PM Mark Carney's Canada

[EBT]

An excellent piece in today's Globe on the need to curtain OAS to high-income earning households, and reinvesting the savings in low-income seniors and affordability/low-income measures for younger Canadians.

The politics of Old Age Security reform are shifting

If we are serious about building ‘the best economy in the G7,’ modernizing OAS is essential

www.theglobeandmail.com

I think @kEiThZ will be particularly pleased.

While its only one columnist's piece, the article notes an increasing rumble in the media on the issue, and just a small suggestion that the Liberals may be open to something...... I'm not holding my breath....but some positive traction is a good, if belated first step.

This is a great idea. It is insane that a retired couple with a retirement income of $180K is eligible for OAS. I don't know why this change hasn't been suggested and implemented long ago. I don't know how anyone could think a retired person with a six-figure income is entitled to old age security payments. I'm not a tax expert. Could it be that at that income level, every OAS dollar gets clawed back at the end of the year when they file their taxes? Do we have any tax experts here?

As a low-income senior, I loved this part of the article: "Use $2.5 billion to give every poor senior an extra $5,000". An extra $5K would make a world of difference for me. The other $4.5 billion in estimated savings should go to young Canadians struggling with affordability.

My only concern is that instead of directing ALL of the savings to low-income seniors and affordability initiatives for young Canadians, the Carney government would direct some of the billions saved to "net zero initiatives" or the "youth climate corps" mentioned in that article. I don't know why the writer of that article mentioned the "youth climate corps". If this change is implemented, EVERY PENNY SAVED SHOULD GO TO NEEDY CANADIANS STRUGGLING WITH THE COST OF LIVING, not some B.S. "climate corps".

 

[EBT]

The Feds and Alberta seem close to a deal on Energy.

View attachment 696935




https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/carney-smith-oil-pipeline-9.6985035

According to an updated CBC story, a "deal" will be signed next Thursday

Ottawa, Alberta expected to sign new energy sector deal on Thursday: source

Look at the language:

CBC News reported earlier this week that the memorandum of understanding between the federal and provincial governments is likely to include some language about a path forward for the northwest B.C. oil pipeline that Smith has long demanded.

We don't need a "path forward" for a pipeline; we need a pipeline NOW, along with lifting the ban on oil supertankers on our west coast. The Americans ship their oil to Asia using supertankers just off the coast of B.C. Why is Canada hamstringing our oil industry? Can anyone figure this out? If you can, please explain it to me.

I suspect the big announcement of a "path forward" will be an announcement of the "Pathways Alliance Carbon Capture and Storage Hub," perhaps a noble objective, although I doubt it - it Carbon Capture and Storage Hubs look like a literal sinkhole for money. What Canada URGENTLY needs are pipelines east, west, and north, anywhere but south! We need to diversify our energy customers. We can't be solely dependent on selling oil to the United States. Being dependent solely on the American market is why we have had to sell our oil at a steep discount.

 

[zang]

In the almost 10 years since Trudeau was elected, the gap between the Canadian standard of living vs the United States has grown even larger, as you can see from the figures below. I wonder how many Canadians are aware of how far we have fallen behind the Americans. I suspect very few, thanks to "boiling frog syndrome". With Canada's abundance of natural resources and human capital, Canadians should be the richest people on earth, but we are falling further behind because our "leaders" are not serious people.

Using median GDP per capita figures so as not to be skewed by the wealthiest, we see that ten years ago, Canadians had parity with the Americans. In the ten years since Trudeau was elected, Canadians have lost close to $20,000 in income versus Americans:

2015: U.S. median GDP per capita ≈ $56,500, Canada ≈ $56,000
2024: U.S. median GDP per capita ≈ $83,700, Canada ≈ $61,500

All amounts USD

As we see from the median GDP figures, Canadian earnings have almost stood still over the last 10 years. This should be headline news, but our media is paid off to be stenographers for the government. Compounding the misery for Canadians, of course, is the fact that everything else has gone up in price, from housing, food, insurance, cars, everything!

Source: https://countryeconomy.com/countries/compare/usa/canada?sc=XE34

Explain to me how the GDP affects you as the average Canadian?

It’s a metric for the 1%, just like the TSE, Dow Jones, etc. It doesn’t reflect the lives of average people. And maybe, our insane, prolonged focus on numbers like these has been a massive part of the problem all along.

 

[Northern Light]

As a low-income senior, I loved this part of the article: "Use $2.5 billion to give every poor senior an extra $5,000". An extra $5K would make a world of difference for me.

That's $416 per month. (I'm assuming this goes to everyone who currently gets GIS) (2.1M seniors)

The other $4.5 billion in estimated savings should go to young Canadians struggling with affordability.

If you took that sum and used to augment that National Child Benefit across the board, its only $ 762 per child, per year (5.9M children get at least something, through their parents from said benefit).

But...if you applied it such that the benefit went only to households below median income (or the lower 1/2 of benefiting households) it would be $1,504 per child, per year. Adjusted as a proportionate phase-out, it could mean more like $2,400 per child for the lowest income parents, so up to $200 per child, per month.

 

[Northern Light]

According to an updated CBC story, a "deal" will be signed next Thursday

Ottawa, Alberta expected to sign new energy sector deal on Thursday: source

Look at the language:

CBC News reported earlier this week that the memorandum of understanding between the federal and provincial governments is likely to include some language about a path forward for the northwest B.C. oil pipeline that Smith has long demanded.

We don't need a "path forward" for a pipeline; we need a pipeline NOW, along with lifting the ban on oil supertankers on our west coast. The Americans ship their oil to Asia using supertankers just off the coast of B.C. Why is Canada hamstringing our oil industry? Can anyone figure this out? If you can, please explain it to me.

I suspect the big announcement of a "path forward" will be an announcement of the "Pathways Alliance Carbon Capture and Storage Hub," perhaps a noble objective, although I doubt it - it Carbon Capture and Storage Hubs look like a literal sinkhole for money. What Canada URGENTLY needs are pipelines east, west, and north, anywhere but south! We need to diversify our energy customers. We can't be solely dependent on selling oil to the United States. Being dependent solely on the American market is why we have had to sell our oil at a steep discount.

I've asked you before to please stop using bold and caps frivolously. Its as iRriTAatinG as reading the preceding. Bolding one thing to highlight in in a post may be reasonable.....but your use of it is excessive.

****

On the subject ov moving Bitumen, the BC gov't has come out in favour of a plan to max out the capacity of the Trans Mountain pipeline. This would be cheaper than a new pipeline, ~2B, does not require lifting the tanker ban and would account for all production growth in Alberta for the next decade. That seems practical and sufficient for now, going west.

Going east, the existing Enbrdige line through Michigan, which supplies refineries in Sarnia is end of life; it would make sense to replace it with an all-Canadian route, with slightly more capacity. Then, invest in greater refining capacity at that location.

 

[picard102]

This should be headline news, but our media is paid off to be stenographers for the government.

What should be headline news is the brain rot that was accelerated by the COVID crisis that has warped people's perception of reality via algorithmic propaganda.

 

[kEiThZ]

Agreed. Especially with that orange tool and upcoming CUSMA talks. Let's get the eighty-five F35s and then focus on diversification for the next projects.

For example, we need to replace the rubbish CH-148 Cyclone operated by the RCAF with the RCN. We should consider going with the AgustaWestland AW101 Merlin, which of course is the same aircraft the PC government ordered in 1992, only to have the successor LPC government cancel them, paying $478 million CAD in cancellation penalties.

Right now, Lockheed Martin (the makers of the F35) is leading the design team for the RCN's new destroyers. They're based on BAE Systems’ Type 26 frigates, but somehow Lockheed has got involved. If it's not too late, maybe this, rather than the F35 is where we should sever our relations with Lockheed.

The discussion on fighters has taken on a life of its own to the point of utter absurdity and full of misinformation and conspiracist nonsense that's really hard to combat. I now understand what epidemiologists must have felt dealing with COVID deniers. People are suddenly experts on fighter jets despite never having walked a flight line. Heck, I'm not even sure half the instant experts have even been to air show.

I can get the governments point on jobs. I disagree with their assessment. But I understand it.

The sovereignty takes are conspiracist nonsense. If you're worried about the F-35 being controlled, you should be just as worried about everything else we buy from the US. Not just weapons either. Shouldn't we be worried about Americans shutting down our airlines, trains, telecom networks, etc?

And then apparently the solution to fears about American control of the F-35 is to go buy an airplane full of American made subcomponents?

I'm not exaggerating when I say, I feel like I'm talking to some insane people these days.

 

[kEiThZ]

Explain to me how the GDP affects you as the average Canadian?

It’s a metric for the 1%, just like the TSE, Dow Jones, etc. It doesn’t reflect the lives of average people. And maybe, our insane, prolonged focus on numbers like these has been a massive part of the problem all along.

Not quite. The GDP figure itself may not impact a person directly. But that maybe difference absolutely does translate into a lower quality of life. It's a huge part of why we have less disposable income. Or why we have lower quality of employment and a less diverse economy. It's why we lose talent to the US consistently.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

In the almost 10 years since Trudeau was elected, the gap between the Canadian standard of living vs the United States has grown even larger, as you can see from the figures below. I wonder how many Canadians are aware of how far we have fallen behind the Americans. I suspect very few, thanks to "boiling frog syndrome". With Canada's abundance of natural resources and human capital, Canadians should be the richest people on earth, but we are falling further behind because our "leaders" are not serious people.

Nonsense. Between grocery prices skyrocketing, health premiums about to equally to take off, SNAP programs ending, having military presence in major cities, getting arrested because your skin colour didn't make their short list, being branded as a terrorist because for being critical of their government, having an anti-vax nutter dangerously running health services, along with utter loons calling the shots in the executive, I could go on...I am pretty sure that our living standards are much, much higher here. But if you still think they're better, go ahead, knock yourself out and move there.

 

[adma]

Explain to me how the GDP affects you as the average Canadian?

It’s a metric for the 1%, just like the TSE, Dow Jones, etc. It doesn’t reflect the lives of average people. And maybe, our insane, prolonged focus on numbers like these has been a massive part of the problem all along.

Ultimately, it's like calling an older neighbourhood undesirably "stagnating" because heritage regulations prevent McMansion teardowns. (Hey, relevant to Trump's E Wing antics)

 

[afransen]

Government revenues are a function of GDP. Larger GDP means the government has more resources to fund social programs and transfers. You shouldn't be dismissive of the importance of GDP growth in the standard of living of average folks.

 

[UtakataNoAnnex]

Government revenues are a function of GDP. Larger GDP means the government has more resources to fund social programs and transfers. You shouldn't be dismissive of the importance of GDP growth in the standard of living of average folks.

...the important thing here though is whether those folks will be allowed to see the benefits in the standards of living of GDP growth. In State side, they clearly haven't.

 

[EBT]

Explain to me how the GDP affects you as the average Canadian?

It’s a metric for the 1%, just like the TSE, Dow Jones, etc. It doesn’t reflect the lives of average people. And maybe, our insane, prolonged focus on numbers like these has been a massive part of the problem all along.

How does it affect the average Canadian? Median GDP per capita is a measure of income, i.e., a measure of how much money Canadians have to live on, and relative to the United States, we have been losing ground over the last 10 years in a very big way. It is a hugely important figure for Canadians to focus on. From the chart below from the IMF, we can see how Canada has lagged behind every other major economy in GDP per capita growth. I wonder how many Canadians are aware of this. I suspect many are not aware, seeing how many likes your post got.

And btw, those other metrics you mentioned are not irrelevant to the average Canadian either. If you have an RRSP, as most Canadians do, then the performance of the stock market is very relevant and important to you if you want to have money to retire on.

 

[kEiThZ]

Government revenues are a function of GDP. Larger GDP means the government has more resources to fund social programs and transfers. You shouldn't be dismissive of the importance of GDP growth in the standard of living of average folks.

Maybe when our current stagnation leads to cuts in social programs they'll get it. Even Europeans are starting to get it. See the Draghi report.

There's definitely a sour grapes element to the idea that GDP isn't important. If our per capita GDP was higher than the US, you wouldn't hear the end of it from Canadians.

 

[picard102]

If you have an RRSP, as most Canadians do,

This is a lie.