Roundup: What high cost exactly?

Posted on by

As people talk more and more about the upcoming election, the notion about the “high cost of living” is a theme that keeps recurring, and it’s fairly interesting because it’s something that, well, doesn’t really bear out in the data. Inflation has held relatively steady for decades now, and in the past few years has remained within the target range (between one and three percent, with two percent being what they generally aim for), and was on the low side of it for a while, briefly flirted with the high side of the target range and has been back to two percent.

As part of populist rhetoric, all parties have been trying to make this a selling feature – the Conservatives with promises to cut carbon pricing (even though that has not had a significant effect on inflation or even gas prices) and the restoration of boutique tax credits (that don’t benefit low-income people), the Liberals through the Canada Child Benefit, and the NDP through promised massive spending programmes (that have zero details on implementation). So it’s worthwhile asking just what exactly they’re referring to when they rail about the high cost of living, because it can refer to specific things that have specific solutions that they may or may not be advocating.

Housing prices are one thing that are lumped into cost of living, but isn’t really, and again, that’s very dependent on which market you happen to be in. Toronto is coming back to normal after being on a housing bubble, but Vancouver is still high in part because of housing supply. Alberta and Saskatchewan are depressed because of the oil market, but other parts of the country? Not really an affordability issue, and some plans to deal with housing affordability will just drive up prices by the amount of the incentives and not deal with the structural problems (which is what the Liberals tried to circumvent with their shared equity plan in the last budget). Essentially, when the parties start talking about dealing with the “high cost of living,” we should be pushing back and asking what, specifically, they’re referring to. There is enough populist bilge out there that means nothing and promises snake oil, so unless you can get specifics, don’t trust that they will deliver anything of substance.

Good reads:

  • The Conservatives and NDP are calling for an emergency foreign affairs committee meeting to probe allegations that the government is muzzling former ambassadors.
  • Ralph Goodale is off to a “Five Eyes” meeting in London, where the topic of “illegitimate” uses of the Internet will be discussed.
  • Internal reports from VIA Rail show that it would be more profitable to do high-frequency rail in just Toronto-Ottawa-Montreal than adding in Quebec City.
  • The government has been stalling on restarting the Arctic surf clam licence bidding process, following it being shut down by the Ethics Commissioner’s investigation.
  • The executives at the Trans Mountain pipeline Crown Corporation have approved some $5 million in bonuses to keep them on board.
  • Here’s some research that says that incivility can cost voters, but I’m not sure that I believe it based on experience.
  • The Liberal Party has complained to the Elections Commissioner about the collaboration by various “Proud” sites.
  • In Nova Scotia, MLA Lenore Zann (who was NDP until weeks ago) won the federal Liberal nomination for Cumberland–Colchester to replace Bill Casey.
  • Here’s a fact-check on Catherine McKenna’s claim that there could be more plastic than fish in the ocean by 2050.
  • Here’s a fact-check on the NDP’s green jobs claims.
  • Here’s a look at how Quebec’s green fund ended up being used to fund a number of other departments’ pet projects without ensuring GHG reductions.
  • Éric Grenier looks at the pathways to a majority for both the Liberals and Conservatives.
  • Paul Wells takes note of the apparent call from PMO for former ambassadors to try and speak with “one voice” on the China file, and what it means for this government.
  • Kevin Carmichael points to the narratives of nationalism that fuel trade wars.
  • Susan Delacourt compares the current Donald Trump/Boris Johnson dynamic to when Pierre Trudeau faced Regan/Thatcher.
  • Colby Cosh walks us through some of the unserious history of “Western separatism,” and why it can’t really have a chance to thrive.
  • Robert Hiltz pokes into the cult that has developed around Gerald Butts.
  • In case you missed them, my columns on party nominations, Boris Johnson and the question of changing leadership systems, and what I heard while in Alberta.

Odds and ends:

Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.