Roundup: The thing about windfall taxes

Posted on by
Reply

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
1

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
1

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.

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
2

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 →

Roundup: A by-election sweep

Posted on by
2

The Liberals managed to win all three by-elections last night—University–Rosedale and Scarborough Southwest were handy victories, but Terrebonne was more of a squeaker but the Liberals pulled out in the end. A number of TV outlets held by-election specials just so that they could declare a “majority government” for Mark Carney (even though that’s not a real thing—government is government, meaning Cabinet, and it doesn’t change based on the composition of parliament, so it would be a majority parliament). Things won’t change right away—it’ll be a few weeks before the results are certified and they can take their seats, but the writing is now on the wall, which I’ll write more about in a longer piece.

This is a time to come together so we can build a Canada strong for all.My statement on today's by-elections in University—Rosedale, Scarborough Southwest, and Terrebonne.

— Mark Carney (@mark-carney.bsky.social) 2026-04-14T04:29:06.436Z

Pierre Poilievre marked the occasion with a tantrum post, while his MPs are assuring journalists that no, they’re not planning on forcing him out, and they have all been making loud and obsequious declarations of loyalty over social media in the wake of those floor-crossings, just to drive home the point. He also has no intention of resigning, because that would require some introspection and he is clinically incapable of doing so.

He's totally not mad, you guys. So very not mad.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-04-14T03:42:21.056Z

Pierre Poilievre’s Personal Assistant Explains Why He’s Totally Not Mad About Carney’s Majorityyoutu.be/fkduTKAuLn8

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2026-04-14T01:49:05.787Z

Avi Lewis’ first day

On the first sitting day back since his leadership win, Avi Lewis was in Ottawa with a fresh demand for government in order to make it look like he’s springing into action—to force government to ban so-called surveillance pricing, even though it’s not really a thing in Canada, at least not in stores (online is a different story), but it was his demand. But in his first press conference, he got chippy with the journalists who wanted to ask about other issues of the day, and in particular to ask his foreign affairs critic, Heather McPherson, about the blockade in Iran, and he refused to let her answer. So that wasn’t good, and I’m amazed that there wasn’t an experienced comms person on hand to stop him from making such an ass of himself on his first time out. I also noted that Lewis said he would be in Ottawa “from time to time,” which is another mistake. Jagmeet Singh tried only showing up on Wednesdays for his first year, and it nearly buried him. So much for learning lessons from past failures.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-04-13T19:08:01.694Z

Ukraine Dispatch

One person was killed in the Donetsk region on Sunday in spite of the supposed “Easter ceasefire.” Russian drones attacked the port of Izmail overnight, damaging a Panama-flagged vessel.

Continue reading →

QP: The scourge of gasoline taxes

Posted on by
Reply

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: A decisive defeat for Orbán

Posted on by
1

There was a pretty momentous occasion in Hungary as Viktor Orbán and his party were thrown out of power after 16 years, with an election marked by extremely high turnout, a population that was fed up with his corruption and self-dealing, and an opposition that was united around a figure that did the work at the grassroots level to create a movement that could get around the kinds of structures and barriers that Orbán put into place over his years in power, where he and his cronies took over the media, the civil service, the judiciary, and the bureaucracy. This means that Péter Magyar has a massive job ahead of him to try and undo the years and years of corruption. Anne Applebaum has a good rundown of the situation here.

There was much celebration among European leaders (quotes here), and it was worthwhile noting just how many far-right, authoritarian and populist leaders lined up support for Orbán in advance of the election, including JD Vance. This is part of what makes this defeat significant—so many of those far-right and authoritarian populist parties and leaders looked to Orbán for their inspiration, most especially among Republicans in the US. Things like the “Don’t say gay” bills all originated from Hungary. And we cannot ignore that Orbán’s influence extended to Conservatives in this country, both through Stephen Harper whitewashing him through his IDU social club, and the fact that Orbán’s “Danube Institute” sponsored visits by Conservative MPs.

There is going to be a lot to dig into about how his opposition was able to defeat him in spite of his putting in so many structural barriers, and that will be relevant here in places like Alberta, where Danielle Smith likes to use the Orbán playbook. Suffice to say, it is a positive sign that leaders like this can be overcome, provided that the opposition can come together in the right way to ensure it happens.

Ukraine Dispatch

Russia did not honour their “Orthodox Easter ceasefire.” Try to look surprised! There was, however, a POW-swap over the weekend, where each side exchanged 175 prisoners.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The benefit of the doubt for Gladu

Posted on by
1

The Liberal convention is happening this weekend in Montreal, and it’s in part a way that prime minister Mark Carney is putting his stamp on the party now that he’s been leader for a year. It’s a different kind of convention—claimed to be the largest policy convention in the party’s history, and there are no American Democrats giving keynote speeches for the party faithful to fangirl over for a change—the keynote was Canadian Rick Hansen, which again, is a marked shift from years past.

Of course, so much of the oxygen is being taken up by the recent floor-crossers, Marilyn Gladu most especially, and while you have news stories talking about a “mixed reaction,” there is nevertheless a sense that pervades the quotes across news stories that delegates are Carney fans, and that they’re giving him the benefit of the doubt for welcoming them into the party, particularly if it gets them to a majority parliament that will being some stability. Chris d’Entremont and Matt Jeneroux have made comments of their own about feeling secure in their decisions, while progressive Liberals like Karina Gould and Stephen Guilbeault are couching their reservations about Gladu into an optimism that she knew what she was signing up for when she crossed over. For her part, Gladu is also talking about how she hopes this move will benefit her riding, though governments aren’t really supposed to favour only ridings they hold (even though it happens, especially provincially).

As for policy, it has been noticed that there isn’t much talk about Trump, even though he continues to dominate the political airwaves and is giving Carney much of his raison d’être for what he’s doing. There are policy resolutions on banning social media for minors, or limiting use of chatbots (but nobody seems to understand the massive problems associated with age verification).

Ukraine Dispatch

President Zelenskyy says that they are facing pressure both military as spring arrives, but also diplomatically as allies want them to stop hitting Russian oil and gas facilities as prices are so high. Farmers in Ukraine are now being hit by high fertilizer prices thanks to the Iran conflict.

Continue reading →

Roundup: No introspection for Poilievre

Posted on by
2

Pierre Poilievre tried to change the channel yesterday in order to sound the alarm about property rights in BC, ginning up outrage about the Cowichan land title decision by the BC Supreme Court (which is a superior court), and the false claim this puts all property rights at risk in the province. It’s not true, of course, and the federal government is appealing that decision (which the Cowichan leadership have stated point-blank has nothing to do with private property), but well, the media had no interest in asking him about that. Instead, it was all about his own leadership in the wake of yet another defection by an MP.

Some of the own-goals are just amazing.

— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-04-09T15:24:00.893Z

Rest assured, Poilievre is not reflecting on his leadership, because he assures us he got such a high mark from his leadership review and such a great result in the last election. Surely that means that he’s blameless. Instead, he’s going to start insisting that floor-crossers run in byelections, which is a position he never used to hold, and to insist on recall petitions, both of which are antithetical to how a Westminster parliamentary system operates. People vote for the candidate, not the party, which means the MP gets to make their own decision. If you think that means that their votes somehow don’t count, then the technical term for that is “sore-loser.” (Also, people do not choose “majority” or “minority” parliament on their ballots).

Pierre Poilievre’s Personal Assistant Explains Why Everyone Is Leaving Himyoutu.be/PhpH36ZZX1I

— Clare Blackwood (@clareblackwood.bsky.social) 2026-04-09T20:42:58.342Z

Meanwhile, Mark Carney had to answer his own questions about Gladu’s views, and he insists that they talked about it and that she’ll vote with the party, which would have been nice to hear from the horse’s mouth yesterday. Carney also continues to insist that the Liberals are still the party of the Charter, which is getting harder to believe all the time. Gladu herself had to answer questions about her views at a media availability at the party’s convention, and she did nuance some of her positions, and fair enough, but this should have been part of the discussion yesterday and not a day-and-a-half later.

— Effin' Birds (@effinbirds.com) 2026-04-09T19:08:02.208Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Putin has declared a 32-hour ceasefire for Orthodox Easter (but we’ll see if he actually honours it). Russia turned over1000 bodies it claims are from the Ukrainian military, while Ukraine turned over 41 dead Russians.

Continue reading →

Roundup: The most unexpected floor crossing

Posted on by
Reply

To say that the announcement that Conservative MP Marilyn Gladu had crossed the floor to the Liberals was a surprise is an understatement. It was a genuinely gobsmacking moment because Gladu is, to be blunt, an absolute loon. She’s Maple MAGA—a Trump lover, who pushed Ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine as COVID cures. She was a hard-core “convoy” supporter whose seal for their cause had Poilievre create a portfolio of “civil liberties critic” for her to continue to espouse nonsense on their behalf. She opposed the banning of so-called “conversion therapy” and was open to members of her caucus legislating to restrict abortion. She would even talk about how, in her experience as a chemical engineer, she had to deal with Chinese corruption on projects, which is why she would not trust the regime. None of this would seem to endear her to the Liberals in any sense.

https://bsky.app/profile/emmettmacfarlane.com/post/3miyl5lk4422e

https://twitter.com/pothen/status/2041907679807918431

I’m going to write more about what his means for the Liberals in a longer piece later, but it cannot be understated what this means for Poilievre, because she was very much his people. She represented the base he was trying to court, and in the end, she walked away from him, and her statements once she crossed over were about needing a leader for this critical moment, which one could very much take to mean that Poilievre is not such a leader. The Star spoke to some Conservatives who claim that as many as 40 members of caucus are worried about their seats under Poilievre’s continued leadership, while Chris d’Entremont told CTV that he gets questions from Conservatives about what life is like with the Liberals, and they don’t sound like they’re turned off. If you’re Poileivre, that has to be a loud and clear message that in spite of the vote of confidence he received in his leadership review, his caucus is worried and history shows they won’t be mollified by a grassroots approval—nor should they be. Of course, they’re all busy pledging their loyalty to the party over social media, but things cannot be that comfortable in the caucus room, and it’s a real question as to whether Poileivre has self-awareness or EQ in order to read that room.

With that, I’m going to give the last word to Andrew Coyne. And the Beaverton.

Five reasons MPs keep leaving my party that have absolutely nothing to do with me – Editorial by Pierre Poilievre

— The Beaverton (@thebeaverton.com) 2026-04-08T19:19:23.311Z

Ukraine Dispatch

Russian drones damaged a power substation in Odesa, as well as port infrastructure and a civilian vessel in Izmail. Ukrainian drones struck a Russian oil terminal in occupied Crimea.

Continue reading →