First, Mr Scheer takes issue with the Bank of Canada's claim that it did not "flood" the economy with "billions of dollars of new currency."
Except that this claim is correct. There was not a major increase in the amount of currency. The money printer was not going "brrr".
2/12
Currency outside of banks went from about $90 billion before the pandemic to about $105 billion at the end of 2020, $111 billion at the end of 2021 and $116 billion in July of this year (not seasonally adjusted). Not hundreds of billions of new cash.
3/12
What did grow, as the Bank already explains (see bankofcanada.ca/2022/06/unders…) is that settlement balances grew. Settlement balances are very special accounts that only certain financial institutions like banks have, and are used for payments systems.
4/12
Why did the Bank of Canada do this? To maintain the proper functioning of the government bond market. Who benefits from this? Mr Scheer says "primarily the government" but this is incorrect. The entire financial system, and through it the economy, benefits from this.
5/12
The yield on a Government of Canada bond will always be the lowest yield on any domestically issued marketable bond denominated in Canadian dollars of a similar maturity. This is because it will always be the lowest-risk bond of that type.
6/12
Do you want a 5-year fixed rate mortgage from BMO? The interest rate on it will be slightly higher than the yield on a 5-year bond issued by BMO, which in turn will be somewhat higher than the yield on a 5-year Government of Canada bond.
7/12
So, if the government bond market isn't functioning properly, corporate finance, mortgages and other debt markets also stop functioning properly.
This would be bad.
8/12
Mr Scheer also says "There were many economists who called out the Bank of Canada's policies."
Well, not really. Some economists started to call for QE to end sooner than it did. But there was general consensus that exceptional monetary stimulus was needed.
9/12
Almost everything closed at the start of the pandemic. The economic disruption was massive and unprecedented.
Mr Scheer notes that Bank officials were predicting that Canada was going into a deflationary crisis. Initially, Canada *did* briefly go into deflation.
10/12
We avoided a deflationary crisis. And because deflation is worse than high inflation, this is a big success. The economy bounced back from 2020 faster than it had in previous recessions. Through exceptional monetary policy interventions, a crisis was averted.
11/12
Could the Bank of Canada have done a better job? Probably. Hindsight, yadda yadda. But it is now taking action to bring inflation down, with quantiative tightening along with higher interest rates. The Bank's balance sheet is (gradually) going back to more normal levels.
12/12
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
Gentle reminder that in our Westminster system, Cabinet ministers are not appointed because of, or expected to be, subject matter experts. The professional public service has that expertise.
IMO, a good minister is one who can challenge and give direction to the public service. The minister needs to weigh the advice given and decide what is in the public interest, an inherently political task.
And, of course, a minister must be able to communicate effectively and persuasively. It is the minister who is accountable to Parliament and ultimately the public. A minister should therefore be able to explain and defend the decisions taken.
3/
(🧵) As I've commented on the drafting of a few letters from a premier to a prime minister, I felt it was worthwhile including one that, with a few exceptions, was written very well. So, let's take a close look at the letter from the Premier of Manitoba:
There are a couple of nits at the start. No post-nominals are included after Dr. Carney's name. Usually, they would be P.C., M.P.. In Dr. Carney's case, he is not yet a MP (although he will be one shortly), so perhaps it is forgiveable that no post-nominals were included.
2/
However, if one wants to be properly formal, P.C., O.C. could follow Dr. Carney's name (the latter as he is an Officer of the Order of Canada). A bit excessive, but acceptable, would be to also add D.Phil. after the other post-nominals, reflecting that he has a doctorate.
3/
(🧵) I’m disappointed, but unsurprised, with @ZivoAdam’s bad and erroneous takes. No rights were invented, and if a court has erred, the judicial system has an existing remedy by having appellate courts.
Courts have been extremely reluctant to enshrine any positive rights in their Charter decisions. The s. 7 right to life, etc., does not mean governments must *provide* bike lanes, safe consumption sites or similar things. But it *can* limit the ability to *remove* them.
2/
This is why the challenge to the bike lanes legislation is only seeking to protect existing bike lanes. There is simply no jurisprudence that would support striking down the rules limiting the ability to add new bike lanes.
3/
I am making no predictions, nor am I advocating for any particular outcome, but I would say this is a very bad take. The resurgence in LPC popular support illustrates democracy in action. To suggest differently is just wrong.
What polls showed was that Canadians were very unhappy with how they were being governed federally. Whatever the reasons—whether @Prominent_Bryan’s claims of the failures or whether other factors—voters were ready to pass an overwhelmingly negative judgment on the government.
@Prominent_Bryan The LPC opted to not wait for that judgment to be pronounced (although perhaps if Ms. Freeland hadn’t quit so spectacularly, it might have). Instead, it accepted that voters wanted change.
So, as the article notes, this proposed bill would face certain constitutional limits which any first-year law student should be able to analyze. A brief (?) explanation of the legal principles follow.
First of all, provinces can certainly enact valid legislation regarding what constitutes a trespass, as they have jurisdiction over property and civil rights. This is why you see provincial laws such as the Trespass to Property Act.
2/
But most legislation doesn’t fit entirely into one box. For example, there can be offence provisions attached to provincial trespass laws even though criminal law is federal jurisdiction.
3/
Where both the questions and answers have been poor, IMO, is with a transitional issue that can affect blind trusts: the fact that it is unlikely that the trustee will have completely rebalanced the investment assets quickly. However, this is nevertheless not a large issue.
We can expect that investments ("controlled assets" as defined in the Conflict of Interest Act) were transferred in-kind into the blind trust. So, Dr. Carney would know what the blind trust held on day one. What he doesn't know is what trades the trustee has since done.
2/
The trustee will make investment decisions based on broad investment guidelines provided by Dr. Carney, to a prudent person standard and in accordance with fiduciary duties. It would not be possible to perfectly predict what those decisions will be, or when they will be made.
3/