The Toronto Star released a package of stories yesterday on Question Period, and because this is the way we do journalism these days, it was full of data analysis that looks shiny, and hey, they got some investigative reporters to count questions and responses. Absent from that? A hell of a lot of context. So while you got some backbenchers who don’t participate to gripe about it being scripted (which it is), and some counting up of the talking points (without any context as to why these developed), or a surface-level look at the political theatre of it all (again, absent a lot of context or history, or bigger-picture look at the ways in which the messaging has changed and how it is currently being used to gather social media clips). It’s inch-deep stuff that, for someone who covers QP every single day, is mighty disappointing. (Additional point – most of the writers of these pieces have not attended QP, which is a problem because watching it from your desk in Toronto is not the same thing as being there in person. At all).

What is the most disappointing of all, however, is their “Question Period fact check” piece, which takes a sampling of questions and answers, and assesses the veracity of the questions being posited and the responses. Why it’s a problem is because they fell into the problem of how questions are framed – surface truths that are stripped of context to say something that it doesn’t. An example is when the Conservatives railed that the PBO said that carbon taxes would take $10 billion out of the economy. Which isn’t actually what he said – he said that it would take $10 billion out of the economy if the revenues weren’t recycled through tax cuts or other measures but were just given directly back to taxpayers. That’s a whopping difference in the message, because using only the $10 billion figure is a disingenuous attack line. And what did the “fact checkers” rate it? “True!” even though it wasn’t actually. And the piece was full of problematic fact-checks like that, which makes it infuriating for someone who actually pays attention to what is being said and how. So while everyone pats themselves on the back for the piece, I’m really unimpressed with the package as a whole.

Equalisation reform

Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe released his plan to reform equalisation yesterday and it’s…not equalisation. It’s like he doesn’t get the concept at all. Which at this point should not surprise anyone, because it’s been so badly reported on for decades and has been the tool of demagogues to bash Quebec rather than understanding how the system actually works – paid for by federal income tax out of general revenues to a province that doesn’t have the fiscal capacity to offer comparable services. It’s not one province writing a cheque to another one. For provinces that pay into it more than they get out, it’s because they have high incomes, thus they pay more income tax. It’s not that mysterious (and yet most reporters simply write “it’s complicated” and leave it at that). And Quebec has structural issues related to their fiscal capacity (and yes, their tax rates are already high relative to other provinces) but the per capita equalization they receive is actually low, not that the shock-and-awe figure of the total amount isn’t constantly being weaponized.

https://twitter.com/acoyne/status/1009498701151158272

And what does Moe suggest? Basically taking money from Quebec’s share and giving it to all provinces whether they need it or not. It’s bullshit that fortunately a number of economists called out – not that it’ll matter, because the audience that Moe is speaking to dismisses what economists have to say. Sigh.

Here's what @PremierScottMoe's proposed '50/50 Plan' for Equalization means for payments. Roughly $265 per capita to provinces that current don't receive, funded by reduction in overall EQ dollars. #cdnecon #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/P5MmXR7X4o

— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) June 20, 2018

Here's what the change in total dollar allocations mean for each province. Primary effect is to redistribute from Quebec to Ontario. Gains for SK are ~$300m. For BC/AB ~$1.2/1.1b. #cdnecon #cdnpoli pic.twitter.com/632rAccpQQ

— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) June 20, 2018

In terms of the overall net outflow from SK to the federal government, in 2016 that was $636 million (not counting CPP; not adjusting for aggregate imbalances). So, the proposal effectively cuts that in half.

— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) June 20, 2018

This is a round-about way of saying reduce the dollars going to have-nots. https://t.co/gL7kdzX8Vr

— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) June 20, 2018

It's legit to debate mix of federal transfers between those based on economic strength vs those based on population.

Currently, 74% of major transfers are based on population.@PremierScottMoe's proposal increases that to 87%. #cdnecon #cdnpoli

— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) June 20, 2018

The debate is between two imbalances: (1) vertical (i.e., Feds in strong position than provs, as is the case now), where per capita transfers can be useful; and (2) horizontal (i.e., differences across provs, mainly due to economies), where EQ transfers can be useful.

— Trevor Tombe (@trevortombe) June 20, 2018

I don't think equalization means what you think it means. https://t.co/DYhLERTAAr

— Andrew Leach (@andrew_leach) June 20, 2018

Continue reading →