As has been known for an eternity here in Alberta, today was the day the legislature was dissolved and the writs tabled, kicking off the official election season for our province. If you have been following the polls, you know that it is a very close battle between the UCP and the NDP and we are actually in a position where just a few hundred votes in a handful of ridings could determine this election. That means this election will be silly, with opo research dropping regularly on candidates, the usual (for Alberta) bozo eruptions, and fingers pointing as to who are the better fiscal and economic stewards. The election is ripe for political spin taking the place of rational policy analysis.

But don’t worry, my fellow Albertans, I’ve got you covered on at least tax stuff. Today, right out of the gate the UCP promised that it, following in the footsteps of the Alberta NDP, is going to move the Alberta personal income tax system further away from a flat tax and increasing progressivity. Yes, you heard that right. As I often say, there is nothing like an election to get even the most ideologically driven politicians to abandon their ideologies.

What did they promise? They promised to bring in a sixth, yes sixth, tax bracket into the Alberta personal income tax system. They have promised to bring in a rate of 8% that will apply to all income above the personal exemption and below $60k. Here is what the current tax rate system in Alberta looks like and what is being proposed

Today is the day of the book launch for my new coauthored book, Basic Income and a Just Society: Policy Choices for Canada’s Social Safety Net, published by the Institute for Research on Public Policy. If you are in Toronto, the physical book launch takes place from 5:30 p.m. – 7:30 p.m. ET at the Toronto Reference Library, Main Floor Beeton Hall Events Centre 789 Yonge Street, Toronto. You can still register for that here. I am not at the book launch as I can’t fly right now, but co-authors David Green (UBC) and Gillian Petit (UCalgary) will both be there.

This book was pulled together from our work on the BC Basic Income expert panel. The authors were appointed to this panel from 2018-2021 where we were tasked to “consider the viability of a basic income in BC and support the simulation of various basic income models in BC to identify impacts and financial implications.” The committee would also look at BC’s existing income and social support system and how elements and principles of a basic income could be used to transform and enhance it.” The work of that panel is available here and we would like to thank the Government of British Columbia for not only supporting that work but also allowing us to contain control over the work product so that we can ensure that everyone is able to benefit from the work we did.

Because the book being released is based on the evidence compiled over the four years the panel was active, this book offers one of the most comprehensive evaluations of a basic income ever undertaken and uses that as the basis for an in-depth analysis of the need for social policy reform across Canada. The idea behind a basic income is at once simple and powerful: provide all citizens with a guaranteed minimum income. This would quickly end poverty and give people the means to make autonomous choices, which would lead to improved health outcomes, better jobs, more human capital investment, and much more — or so the argument goes. Sounds simple. But a basic income is anything but simple, just ask Quebec whose policy reforms that are being labeled as a basic income is actually nothing more than income assistance reform, which is all that Finland did as well.

Is the current system complex? Yes. There are about 200 programs that exist at the federal and any specific province/territory that have been designed to provide some form of support for people in need. We provide visuals of this system here. Can one program replace all these programs and simplify the system? No. There is, as it turns out, a reason why so many programs exist and that is because each one has been designed to fill a unique gap. People are, after all, complex, with complex needs and facing complex situations and a one-sized fits none program is insufficient in the face of this reality.

Is providing a base level of income to individuals the way forward? It certainly shouldn’t be the backbone of our system of supports. Why? This assumption is based on the notion that cash is king and that if you just give people money they can then just go off into the market and purchase the goods and services they need. But the market fails to provide many of the most important goods and services that people need. I mean just look at the housing crisis we are in, that is in part fueled by the longstanding approach of demand-side interventions while neglecting the supply side.

Does this all mean that the status quo is acceptable? Absolutely not. We, the authors, very much agree with the spirit of what basic income proponents say. The existing system is insufficient and disrespectful. We need to very much provide adequate support. We need to give voice to those affected by programs. We need to build community. We must address gaps in labour market regulation. We need to integrate our suite of programs and have our governments to work collaboratively on a common benefits platform, similar to X-roads that exists in Estonia. We need to regularly evaluate and reform the system. We need to drive positive policy change where no one is left behind. And we need to do all this work through an intersectional social justice lens.

Finance Minister Freeland tabled the federal budget yesterday (March 28, 2023) and, as always, there are hot takes flying all around. Some of these takes are good. There is a lot of commentary on the green initiatives (you get a tax credit, you get a tax credit, we all get a tax credit), the lack of any additional action on the dire housing shortage especially as immigration levels are being bumped up, and the little thought given to the labour crisis in the care economy. Some of these takes are bad like those demanding to know where are the tax cuts, as though widespread tax cuts are not fuel to the inflationary fire (a fire that is slowly burning out).

But I’d like to focus on a few corner issues that are missing from the budget and which matter a lot to considering whether the story here is really all rosey. If everyone remembers the fall update, it clearly laid out a situation where there was a lot of unpredictability to the economic trajectory we were on. This was due to the war, inflation, interest rates, supply chain disruptions, and the economy’s of our major partners, among other things. That update clearly laid out that there would not be a lot of spending room for Budget 2023 if the fiscal commitments were to be met. Not to say that the fiscal situation was or is dire. There is still room, but that if we were to get back on the debt to GDP reduction trajectory that spending would have to be prudent. But we did know, for example, that Budget 2023 would have to have some response to the Inflation Reduction Act in the US (signed August 16, 2022).

What do we see about the fiscal condition in this budget? Well, unsurprising there is still a lot of unpredictability and that is shown throughout the Economic Overview that starts this budget. While Canada’s economy and our labour market are relatively strong, headwinds prevail. Will it be a soft landing? Seems to be. Will we go into a recession? Perhaps a small short one. Is inflation tamed? Getting there. But have we seen the full effect of the interest rate cuts ripple through the economy? No, not yet as should have been obvious with the three recent US bank failures and the near failure of Credit Suisse. Is the US economy weak? Yes, and some indicators suggest getting weaker. Is the UK economy weak? Without a question. Will some crazy leader is some part of the world do even more stupid stuff? Probably. Can we weather these shocks? Yes. The federal fiscal house is not weak, but caution and prudence is warranted. Why? Because we have outstanding policy issues that must be addressed and I don’t see these being considered in the bottom line.

What policy issues? I’ll highlight two ones that are on my mind. For starters, the Canada Disability Benefit (CDB). The legislation is in the Senate. The benefit is expected to be rolled out this fiscal year with the source of funds being the Consolidated Revenue Fund. The disability community is expecting this benefit to be life-altering, addressing poverty and financial security for those eligible. But the framework legislation does not provide any specificity about the benefit. How big, to whom, how delivered, and how will it be integrated into existing disability supports. Ergo, the community was looking to the budget to at least hint at how much is being earmarked for the benefit. But all we see in this budget is that funding is being given for the ongoing consultations with provinces, territories, and community. Not to say that isn’t great news as the funding suggests an expansive consultation. However, a truly transformative CDB would be in the order of $8-$12B a year in ongoing funding.

Second, EI reform. EI needs to be reformed. It needed to be reformed before the pandemic, it desperately needs to be reformed after everything we learned during the pandemic. Yet, there is nothing in the budget about this reform. But, Lindsay, you say, EI is funded off of premiums so there is no big deal here. Well, not so fast. The IRPP published a comprehensive study of EI reform at the end of 2022 and it showed that EI reform could cost as much as $5-$15B a year. The EI operating account can’t absorb those costs and the premium increases it would take to fill the room would be large, large enough to have significant economic ripples. As a result, an injection of funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund would likely be needed. How much depends on the reformation. We need EI reform now. We need it before we face either a small or large recession (or even another pandemic!). That reform is going to hit the bottom line and that is not accounted for in the budget.

What is also bugging me, and has since Budget 2021, that the brief fanfare we had with Canada’s first feminist budget what just that. Brief and fanfare. There has been little whiff of feminism since then. Sure, there is some GBA+ analysis, but it is perfunctory. There is no evidence that intersectionality or GBA+ has entered into the policy process in any serious way and the budget’s reflect that. We are never going to see truly inclusive economic and fiscal policy in this country until we change our policy is thought about, by whom, and how. If you want to learn more, read my new paper, Igniting and Intersectional Shift in Public Policy Research (and Training), in Canadian Public Policy.

This is not to say that there are not good things in Budget 2023. We all knew there would be another top-up to the GST credit in the budget, this time they say it is for groceries, but you can do whatever you want with it. Unfortunately, the GST credit misses several population groups, like international students, who are facing significant affordability barriers. Perhaps if the budget was truly feminist and truly embraced GBA+ these issues could have been addressed.

A bit of a surprise to me was that there was actual action on tax filing. The budget announced it was going to significantly expand the File My Return program and will pilot a new automatic filing service. Many of us have been asking for this for a donkey’s age. A group I would target immediately would be anyone that is issued a T5007, e.g., those on provincial/territorial income assistance. Filing rates are low in this population, not because they owe taxes because they don’t, but because of intersectional issues that create barriers to filing. That said, I will believe it when I see it. CRA has piloted auto filing before and it was killed by the tax software/filing industry. Let’s hope the lobbyist path to the Minister’s office doesn’t lead to another such delay.

The budget also includes information on the permanent dental benefit. I am pleased to see it that this benefit will be delivered by Health Canada and not CRA (as the temporary one was). And we get a glimpse of how they are thinking of doing this. On page 247, they state that employers will have to report dental coverage offered to employees and plan members through T4/T4A reporting. That certainly streamlines eligibility, but it was a missed opportunity to not also add a similar report for pharma coverage in case, you know, in the future we actually do something on that file. Of course, there will still be loopholes in access, but I will wait until I see all the details before getting too uptight about this.

There are also little gems hidden throughout the budget:

• “To help pay for it all, Freeland is promising to find $15 billion in savings over five years by scaling back government travel, its use of outside consultants and a review of departmental spending.” So much for McKinsey!
• Budget 2023 proposes to provide $160 million over three years, starting in 2023-24, for the Women’s Program to provide funding to organizations in Canada that serve women. The government is committed to maintaining historic funding levels for Canadian women’s organizations and equity-deserving groups, with a particular focus on Indigenous women, women with disabilities, members of the 2SLGBTQI+ communities, and newcomer, Black, racialized, and migrant women.” Always disappointing that women’s organizations that do some really important work can’t get stable funding that could actually be transformative. See my comment above about the ‘feminist’ budget.
• “Budget 2023 announces that the federal government will work with international partners and other stakeholders to explore implementing a standard charging port in Canada, with the aim of lowering costs for Canadians and reducing electronic waste.” Woo hoo!
• The AMT rate increases from 15% to 20.5%, but fewer people would be subject to the AMT.
• The budget reaffirms that share buyback policy alluded to in the fall update.
• the long talked about closing of the bank dividend loophole is finally being closed, but expect this will just amount to a game of whack-o-mole
• I see we are modernizing GAAR but I’ve not read that supplement yet—it is a LONG budget

Topic: The Role of Gender-based Analysis Plus in the Policy Process

Date: 21 September 2022, 5pm ET

Witnesses: Anna Cameron and Lindsay M. Tedds (as Individuals)

Thank you for the invitation to appear before your committee on the topic of gender-based analysis plus and the policy process. My name is Anna Cameron, and I am a Research Associate at the University of Calgary, where I work as part of a team whose research is focused on ensuring considerations of equality and intersectionality are embedded in social and economic policies. Joining me today is Dr. Lindsay Tedds, who leads this research team. Both Dr. Tedds and I will be happy to answer any questions you may have following our remarks.

Being asked to think about the role of GBA+ in the policy process today makes one reflect on a number of things: on the ways in which we’ve progressed, stalled, and reinvigorated our efforts since 1995, but also on the considerable work that remains—work that was made clear in the most recent report of the Auditor General. As public policy researchers we often work in collaboration with governments to address policy issues from an intersectional perspective, but we are also engaged in work to drive an intersectional shift in the broader policy community. In our remarks, we wish to highlight the priorities that emerge from our expertise and our experience in these spaces.

Some priorities are conceptual:

• First, we want to emphasize the importance of shifting to a critical intersectional approach to policy analysis and development—whether this means recasting GBA+ or setting aside it altogether. Most importantly, this is not just about moving beyond gender to consider diversity or to engage with impacts on various subgroups. It is about shifting the focus of analysis away from identity to engage instead with the systems, processes, and power structures that give identity meaning—and to consider how they complicate interactions with the state, institutions, and policy, and produce disadvantage and need. Understanding these links can help us to determine how policy might intervene to address systemic oppression and its effects, as well as how policy might be complicit in producing it.

• Second, we need to think about how this approach might be in tension with the typical policy analysis framework that prioritizes efficiency and cost-benefit analysis—and think creatively about how we might shift this framework in line with social justice goals. The members of the BC Basic Income Expert Panel—one of whom was Dr. Tedds—took a first attempt at this in their work. We need to build on this.

• To do both of the above, we need to value diverse forms of evidence—and not remain fixated on a lack of data. Quantitative approaches are but one way of answering questions and understanding the world, and we need to build capacity to be creative and engage in different types of analysis.

However, this alone will not be enough to achieve visions of equality, diversity and gender justice—if these are indeed our visions. As, if not more important than these shifts in approach will be whether the policy community in Canada can get together—and get behind—this vision to drive a critical and intersectional shift. Here, I wish to emphasize three points:

• First, an intersectional shift—whether attached to or outside of the GBA+ frame—cannot just be driven by government. Scholars have long spoken of the need to take a multi-pronged approach to gender mainstreaming that involves government, civil society, and the research community. To this point, there is a pressing need for government to rebuild and reinforce communication channels and working relationships with community agencies and organizations.

• Second, within the public policy research community—spanning academic institutions, research institutes, think tanks, and more—economists still dominate. And outside certain feminist, anti-racist, and Indigenous cohorts, economists have a long way to go in embracing critical and intersectional perspectives, let alone GBA+. We need to change this. One approach is to build strong transdisciplinary networks within Canadian public policy to reach a critical mass of experts committed to driving an intersectional shift.

• Third, we need to invest thought, time, expertise, and resources to ensure that we train the policy professionals of the future in this type of thinking—just as we currently train them to think about cost-benefit analysis or writing a briefing note. In surveying policy schools across the country, including the one with which we are associated, we found zero indication that this is being done

So, how do we bring all of this together? The federal government cannot shoulder the entire burden of transformative policy—no matter the strength of its tools. Canada’s policy community must get engaged. Though momentum is building in this direction, academic, institutional, and community-led initiatives are scattered: they lack the coordination and critical mass to be effective and to usher in a shift. What is needed is a collective effort to bridge this gap—that is, the investment and infrastructure to launch and nurture a pan-Canadian network of scholars, practitioners, and sector and community leaders working at the nexus of policy and intersectionality. Tweaks to GBA+ design and implementation are important. However, this broader approach would ignite an intersectional shift, capable of transforming Canadian public policy—within and beyond government.

Anna I. Cameron                            Lindsay M. Tedds  

Research Associate                        Associate Professor and Scientific Director

School of Public Policy                  School of Public Policy

University of Calgary                     University of Calgary

Today, Dr. Gillian Petit and I released a Tax Policy Trends piece through the School of Public Policy, University of Calgary. I am going to explain this work and provide additional background information that did not make it into the piece due to length (trends pieces should be about the length of an op-ed so between 750-1000 words).

What tax policy are we looking at in this piece? Well, in Budget 2019, tabled on October 24, 2019, the Alberta government announced that it was “temporarily paus[ing] indexation of non-refundable tax credits and tax bracket thresholds to the Alberta Consumer Price Index, but resume once the economic and fiscal situation can support it.”

What does this mean? In taxation, we only ever want to tax real, not nominal, incomes. Nominal income represents income that is not adjusted for changes in inflation. If inflation is 2% and you get a cost of living increase, it means your nominal income has increased 2%, but your real income, your income that takes into account inflation, has actually stayed the same. With the 2% income increase that is the same size as inflation, it means that your standard of living has just kept pace with inflation. You are neither better nor worse off. And your tax liability should reflect that. In fact, this is one of the principles behind the capital gains inclusion rate of 50%. But only including 50% of the income in taxation, it is, in whole or in part, ensuring that only the real gain, the gain above the cumulative inflation that occurred while holding the asset, is taxed.

Indexation of tax credits and thresholds is not a new concept. Currently, just about everyone does it. Alberta is an outlier (with two small maritime provinces). Back in the mid-80s-to-early-90s, the federal government partially de-indexed credits and thresholds, but that policy was undone when it was understood what the cumulative impact was on taxpayers.

Let’s take a look at Alberta’s personal income tax system to understand the role of indexation. The table below details all of the non-refundable tax credits as well as the progressive income tax rates in Alberta across tax years. The first column shows the thresholds for these tax items that existed in 2019 and these were the amounts at which the Alberta government froze them at for 2020, 2021, and 2022 (we are still waiting to hear about 2023). The next four columns after that show how these thresholds would have changed with inflation, where I used the same inflation amount that the federal government indexed their thresholds with as a proxy for Alberta. For 2023, I assume for these purposes an inflation rate of 5%, but it will be several months before we know how thresholds could be increased for inflation for that tax year.

	2019	2020 1.9%	2021 1%	2022 2.4%	2023 5% (forecast)
Tax Credits
Basic Personal Amount	$19,369	$19,737	$19,934	$20,413	$21,433
Age Amount	$5,397	$5,550	$5,555	$5,688	$5,858
Married Amount	$19,369	$19,737	$19,934	$20,413	$21,433
Caregiver Amount	$11,212	$11,425	$11,539	$11,816	$12,407
Disability Deduction	$14,940	$15,224	$15,376	$15,745	$16,532
Medical Allowance Lower Limit	$2,503	$2,551	$2,576	$2,683	$2,770
Pension Income Deduction	$1,491	$1,519	$1,535	$1,571	$1,650
Tax Thresholds
10%	$19,369- $131,120	$19,737- $133,611	$19,934- $134,947	$20,413- $138,186	$21,433- $145,095
12%	$131,121- $157,464	$133,612- $160,456	$134,948- $162,060	$138,187- $165,950	$145,096- $174,247
13%	$157,465- $209,952	$160,457- $213,941	$162,061- $216,080	$165,951- $221,266	$174,248- $232,330
14%	$209,953- $314,928	$213,942- $320,9012	$216,081- $324,121	$221,266- $331,900	$232,330- $348,495
15%	>$314,928	>$320,9012	>$324,121	$331,900	>$348,495

What does this mean? Let’s take the basic personal amount. All Albertans are allowed to earn up to the basic personal amount tax-free. Yup, in 2019, the first $19,369 was not subject to tax (well, more accurately, Albertans get a tax credit that amounts to that outcome, but for simplicity’s sake, we will just say tax-free. We will show how the actual calculation works below). Without indexation, that amount stayed the same for 2020, 2021, and 2022. Had that amount been indexed, as is normal policy, then the basic personal amount would have increased each year by inflation. In nominal terms, it means that more and more income is not subject to taxation, but in real terms, it means that as income rises to keep pace with inflation, that increase is not subject to increased taxation since it does not represent an increased ability to pay taxes. The same is true for all the additional tax credits, which not all taxpayers are able to claim: it depends on your personal circumstances. This is why it is not so simple to ask “if someone earned $100,000, how much more in taxes would they pay.” It depends!

In terms of tax thresholds, because our personal income tax system is progressive (the more you earn, the higher the rate your pay), we also need thresholds at which different tax rates apply. Right now in Alberta, there are five rates—10%, 12%, 13%, 14%, 15%—that apply at higher and higher income levels. Due to de-indexation, the thresholds were frozen at 2019 levels, whereas the remaining columns show how the thresholds should have increased with inflation. Here is where you can see bracket creep in action.

I’ll use the example from our tax policy trends piece. Let’s assume that in 2019, Nuru earns $131,220 on which they pay a statutory tax rate of 10 percent. In 2020, Nuru’s income increased by 1.9 percent, the exact pace of inflation, to $133,611. Because the income tax thresholds in Alberta were not indexed to inflation, the whole increase is taxed at the next highest statutory tax rate of 12 percent.  This, despite the fact that Nuru’s real income did not increase. Had indexation been maintained their increase would have been taxed instead at 10 percent. Under the de-indexed scenario, Nuru pays nearly $50 more in tax than they would have otherwise. While that might not seem like much, across all taxpayers and year after year, it adds up.

Our piece showed what the cumulative impact has been on the Government of Alberta’s revenues. That graph is replicated below. The policy of indexation means that between 2020 and 2022, the Government of Alberta has accrued $646.9M more in tax revenues (the sum of the blue bars) than they should have as a result of de-indexing tax credits and thresholds. If indexation is not brought in for 2023 (though I imagine it will be), the Government of Alberta could accrue as much as $706M in additional revenues for that year alone! This demonstrates the point made above, it is the cumulative impact of de-indexation that really bites for taxpayers.

What of the above credits and thresholds contributes the most to the gain in revenues by the Alberta Government? Or alternatively, which of the tax credits and thresholds that were de-indexed contributed the most to the increase in tax paid by Albertans? It really should come as no surprise that it is the de-indexation of the basic personal amount that contributes the most to the impact of de-indexation. Anyone with income benefits from the basic personal amount. The lack of de-indexation of the basic personal amount means that more and more income is subject to tax even without reported income increasing. That is, even if your income did not increase, because the threshold for the basic personal amount was not increased, more of your income is subject to taxation at the 10% rate. And the cumulative impact of that one thing accounts for most of the impact of de-indexation.

Let’s go back and look at this impact on Nuru. Let’s assume that the only tax credit that Nuru can claim is the basic personal amount (they are single, of working age, no dependents, not a caregiver, does not have medical expenses, no pension, etc.).

We again assume their income in 2019 is $131,220. The personal income taxes owed, assuming the only tax credit they are able to access is the basic personal amount is 131220*10%-19369*10%=Tax owed on income minus credit for the basic personal amount=$11,185.10.

In 2020, Nuru’s income increased to $133,611. Without indexation taxes owed would be 131220*10%+(133611-131221)*12%-19369*10%=$11,471.9. Here we see clearly what bracket creep is as the additional income creeps into the next statutory tax bracket.

With indexation, taxes owed would be 133611*10%-19737*10%=$11,387.4. Here there is no bracket creep, all the increase in income is taxed at the same statutory tax bracket of 10% AND the basic personal amount increase means less income is subject to taxation. The indexation of the personal amount means paying $36.8 less in taxes and the lack of bracket creep means $47.7 less in taxes.

Since everyone that earns over the basic personal amount benefits from the indexation of the basic amount while only those near a tax threshold benefit from indexation by avoiding bracket creep, de-indexing has the largest impact on total taxes owed under de-indexation in the short-term. However, whether this is true for any one taxpayer depends on the income of the taxpayer. Further, the longer de-indexation goes on, the more and more people experience bracket creep and this effect will begin to dominate.

As you can see the concept of indexation is fairly simple, however, how indexation affects any one person is complicated. Either way, de-indexing tax brackets, and credits is really BAD tax policy. Even if the UCP government were to reverse this policy for 2023, if it does not grandfather in the cumulative changes, most Albertans will pay more in taxes in perpetuity.

I’ll finish by saying de-indexation is a policy that should not be used. Period. It also definitely should not be used by a Government too scared to ensure that its tax policy measures match revenue needs based on the preferences for goods and services by its residents. The Government will want you to believe that until resource royalties are stable, we can’t pursue indexation. This is just nonsense. Resource royalties have never been and will never be stable. Resource royalties should have never been used to balance a budget. Prudent public finance sees a government pursuing sensible tax policy that is stable over a business cycle and stable over the future. No government in Alberta has ever pursued sensible and prudent public finance.

I was invited by the Economic Society of Northern Alberta to participate in a panel discussion providing a post-mortem analysis of the 2022 Alberta Budget. I was given 7 minutes to give comments and I reproduce them below for you. My main message is that the Alberta UCP are not the fiscal stewards they present themselves to be and this is a really disappointing budget, particularly from a fiscal and economic lens that is informed by recent thinking, learners, and evidence.

I will give some high-level comments about the budget, aspects which I think everyone probably already has a good handle on but probably with a bit of a twist. I am known for my twists!

Before I start I would like to take this opportunity to acknowledge the traditional territories of the people of the Treaty 7 region in Southern Alberta. The City of Calgary is also home to Métis Nation of Alberta, Region 3.

I boil down my main comments into four specific areas that consecutively build on the one before.

First, there is no evidence in this budget that the Alberta UCP government are savvy fiscal stewards whose actions and policies have directly led to the fiscal bottom line reported in this budget. It is well known by now that the government has booked a surplus of about $511 million, which will likely be much larger by year-end. What has changed over the dire message in previous budgets?

Resource royalties have recovered significantly, projected to be ~$12B in Budget 2022 based on $70/barrel oil (WTI, which today is trading around $110/barrel). Two years ago, OPEC+ was in a supply war, now we are in a real war, both driven by the actions of Russia. While the price of oil is currently expected to remain high for a while, if not a few years, balancing a budget on these volatile revenues is precisely the reason why Alberta has weathered boom and bust cycles directly through its budget. When oil is down, Alberta gets out its pruning sheers, when oil is up, it is Ralph Bucks for everyone. But I learned about a saying that you have here in Alberta: “Please God give me one more oil boom and I promise not to piss it away this time”. Well, sorry, but Alberta is pissing away this possibly last oil boom. There is nothing in this budget that gets the province off the resource royalty roller coaster and that means that no, the hard work has not been done. There is also nothing in the budget for abandoned oil and gas well clean-up or for the missing payments to landowners or unpaid property taxes in rural Alberta municipalities (now totally $253M).

But while that is well known, another aspect that led directly to the strong reported fiscal position in Alberta was due to fiscal transfers from the federal government of nearly $12B and additional large investment in ECE in the province, an amount that rises to nearly $1B a year over the course of the agreement. While Alberta often talks about how it does not get its fair share, we know it also left money on the table for COVID supports. Further, it was the federal government that did the real heavy lifting in terms of supporting Albertans through the pandemic, not the province.

Second, the budget presents government spending and debt in a way that suggests there is no benefit from either and that all spending that adds to debt is wholly bad. This ignores the fact that there are clear economic rationales for spreading out the cost of spending across time periods and even across generations. This is because benefits can, and often are, felt across time and generations. Imagine thinking that the COVID-19 debt and spending should only be borne by current taxpayers and not thinking about how those policies and spending have benefited those who are not yet taxpayers. Our policies were, or at least should have been, focused on saving lives and preventing long-term disabilities. Those are benefits that are shared across time and generations. So in thinking about fiscal policy from an intersectional perspective, you begin to see the real concerns with failing to appreciate where the costs and benefits accrue and how to form fiscal policy with that understanding in hand.

Third, and building on this comment is thinking about how the usual fiscal anchors and guardrails fail to truly appreciate the role of government in society. It is not that I am arguing against thinking about parameters that help guide spending and investments, it is more that the fiscal anchors and guides being employed by Alberta are the usual ones, dating back decades. This means that there is no consideration about the value of the spending. That is, the metrics lump all spending together and just assume that spending is spending is spending and that all cuts are equal. What this ignores is the marginal value of public funds. While some people seem to think this is true, public funds are not set on fire. They are used to engage in valuable projects, programs, investments, and supports. But there are programs that generate more value than others and many might be surprised to learn that some of the highest value of spending is in the field of programs that benefit children, including supports to parents of kids that have long-term intergenerational benefits. We often fail to consider the long-term stream of intergenerational benefits of specific programs, thinking all that matters is next year’s GDP growth.  

Finally, and bringing this all together, the budget is based on a view of fiscal and economic policy that is very dated, lacks inclusion, and fails to think beyond the three-year budget horizon. It fails to consider any measures of well-being in addition to the usual narrow economic metrics. The point of government, of society, is to improve well-being. Historically we have used narrow economic indicators assuming these translate into well-being but the translation is imperfect and incomplete. Without expanding our understanding and measures of well-being we continue to include the usual in our policies and continue to exclude everyone else from our policies and our economy.  

The COVID-19 pandemic has served as a watershed moment, hoisting to the top of priority lists the demand that we do better to ensure that public policy works for the many, rather than the few. We’re hopeful for not only a fair recovery, but also the chance at a bigger shift towards a more just society. We require a modernized approach to public policy to address longstanding policy failures. This budget does not reflect this, at all.

Things are heating up in Alberta about the lack of a deal with the federal government on the billions available to support building a more comprehensive system of Early Childhood Education (this phrase matters) and child care in the province. Not only is the Minister of Children’s Services pushing out inflammatory tweets, but so are the Issues Managers (which I am told are called TheMatts). While I’ve been talking about ECE and child care for ages and ages, even before the pandemic, I caught the attention of the Jasons Kenneth and TheMatts last night. For those of you outside Alberta, TheMatts are sent out to discredit the reputation of the person tweeting facts they disagree with, not to actually discredit the facts. Yes, Alberta is a special place.

Let’s get into our TARDIS (don’t worry, it is bigger on the inside) and go back in time to Ottawa. The day is 23 September 2020. It is Speech From the Throne (SFT) day in Ottawa. Big day for anyone who follows policy. This is when the government of the day lays out its vision for the sitting. Usually these things spend a lot of time on what the government has already done and you have to really know your stuff to understand what is the new stuff. But this SFT had a section in it that made women across Canada sit up and pay attention. It is on page 13, and reads as following:

Women – and in particular low-income women – have been hit hardest by COVID-19. This crisis has been described as a she-cession.

Many women have bravely served on the frontlines of this crisis, in our communities or by shouldering the burden of unpaid care work at home.

We must not let the legacy of the pandemic be one of rolling back the clock on women’s participation in the workforce, nor one of backtracking on the social and political gains women and allies have fought so hard to secure.

The Government will create an Action Plan for Women in the Economy to help more women get back into the workforce and to ensure a feminist, intersectional response to this pandemic and recovery. This Plan will be guided by a task force of experts whose diverse voices will power a whole-of-government approach.

It has been nearly 50 years since the Royal Commission on the Status of Women outlined the necessity of child care services for women’s social and economic equality. We have long understood that Canada cannot succeed if half of the population is held back. Canadians need more accessible, affordable, inclusive, and high quality childcare.

Recognizing the urgency of this challenge, the Government will make a significant, long-term, sustained investment to create a Canada-wide early learning and childcare system.

The Government will build on previous investments, learn from the model that already exists in Quebec, and work with all provinces and territories to ensure that high-quality care is accessible to all.

There is broad consensus from all parts of society, including business and labour leaders, that the time is now.

The Government also remains committed to subsidizing before- and after-school program costs. With the way that this pandemic has affected parents and families, flexible care options for primary school children are more important than ever.

Here we have, in September 2020, the clear commitment to affordable, accessible, and high quality Early Childhood Education and child care that will be modeled after the program that already exists in Quebec.

Now let’s get back into our TARDIS and go forward in time to 20 November 2020. This is the date that the federal government tabled their Fall Economic Statement. Here we get even more details on pages iv-v and 76-79. This says

Investing in accessible, high-quality, affordable and inclusive child care is not only good for families, it makes good
economic sense. It gives children a good start in life and gives parents, especially mothers, the support they need to
maintain good jobs and provide for their families. In Quebec, where the provincial government has been investing
in high-quality accessible child care for over two decades, maternal labour force participation rates were 5 to 9
percentage points higher than in the rest of Canada in 2019. In particular, Quebec women with children under 3
have some of the highest employment rates in the world. Not only do good jobs help families individually, but
increased maternal labour force participation is good for economic growth and increases GDP per capita. Just as
Saskatchewan once showed Canada the way on health care and British Columbia showed Canada the way on
pricing pollution, Quebec can show us the way on child care.

There again, we have the commitment of a focus on affordable, accessible, high quality ECE and child care where Quebec shows us the way. It also notes that even further details will be laid out in Budget 2021.

Let’s get back into our TARDIS and go forward in time again to 19 April 2021. This is the day we got our budget. The commitment spans the pages of 97-105. Now a lot of details were in that budget and here they are below:

The federal government will work with provincial, territorial, and Indigenous partners to build a Canada-wide, community-based system of quality child care. This will be a transformative project on a scale with the work of previous generations of Canadians, who built a public school system and public health care. This is a legacy investment for today’s children who will not only benefit from, but also inherit this system.

Just as public school provides children with quality education in their neighbourhoods, the government’s goal is to ensure that all families have access to high-quality, affordable and flexible early learning and child care no matter
where they live. The government will also ensure that families in Canada are no longer burdened by high child care costs—with the goal of bringing fees for regulated child care down to $10 per day on average within the next five years. By the end of 2022, the government is aiming to achieve a 50 per cent reduction in average fees for regulated early learning and child care to make it more affordable for families. These targets would apply everywhere outside of Quebec, where prices are already affordable through its well-established system…

This once-in-a-generation transformation will take time and hard work from all orders of government—and that is why the next five years are focused on meaningful goals for families and setting the right foundations for success.

Up to $27.2 billion over five years, starting in 2021-22 will bring the federal government to a 50/50 share of child care costs with provincial and territorial governments, as part of initial 5-year agreements. Future objectives an distribution of funding, starting in year six, would be determined based on an understanding of need and progress achieved as part of this initial plan.

Over the next five years, the government will work with provinces and territories to make meaningful progress towards a system that works for families. The aforementioned federal funding would allow for:

A 50 per cent reduction in average fees for regulated early learning and child care in all provinces outside of Quebec, to be delivered before or by the end of 2022.

An average of $10 a day by 2025-26 for all regulated child care spaces in Canada.

Ongoing annual growth in quality affordable child care spaces across the country, building on the approximately 40,000 new spaces already created through previous federal investments.

Meaningful progress in improving and expanding before- and after-school care in order to provide more flexibility for working parents….

The next five years of the plan will also focus on building the right foundations for a community-based and truly Canada-wide system of child care. This includes:

Working with provinces and territories to support primarily not-for-profit sector child care providers to grow quality spaces across the country while ensuring that families in all licensed spaces benefit from more affordable child care.

A growing, qualified workforce—with provincial and territorial partners, the government will work to ensure that early childhood educators are at the heart of the system, by valuing their work and providing them with the training and development opportunities needed to support their growth and the growth of a quality system of child care. Over 95 per cent of child care workers are women, many of whom are making low wages, with a median wage of $19.20 per hour.

A strong basis for accountability to Canadians—the government will work with provincial and territorial partners to build a strong baseline of common, publicly available data on which to measure progress, report to Canadians,
and help continuously improve the system.

Quebec has been a pioneer of early learning and child care in Canada, with outcomes for children and families that have been studied around the world. However, the Quebec experience has also illustrated that building a system is
complex, and that phased and sustained investments are required to ensure that everyone has access to the same quality of care at affordable prices. These are valuable lessons for a pan-Canadian system. To build on the current
bilateral agreements:

Budget 2021 proposes to proceed with an asymmetrical agreement with the province of Quebec that will allow for further improvements to their system, which the people of Quebec are rightly proud of.

In addition, the federal government will authorize the transfer of 2021-22 funding as soon as bilateral agreements are reached with the provinces and territories, enabled by a proposed statutory appropriation.

So there you have it. The conditions on the federal funding AND that Quebec will get an asymmetrical agreement. So the fact that Alberta is not only complaining about the conditions AND that Quebec gets a very different agreement was laid out in the Budget in detail. If they are shocked by this, well, I can only assume that they did not read the Budget or they are being melodramatic solely for political reasons.

But let’s unpack this even more. What is the rationale for government intervention in the ECE market? The big one is because of the spill over benefits to society. That is the same reason we fully fund k-12 and partially fund post-secondary education. Neither of those seem controversial. The idea, however, that something magically happens at age 5 that woudn’t happen for a child aged 4.5 is, well, looney toons. We fund public education, and yes in Alberta we also provide the highest subsidies also for private education for the k-12 group, because society accrues nearly all the benefits from doing so. This really shouldn’t be controversial. In fact, the societal benefits are even larger in the under 5 crowed because that is when most of the really important brain development happens. There are also oodles of information failures in the ECE market. Some governments, like BC, have worked hard to overcome these failures, but Alberta has not. And of course another area of inefficiency is related to parents having to engage in constrained optimization that does not allow them to allocate their human capital to their most productive and economic efficient activity. In a nutshell, the market is inefficient and demands public intervention.

We can also look at the direct (and by direct I mean actual tangible benefits, not hokey impact analysis benefits) benefits that accrue to governments through increased tax revenues. In Quebec for every $1 in ECE spending they recouped $1.04 in revenues, the federal government recouped $1.40. This is from not only parents being able to engage in paid work, but also because of the employment benefits from expanding the sector.

Despite all this evidence, Alberta is kicking sand at the idea and it is doing so based purely on social conservative ideology. It is saying there is no flexibility. That is, in fact, false. Do the federal conditions require that spots being provided at $10/day as some in Alberta have claimed? No, the federal conditions are that the price be ON AVERAGE $10/day. Can they be $0 for some and $30 for others? Yes, yes they can. How might we decide how to do this? Well, the rule of thumb in the affordability literature, you know the same literature that has affordability for shelter being 35%, is that families should spend no more than 10% of their income on ECE and child care. So is there flexibility there? Yes!

Is the fee reduction that has to be rolled out 50% for everyone? No, it is ON AVERAGE a 50% fee reduction. Can there be private provision of child care? Yes, the federal government only wants a minimum of 50% of the focus being on the non-profit sector, well known for high quality and affordable ECE. And by the way, non-profit child care is not publicly provided union employed institutional child care (words the UCP throw about). In fact, there is no unionized, publicly provided child care in Alberta….at all.

Does the federal commitment mean that Alberta can’t invest in demand-side policies? No, it just means you can’t use these federal funds to do so. The federal government under this policy is intervening on the supply side of the market. The federal government too helps on the demand side. It has the Canada Child Care Expense Deduction (CCED). It could use some tweaks but there it is. It also has the Canada Child Benefit which provides direct, non-taxable income benefits to families. Alberta also has demand side policies. Want to continue with those? Go nuts. But I would like to point out the the current child care subsidy in Alberta is actually highly regressive and this is still true of the tweaks announced last week.

Alberta is also complaining that they were late to receive the term sheet from the federal government. I mean the terms were publicly known. See above. They should have been working on proposals since they knew the key terms already. But put yourself in the place of the federal government. It had several jurisdictions ready to go on deals: BC, Yukon, PEI, NS, NL, and Quebec. Alberta though when the budget came out went whole hog on expressing condemnation for the federal plan. So if I were allocating my scarce negotiating resources, I too would focus on those deals I can get done quickly and use that to add pressure to the hold out provinces.

And of course Alberta opted to release an RFP in early July. That RFP (SWP072021) was for work on modelling a child care subsidy for the Supporting Alberta Working Parents Advisory Group. Nothing in that RFP ensured that the federal conditions would be part of this modelling AND the works was not sue until September 2021. Now I saw this RFP because I subscribe to MERX. And, as a member of the federal Task Force for Women and the Economy, I advised the gang that the RFP had been issued and was a clear signal that a deal was in no way close to being complete.

Now I and a team of national experts on tax and ECE were going to bid on this RFP, but the terms that had to be accepted where highly problematic. Bidders had to waive moral rights, copy right, and sign an NDA. Collectively, this means that bidders are not only assigning the province the right to produce, reproduce, and publish the original work product, but the bidders must waive rights of attribution and association and right of integrity (moral rights). Waiving moral rights means not only can the Province not preserve the intent and original meaning of the work, the Province can also alter in any manner the work without the bidders permission. Bidders and their work can ultimately be referred to or used in a derogatory way, and can be used to threaten the Bidders reputation. The Proponent also has no say in attribution even if the work is represented in a way that threatens the Proponents reputation.

Here is my advice to the Government of Alberta. Parents in Alberta want you to make this deal. This deal will bring billions into the province that will help expand vital infrastructure to grow our economy. Making that deal allows for sufficient supply to be created, for ECE providers to have a better work environment, and support flexibility in terms of price, private and nonprofit supply, and even nonstandard hours provisions. It also frees up funds for Alberta to double down on demand side policies if they chose to do so. The notion that the province is being constrained in terms of flexibility is complete political spin. Yes, I realize this means that the province will have to eat crow, but given that this government is already tanking in the polls, it needs to do something to shore up some support. But leaving billions on the table is not how to do that.

Yesterday was an interesting day. It was a bit like Groundhog Day. There is a whole backstory to what happened. Let me fill you in.

I have to take you back to 19 November 2020. A day I actually also blogged about. On that day, nearly every single Postmedia ‘news’paper ran a story with the headline “More than 800,000 ineligible people received CERB, at a cost of nearly $1.7B, CRA documents reveal.” The headline was false and the story was filled with false statements. The story quoted a Blacklock’s reporter as the source for the story, which I might add, had no byline and was eerily similar to a story published by said Blacklock’s reporter in their own online ‘news’ site.

While I often read news that is spun, it is actually very rare that I see such factually incorrect yet easily verifiable information in a news story. And one about tax! So I tweeted corrections to the ‘fake news’ and blogged about it as I noted above. The blog post was really popular. Like really popular. 60,000 views popular! People were very pleased that someone was correcting the record.

That was when I started getting rather questionable emails from said Blacklock’s reporter. The emails were questionable enough that their email was added to my auto file rule that sends emails from certain addresses into my *caution trigger warning for uptight conservative men that a swear word is about to appear* Asshole email folder.

I also repeatedly emailed every single editor at the newspapers where the story was published demanding that they retract the article. Some responded very quickly, some modestly, some slowly, and one never responded. The one that never responded was the Toronto Sun.

This led me to file a complaint with the National News Media Council. My complaint listed the factually incorrect information and provided official sources as to why the information was factually incorrect. The National News Media Council, on 29 January 2021, upheld my complaint, which is actually quite rare, clearly stating that it is the responsibility of news organizations to verify statements. And so I wiped my hands of the matter….except Blacklock’s didn’t. The ‘reporter(s)’ now had an axe to grind.

There were the usual tweets from the Blacklock’s reporter(s), along with some real gem’s of emails. Essentially, they now wanted to shame me. And it seems the only thing they have on me is that I *gasp, clutches pearls, finds her smelling salts” swear on twitter from time to time on my personal twitter account. One of them tweeted about how my son must be embarrassed by me (nope). That apparently was too much for their followers and it was replaced with a tweet about my husband (who, yes, does 100% support me, not that that matters).

Then on 9 March 2021 the Western Standard, a ‘news’ source I had only recently learned about as they had their banner up at one of the silly anti-lock down protests, wrote a piece title “Feds appoint Calgary economist—who has vulgarly tweeted about men—as feminist advisor.” I actually only learned about this from Erica Ifill when I was on her podcast Bad + Bitchy (oh gosh, sorry my conservative readers, I forgot the trigger warning), which tells you a lot of about the circulation the Western Standard gets. Who is the source for that piece? Blacklock’s Reporter *gasp*.

Outside of the fact that I am not a feminist advisor, I was appointed to the Task Force on Women and the Economy, the story takes a few tweets, and not in their entirety, to say I vulgarly tweet about men. Here is the evidence in the article:

• I tweeted the image of a mug with a saying on it that included two swear words, I think it was from the always amazing Effin Birds account
• I quote tweeted a woman who was being policed by men for her communication style and I expressed solidarity
• I tweeted about an experience in a meeting where my input was dismissed by a dude (I think women can all relate with that)
• I commented about Erin O’Toole’s frat boy behaviour with his silly toilet video (I was not alone)
• I apparently called Doug Ford weak and pathetic but the article does not use quotes so who knows. I mean, he and his government are being called murder clowns so……
• I tweeted about a horrible experience in a meeting at my place of work where two white men referred to diversity and inclusion as tokenism

Good Golly! So vulgar. Sarcasm aside, that is it. That is the sum total of their story. So of course the twitter accounts for Blacklock’s and their associate tweeted about this, but outside of them I don’t think anyone actually noticed this article, I sure didn’t.

But for unrelated reasons I had to lock my account for unrelated (?) harassment. I unlocked my account in early June. Low and behold what happened? Blacklock’s tweeted about me winning the Faculty of Arts Award in Public Engagement. A few days later, Western Standard plagiarized themselves. They essentially re-posted the March article with a new headline “U of C rewards Vulgarity-tweeting prof.”

Now many of my feminist friends thought I was actually getting an award for tweeting vulgarity and were disappointed they had not had a chance to put in their own application. I love the headline and sub-title so much that it is currently my banner on Twitter and my reaction to the re-posted article was “Hahahahahahahaha.”

It is so blatantly obvious that all of this is just Blacklock’s being vindictive about their own factually incorrect reporting and this is my penance for reporting them. It is done solely for the purpose of silencing me, as though I am that fragile. *Narrator: she is not*.

But what is also ironic is that this also happened on the same day that Blacklock’s published a story about Trevor Tombe. Now, I don’t subscribed to Blacklock’s. Never will. I have no idea what the details are. The essence is that he had a contract with the federal government to do some research (on what I don’t know). Now I do know that Trevor has this contract listed on his CV. I’ll note that many in the past say that disclosure in one place is all that is needed.

Should it have been disclosed in any article he wrote? I don’t know, because I don’t know the details and I am not going to subscribe to find out. Some are suggesting that the piece is actually just a hit piece on the CBC, other are suggesting it is a hit piece on Trevor. I don’t know, but I did tweet out the importance of have a detailed disclosure statement. That is something I stand by and urge all academics engaging in public policy commentary to have a disclosure statement. I am even working with an MPP student and Dr. Melanee Thomas on developing a smart practices evidence informed guide on disclosure.

But it is interesting on the same day two prominent economists in Canada had hit pieces written about them. It is clearly an attempt to silence us from public policy commentary. It is coming from the conservative wing, who clearly don’t like the fact that we are able to provide information and correct misinformation as it arises. And we both have a fairly robust following.

Will the attempts to cancel me work? To take away my right to have a person twitter account and provide my views? It won’t work on me and I doubt it will work on Trevor. In my case, it is an attack on free speech and freedom of expressions.

Here we are 24 hours later and I have to thank Blacklock’s and the Western Standard for the exposure. I’ve gained about 1,200 new followers and counting because of all this. My gender follower profile has tilted more in favour of women than before. And it really upped my credibility in the feminist community. Thanks boys!