinet would ensure that people are aware of the risks of Smith’s plan—which is wise enough considering that the whole thing is premised on fantasy math that everyone knows is not ever going to fly, and that Smith’s whole pitch is premised on that fantasy math (and that without it, the whole thing falls flat). But this is also the same federal government that is unable to have a frank conversation about absolutely anything, so it’s hard to imagine that they would start now, on this particular file, and would instead just trot out a bunch of feel-good pabulum about the current system, which is not going to help absolutely anyone, and it certainly won’t counter Smith’s lies and fantasy math, but this government can’t help themselves.

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1714644819807809638

https://twitter.com/LindsayTedds/status/1714645765002510598

Smith naturally responded saying that Trudeau’s comments were unhelpful and if he wanted to be constructive, he should have shown up with a number of what the actual withdrawal figure would be. And it’s true that Trudeau’s letter had no figures in it at all, whether that’s because he relied on the platitudes about the stability of the existing system, or because he’s waiting to have a watertight analysis from his departments, and that’s going to need more time. The cynic in me says it’s the former, but it may be the latter, because there may be a serious effort happening to come to a realistic figure—which of course would raise the question of why Trudeau would release his letter today and not wait until that was in hand? In any case, Smith wants this fight with Ottawa, and the whole premise of this fight and the fantasy math is to use it as a cudgel to threaten the rest of Canada so that she can demand they back off on environmental legislation and regulation (which, again, she has been consistently lying about and the government hasn’t come up with a half-decent counter to). Given the state of play, I’m not confident this will wind up in anything but a giant clusterfuck.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1714691053083582798

Ukraine Dispatch:

The death toll rose after a Russian missile strike on an apartment building in Zaporizhzhia, while Ukrainian forces have been making some progress around Robotyne in the south. Near Kharkiv, a farm worker was killed when his tractor hit a mine.

Continue reading →

QP: The first attempt to publicly undermine Speaker Fergus

Posted on by

The prime minister and his deputy were in town but away, hosting CARICOM meetings instead, while the other leaders were all present. Speaker Fergus wanted to make a statement about decorum before things got underway, Pierre Poilievre decided to throw a tantrum because he started right now, and had Andrew Scheer fight on his behalf. There was a back-and-forth on the rules and consultation with the Table Officers, and Fergus trying to assert his authority as the Conservatives tried to undermine him publicly. Eventually, Fergus did get to his speech, and faced attempts by the Conservatives to interrupted him with points of order, and eventually he got to the point about excessive and loud heckling, while recognising that there is a place for witty comments as a feature of our system; the use of “provocative” terms that lead to tense exchanges, such as calling one another racists or shouting obscenities; and the tendency to the make personal attacks, including coming up with fake titles, or drawing attention to absences. He promised to use what tools he has to limit those attacks, reinforcing that he has the authority to preserve order and decorum. That would include refusing to recognise a member, or to name a member.

Poilievre finally led off in French, and he decried “inflationary deficits” with a couple of bespoke mentions of Quebeckers. François-Philippe Champagne trotted out the “take no lessons” line and decried the cuts the Conservatives would make cuts to services. Poilievre switched to English to worry about the “middle-class homeless,” and demanded an end to deficits, to which Anita Anand recited the points about the country’s Aaa credit rating and that the government invests in Canadians. Poilievre shrugged off the “incompetent ratings agencies” before worrying about homeless seniors with a specious connection to deficits. Mark Holland said that cuts to social programmes like Poilievre was peddling would make people worse off in the long-run. Poilievre boasted that the previous government balanced the budget will increasing healthcare (false), and Anand got back up to insist that they won’t balance the budget on the backs of Canadians. Poilievre retorted that the government runs massive deficits on the backs of people before turning to the hospital in Gaza, and demanded that they denounce terrorists for inflicting it. Karina Gould said that their hearts were broken for the innocent Palestinians affected and that they have denounced terrorism while they stand with Israel.

Yves-François Blanchet led for the Bloc, and he demanded Canada work with allies to get humanitarian aid to Gaza. Gould insisted that they were calling for a humanitarian corridor and to protect the lives of civilians. Blanchet was incredulous that Trudeau had not apparently spoken to Joe Biden since the attack in Israel, and Gould reiterated that they are in contact with allies and stakeholders. 

Jagmeet Singh rose for the NDP, and mocked Champagne’s inability to get answers on how the grocery chains were lowering prices, and wanted support for a motion to call them to committee. Champagne insisted that his summoning those CEOs was unprecedented. Singh got back up ask the question in French—because he needs clips in both languages—and Champagne says that he wrote to the chair of the committee to ask him to summon the CEOs, so he was glad the NDP was on board.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Openly pursuing creeping illiberalism

Posted on by

You may have heard mention of a lavish trip that Conservative MPs took to London courtesy of a Hungarian think tank, but as you might expect from Canadian legacy media, the focus remains on the costs of the trip, and the stupid little partisan games in trying to get the ethics committee to look into it. What isn’t being mentioned is the fact that the think tank, the Danube Institute, is closely tied to the Orbán regime, and that is a worrying problem because of what it signals about right-wing parties in North America cosying up to Orbán.

Why this matters is because Orbán is undermining the rule of law and public institutions in Hungary, and is praising greater illiberalism. By cosying up to Orbán while has-beens like Stephen Harper try to sanitise his image through his IDU social club is because it creates a permission structure for right-wing parties like the Conservatives to start normalising the same illiberalism, pretending that this is all standard stuff for small-c conservative parties these days. The “don’t say gay” legislation in the US all came from Orbán’s playbook, and that is crossing over into Canada as well, with Conservatives openly winking and nodding to it, while you have conservative premiers invoking the notwithstanding clause to take away the rights of gender-diverse youth. This is the canary in the coal mine.

On the subject of creeping illiberalism, Conservatives (and MP Rachael Harder in particular) tried to get the public accounts committee to haul the CBC executives before them to “explain” why they don’t use the term “terrorist” when referring to Hamas, never mind that this is a practice shared by other news organisations like the BBC and The Associated Press. This kind of attempted intimidation is absolutely out of order, and represents political interference in the public broadcaster, which would be bad enough it Harder wasn’t the one always screaming about so-called “government censorship” with the Online Streaming Act and the Online News Act, as though that were a credible problem. It’s not, but it also seems to be both projection and an admission, that they want to control the news and programming, while accusing the Liberals of doing so (even though they absolutely are not). This is extremely dangerous for our democracy, and we should absolutely beware what they are trying to get away with.

Ukraine Dispatch:

While the attacks on Avdiivka continue, Russians struck an apartment building in Zaporizhzhia and killed two people. Ukraine has claimed responsibility for an attack on two Russian airfield in occupied areas using longer-range ballistic missiles quietly provided by the Americans, which is an unusual admission for them, but also signals that they can now hit Russian supply lines in more protected areas.

Continue reading →

Roundup: Notes on the Alberta pension proposal

Posted on by

There was a brief return to the discourse over the proposed Alberta Pension Plan over the weekend after a Colby Cosh column managed to get the criticisms of the plan right. So, I’ll let Trevor Tombe to the talking.

As always, try to remember how the CPP actually works:

Ukraine Dispatch:

Ukraine says that they shot down 30 out of 40 drones in an overnight attack on Saturday, and 16 out of 30 dronesovernight on Sunday, when a grain storage warehouse in Uman was hit. In turn, Russia claims to have shot down six Ukrainian drones and two missiles over occupied Crimea on Sunday. President Volodymyr Zelenskyy says that the country will be partnering with western arms manufacturers to start localising production in Ukraine, with a focus on air defence and de-mining.

Continue reading →

QP: Return of the carbon price mendacity

Posted on by

While the prime minister was away at an EV battery plan announcement in Quebec, his deputy off in Toronto, and other leaders were also absent. Chris d’Entrement was again in the big chair for the day, even though one would think they would rotate Alexandra Mendès in there as well. Pierre Poilievre led off in French, accused the prime minister of looking like “a clown” around the world, called Rota a “Liberal Speaker,” railed that it took him five days to say anything, and then repeated it in English in the same question. Karina Gould said that everyone agreed it was the Speaker who was responsible and he resigned. Poilievre then accused the prime minister of creating “the middle-class hungry” and demanded they cut the carbon price. Anita Anand stood up to wonder if the Conservatives would support their bill on cutting the GST on rentals and increasing competition. Poilievre then called out Atlantic Liberal MPs who say that they have concerns about the carbon price while at home but not while in Ottawa. Randy Boissonnault accused the Conservatives of looking to cut programmes and let the planet burn. Poilievre rambled about the supposed “NDP coalition” before demanding they vote for their Supply Day motion to cut the carbon price. Boissonnault repeated his same response about the Conservatives only looking to slash and burn. Poilievre then returned to French to call out the Bloc leader for voting to increase the carbon price (which is not entirely true). Pascale St-Onge insisted that what doesn’t make sense is a party that doesn’t have a climate plan.

Yves-François Blanchet got up and wondered why the Conservatives wouldn’t axe subsidies, before wondering why the prime minister still hasn’t called president Zelenskyy or Jewish leaders. Gould said that calls were made, and that the prime minister apologised to everyone harmed. Blanchet insisted that the headlines would have been different if the prime minister had apologised immediately (which would have given Rota cover), and Gould repeated that calls were made and apologies were made through diplomatic channels from the beginning.

Alexandre Boulerice rose for the NDP, and he demanded that the government end all new fossil fuel projects and move the net-zero date up to 2045. St-Onge insisted that they have brought emissions down since 2018, and that they would do more. Boulerice the worried the chaos caused by changing insurers for civil servants, and Anita Anand insisted that they were working with the leadership and Canada Life to ensure the situation was rectified.

Continue reading →