What's the risk of being hit by falling space debris?


By Fabian Zander

26th September 2022
From The Conversation

The end of a satellite's journey usually results in a fiery descent to Earth. With more in space than ever before, predicting where and when they land will become a pressing challenge.

Earlier this year, there were two separate incidents of space debris hurtling back to Earth in unexpected places.

The uncontrolled re-entry of a Chinese Long March 5B rocket over Malaysia was swiftly followed by reports in July of some spacecraft parts turning up in regional New South Wales, Australia – now confirmed to be from a SpaceX Crew-1 mission.

As the space industry grows, it's safe to say such incidents will only become more frequent – and they could pose a risk. But how much of a risk, exactly?

Space debris refers to the leftover components of a space system that are no longer required. It might be a satellite that has reached the end of its life (such as the International Space Station will when it reaches the end of its operational life in 2031), or parts of a rocket system that have fulfilled their purpose and are discarded.

To date, China has launched three Long March 5B rockets, and each has been deliberately left in an uncontrolled orbit. This means there was no way of knowing where they would land.

As for the SpaceX debris found in the Snowy Mountains, Australia, SpaceX de-orbits its rocket parts in a controlled fashion, and designs other components to burn up upon re-entry into Earth's atmosphere. But as you can see from the latest news, these things don't always go to plan.

You might also like:

The quest to tackle the rubbish dump in orbit
The pollution caused by rocket launches
The rocket tower being built in tropical jungle

So how dangerous is space debris, really?

Well, as far as we know only one person has ever been hit by it. Lottie Williams, a resident of Tulsa in Oklahoma, US, was struck harmlessly in the shoulder by a piece in 1997. It was about the size of her hand and thought to have come from a Delta II rocket. She picked it up, took it home and reported it to authorities the next day.

However, with more and more objects going into space, and coming back down, the chances of someone or something being struck are increasing. This is especially true of large, uncontrolled objects such as the Long March 5B.

In 2014, a large piece of space debris landed near Salinopolis, Brazil. The debris bears the logos of the UK Space Agency and a European satellite company (Credit: Getty Images)

Of the three times this model of rocket has been launched: the first re-entered on 11 May 2020, with components landing on two villages in the Ivory Coast, the second re-entered on 9 May 2021, near the Maldives, and the third re-entered on this year over Indonesia and Malaysia, with debris landing around these islands.

So should I be worried?

There are many different estimates of the chances of space debris hitting someone, but most are in the one-in-10,000 range. This is the chance of any person being hit, anywhere in the world. However, the chances of a particular person being hit (such as you or me) is in the order of one in a trillion.

There are several factors behind these estimates, but let's just focus on one key one for now. The image below shows the orbital path the recent Long March 5B-Y3 rocket followed for its final 24 hours (different objects take different orbital paths), as well as its re-entry location marked in red.

As you can see, the rocket orbits above land for a substantial amount of time.

It can be extremely challenging to predict where an object in an uncontrolled orbit will re-enter Earth's atmosphere

SPACE JUNK: THE RISK OF BEING HIT

By Monica Grady

Professor of Planetary and Space Sciences, The Open University

The chance of someone being killed by space junk falling from the sky may seem ridiculously tiny. But given that we are launching an increasing number of satellites, rockets and probes into space, do we need to start taking the risk more seriously?

A study, published in Nature Astronomy, estimated the chance of causalities from falling rocket parts over the next ten years.

The study investigated the uncontrolled arrival of artificial space debris, such as spent rocket stages, associated with rocket launches and satellites. Using mathematical modelling of the inclinations and orbits of rocket parts in space and population density below them, as well as 30 years’ worth of past satellite data, the authors estimated where rocket debris and other pieces of space junk land when they fall back to Earth.

They found that there is a small, but significant, risk of parts re-entering in the coming decade. But this is more likely to happen over southern latitudes than northern ones. In fact, the study estimated that rocket bodies are approximately three times more likely to land at the latitudes of Jakarta in Indonesia, Dhaka in Bangladesh or Lagos in Nigeria than those of New York in the US, Beijing in China or Moscow in Russia.

The authors also calculated a "casualty expectation" – the risk to human life – over the next decade as a result of uncontrolled rocket re-entries. Assuming that each re-entry spreads lethal debris over an area of ten square metres, they found that there is a 10% chance of one or more casualties over the next decade, on average.

* Adapted from this article from The Conversation and republished under a Creative Commons licence.

Specifically, in these orbits the vehicle spends about 20% of its time over land. A broad estimate tells us 20% of land is inhabited, which means there is a 4% chance of the Long March 5B re-entry occurring over an inhabited area.

This may seem pretty high. But when you consider how much "inhabited land" is actually covered by people, the likelihood of injury or death becomes significantly less.

The chance of damage to property, on the other hand, is higher. It could be as high as 1% for any given re-entry of the Long March 5B.

Also, the overall risk posed by space debris will increase with the sheer number of objects being launched and re-entering the atmosphere. Current plans of companies and space agencies around the world involve many, many more launches.

China's Tiangong Space Station is due to be finished by the end of 2022. And South Korea recently became the seventh country to launch a satellite payload heavier than one tonne – with plans to expand its space sector (along with Japan, Russia, India and United Arab Emirates).

It's highly likely the chances of being hit are only going to go up (but will hopefully remain very small).

How can we be prepared?

Two questions come to mind: can we predict debris re-entries, and what can we do to reduce risk?

Let's start with predictions. It can be extremely challenging to predict where an object in an uncontrolled orbit will re-enter Earth's atmosphere. The general rule of thumb says uncertainty of the estimated re-entry time will be between 10% and 20% of the remaining orbital time.

This means an object with a predicted re-entry time in 10 hours will have an uncertainty margin of about one hour. So if an object is orbiting Earth every 60-90 minutes, it could enter pretty much anywhere.

Improving on this uncertainty margin is a big challenge and will require significant amounts of research. Even then, it's unlikely we'll be able to predict an object’s re-entry location more accurately than within a 1,000km (621-mile) range.

Ways to reduce risk

Reducing risk is a challenge, but there are a couple of options.

First, all objects launched into an Earth orbit should have a plan for safe de-orbiting into an unpopulated area. This is usually the SPOUA (South Pacific Ocean Uninhabited Area) – also known as the "spacecraft cemetery".

There’s also the option to carefully design components so they completely disintegrate upon re-entry. If everything burns up when it hits the upper atmosphere, there will no longer be a significant risk.

There are already some guidelines requiring space debris risk minimisation, such as the United Nations guidelines for the Long-term Sustainability of Outer Space Activities – but the mechanisms for these aren't specified.

Moreover, how do these guidelines apply internationally, and who can enforce them? Such questions remain unanswered.

In summary, should you be concerned about being hit by space debris? For now, no. Is further research on space debris important for the future? Absolutely.

--

This article originally appeared on The Conversation, and is republished under a Creative Commons 

'Iconic' plant family at risk: Scientists estimate more than half of palm species may be threatened with extinction

by Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

Scientists used artificial intelligence (AI) to help estimate the extinction risk of nearly 1,400 

species in the palm family, Arecaceae. They believe machine learning can aid conservation

 efforts by speeding up assessment efforts for the IUCN Red List of Threatened Species. 

Credit: RBG KEW

In a new paper published today in the journal Nature Ecology and Evolution, scientists have estimated the conservation status of nearly 1,900 palm species using artificial intelligence, and found more than 1,000 may be at risk of extinction.

The international team of researchers from the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, the University of Zurich, and the University of Amsterdam, combined existing data from the International Union for Conservation of Nature (IUCN) Red List with novel machine learning techniques to paint a clearer picture of how palms may be threatened. Although popular and well represented on the Red List, the threat to some 70% of these plants has remained unclear until now.

The IUCN Red List of Threatened Species is widely considered to be a gold standard for evaluating the conservation status of animal, plant, and fungal species. But there are gaps in the Red List that need to be addressed, as not all species have been listed and many of the assessments are in need of an update. Conservation efforts are further complicated by inadequate funding, the sheer amount of time needed to manually assess a species, and public perception favoring certain vertebrate species over plants and fungi.

Scientists are, however, confident that preliminary evaluations of a species' conservation status can be greatly sped up using AI. Towards this end, researchers at RBG Kew and partners are developing novel techniques to estimate the extinction risk for thousands of plant species, aiding efforts to expand and update the IUCN Red List.

Dr. Steven Bachman, research leader in Kew's Conservation Assessment and Analysis team, says, "The biodiversity crisis dictates that we take urgent action to stem biodiversity loss. We need to use all the tools at our disposal, such as prediction and automation, to generate rapid and robust assessments. The addition of plants to the Red List is one of the vital steps conservationists can take to raise awareness of species at risk."

In their latest study, the RBG Kew researchers and their collaborators employed machine learning to estimate the extinction risk of more than a thousand palm species. Using AI and existing Red List data, they were able to study how extinction risks relate to palm distribution and ecology, predicting in the process the extinction risk for 1,381 species. The newfound data was then combined with available Red List assessments to determine the extinction risk of 1,889 species or 75% of the palm family. Worryingly more than half (56%) of these species may be threatened, and if extrapolated for the whole family, more than 1,000 species may be threatened with extinction.

Dr. Sidonie Bellot, research leader in character evolution at Kew, says, "This is a bit less than extrapolations based on the Red List assessment only, but is still very concerning given the many interactions between palms and other living beings. These interactions range from the fungi and insects living on them, to the mammals and birds eating their fruits, to the many people relying on palm products."

Globally, the palm family is found across 227 regions and has been studied by RBG Kew scientists and partners for decades, securing a breadth of knowledge about their genetic diversity and uses. This knowledge is vital for ecologists, as threatened species may be earmarked for priority conservation if they are found to be genetically different, or "evolutionarily distinct," from their closest relatives; are "functionally distinct" due to their unusual features; or are known to be used by humans. But these data relating to aspects of evolution, functionality, and use by people are often scarce for plants, and rarely consolidated to support global extinction risk studies.

In their study, the authors found that just under half of the evolutionarily or functionally distinct species were threatened, as were just under a third of used species. Based on their findings, they designated Madagascar, New Guinea, the Philippines, Hawaii, Borneo, Jamaica, Vietnam, Vanuatu, New Caledonia, and Sulawesi as priority regions for palm conservation. The regions each host between 12 and 291 palm species, where more than 40% of the evolutionarily distinct, functionally distinct, and/or utilized species may be threatened. Similarly, another 15 regions were identified where less than 10 palm species exist, but the threat of extinction is equally high.

To better understand these risks, their impact on palm diversity and the wider environment, as well as their impact on human populations, the study's authors believe more work still needs to be done. Their findings have laid out a foundation for future research, by not only listing threatened palm species but also by identifying potential substitutes for threatened utilized palms in each region. However, 620 species of palms had to be excluded from the report due to a lack of available data, reflecting the importance of and need for ongoing baseline biodiversity surveys.

Wild palms contribute to supporting the livelihoods of millions of people globally, providing building materials for homes and tools, as well as food and medicine for hundreds of communities across the tropics. According to the research, at least 185 palm species that have a use may be threatened in 92 regions, further stressing the need to protect these plants.

Dr. Rodrigo Cámara-Leret, senior researcher at the University of Zurich, says, "Palms are the most iconic plant group in the tropics and one of the most useful too. After this study, we have a much better idea of how many, and which, palm species are under threat. It is our hope that the prioritized list we provide of useful palms facing extinction and of their non-threatened alternatives may foster collaborations across all stakeholders and accelerate actions to conserve them."Half of species not assessed for endangered list risk extinction: study

More information: Sidonie Bellot, The likely extinction of hundreds of palm species threatens their contributions to people and ecosystems, Nature Ecology & Evolution (2022). DOI: 10.1038/s41559-022-01858-0. www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01858-0

Journal information: Nature Ecology & Evolution 

Provided by Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew 

CPP MADE MONEY, UCP/AIMCO LOST IT
Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund sees negative 4.1 per cent returns in first quarter

SO MUCH FOR UCP'S PROVINCIAL PENSION PLAN

Author of the article: Lisa Johnson
Publishing date: Sep 26, 2022

Edmonton Journal 

Alberta Investment Management Corp. CEO Evan Siddall

 in Calgary, Alta., Wednesday, Sept. 21, 2022. 

PHOTO BY JEFF MCINTOSH /The Canadian Press

After the Alberta Heritage Savings Trust Fund reported a 4.1-per-cent loss on returns in the first quarter, officials say that’s largely because of hits to the stock market

The report released on Aug. 31 for the period ending June 30 saw the fund’s market value decline by about $900 million, to $19.1 billion from a high of $20 billion at the end of last year. After deducting some $1.2 billion earmarked for the province’s general revenue fund, its assets were estimated at about $17.9 billion.

At a legislature committee meeting Monday, Lowell Epp, an assistant deputy minister in Treasury Board and Finance, said the first quarter results were not unexpected.

“I’d like to bring you good news, but the first quarter was anything but,” said Epp, adding the fund’s mandate is to maximize returns over the long term, so it has to take risk.

Over the past five years, it’s had an average return of 6.5 per cent, which is just above its target of 6.4 per cent.

The challenges faced by the Heritage Fund, the province’s long-term piggy bank, aren’t unique and the report noted that they have affected asset managers on a global scale.

“Rising interest rates and global growth concerns are both large factors that influence the value of investments, which is evident in the performance results,” it noted.

The decline in value was driven mostly by public equity holdings — stocks traded on exchanges — which made up 37.6 per cent of the fund’s total investments, but fixed-income investments that typically include less-risky bonds also took a 4.6 per cent hit.

Alberta Investment Management Corporation (AIMCo) CEO Evan Siddall told MLAs on the committee it’s impossible to say if the fund will recover its losses this year, as quarterly reports reflect a snapshot of the market and make estimates about how much assets are worth.

“They do fluctuate a lot and long-term a investor can tolerate those fluctuations, and we certainly hope to regain those losses, but … I would not predict or promise that. I don’t have that crystal ball,” he said.

Sandra Lau, chief investment officer at AIMCo, said in general, stock markets saw a decline of 10 to 16 per cent, depending on the region.

“We have seen a drastic sell-off in the stock market in the last quarter, which is the worst quarterly (sell) off we’ve ever seen since the COVID crisis,” Lau said.

The fund benefited from gains to what it calls “inflation sensitive investments” including infrastructure and real estate. Those earned 4.6 per cent and made up 33.6 per cent of the total portfolio over the quarter.

With its last fiscal update, the UCP government pledged to add $3 billion of it’s $13.2-billion projected surplus to the Heritage Fund.

At the committee, Siddall also touched on AIMCo’s goals of expanding investments internationally, including in Asian markets, and towards “transition finance” investments in a lower-carbon intensity economy.

“While we believe there will be a future for hydrocarbons in the world, the net-zero commitments of some will require additional discipline around de-carbonization. We think there’s money to be made for long-term investors in that area and we’re exploring opportunities there,” he said, adding the investment manager plans to present a new investment strategy to its board in a couple of weeks.

New ‘Striketober’ looms as US walkouts increase amid surge in union activity

Support for unions is on the rise as workers take action to raise pay and conditions amid booming company profits

American University staff members participate in a picket line while on strike in Washington DC last month. Photograph: Shawn Thew/EPA


Michael Sainato

THE GUARDIAN

Mon 26 Sep 2022

Thousands of workers around the US are going on strike or threatening to do so heading into October, amid a recent surge of labor action activity in America and just one month before crucial midterm elections.

Support for labor unions in the US has grown over the past year, as a surge in organizing has resulted in workers winning union elections at major corporations including Starbucks, Amazon, Apple, Chipotle, Trader Joe’s, Google, REI and Verizon.



Mass firings, wage cuts and open hostility: workers are still unionizing despite obstacles


Union election petitions increased 58% in the first three quarters of fiscal year 2022, compared with 2021. Public support for labor unions is at its highest point since 1965, according to the most recent Gallup poll, with a 71% approval of labor unions in the US.

According to the labor action tracker at Cornell University, strikes in 2022 so far have significantly outpaced strike activity in 2021, with 180 strikes involving 78,000 workers in the first six months of 2022, compared with 102 strikes involving 26,500 workers in the first six months of 2021. The tracker recorded 41 strikes that started between 15 August and 15 September 2022, involving 35,250 workers.

“Strikes appear to be increasing as we head into the fall,” said Johnnie Kallas, project director for the Cornell University ILR labor action tracker. “These strikes are being led by workers in the service sector. Starbucks workers have organized over 70 strikes so far this year in response to poor working conditions and employer retaliation. Over the past month, thousands of healthcare workers and educators have gone on strike to protest understaffing, low pay and poor conditions for patients and students.”

Last October was also dubbed “Striketober” by the US labor movement as a number of high-profile labor strikes and strike threats occurred throughout the month.

Some of the largest strikes in recent weeks in the US have included 15,000 nurses who went on a three-day strike in Minnesota, over 1,100 timber workers in Oregon and Washington, over 4,500 teachers and staff in Columbus, Ohio, more than 6,000 teachers and staff in Seattle, 2,000 mental healthcare workers in California, 1,200 casting plant workers at Stellantis in Indiana, and 700 nursing home workers in Pennsylvania.

Among the groups of workers that have recently authorized strikes include graduate workers at Clark University, while graduate workers at Indiana University will soon decide whether to resume a strike from earlier this year, about 800 auto workers at the Ultium Cells electric vehicle plant in Lordstown, Ohio, voted to authorize a strike for union recognition this month, and 115,000 railroad workers could still strike if they decide to vote down tentative contract agreements in the coming weeks.

UFCW Local 1059, representing about 12,500 workers at Kroger grocery stores in the Columbus, Ohio, area voted to authorize a strike on 16 September after rejecting the third contract proposal offered to members, Kroger’s latest and final offer.

A strike date hasn’t been set yet. A Kroger employee who voted in favor of authorizing the strike, but requested to remain anonymous for fear of retaliation, explained they feel they have no choice due to many longtime workers still receiving poverty wages while working short-staffed.

“We should be making a living wage right now,” the worker said. “They’ve made a ton of money for the higher-ups, they’ve made a ton of money for their shareholders. But once again they’re saying that they can’t afford to pay us the wages that we just need to survive.”

The worker argued the proposed wage increases didn’t align with prices that have increased on customers and with Kroger’s profits, which have soared throughout the pandemic, with $3.5bn in operating profit in 2021 and projections of at least $4.6bn in operating profit in 2022, in addition to authorizing a $1bn stock buyback.

“I know for a lot of people that this strike is a really huge personal sacrifice to them, but we don’t have any other options,” the worker added. “We’re not trying to be greedy. But we’re just really tired and we sacrificed a whole lot during the pandemic.”

In Boston, about 300 workers at Sysco have a strike vote scheduled for 25 September as their contract is set to expire at the end of the month, with the union alleging Sysco has been dragging out negotiations, which Sysco has denied. Sysco workers have gone on strike so far this year in the Baltimore, Maryland, area and St Cloud, Minnesota.

“We’ve been called essential workers for the longest time and now it’s just empty words,” said Trevor Ashley, a driver at Sysco in Boston for over 20 years.

SEIU members shout their support for unions during a Labor Day parade in downtown Pittsburgh, on 5 September. Photograph: Steve Mellon/AP

In Buffalo, New York, over 6,300 healthcare workers at Kaleida Health voted to authorize a strike on 15 September amid their new union contract negotiations, with 96% in support. In the event of a strike, the unions representing workers will have to issue a 10-day notice.

“They left us no choice but to authorize a strike. For them to say they’re listening is not accurate,” said Kim Kornowski, a registered nurse at Millard Fillmore Suburban hospital.

Workers at Kaleida Health claimed staffing shortages and cuts have increased workloads and worsened working conditions throughout the pandemic, with hundreds of vacant positions that still need to be filled.

“We’re there to help take care of patients, but when there’s only one of me and a nurse that has seven or eight patients, it’s hard for us to take care of patients,” said Betty Thompson, a patient care assistant at Kaleida Health.

Kaleida Health has said it is making strike contingency preparations as they continue working to reach a contract with the union, but claimed the recent union proposal was too expensive.

“What we want is a fair contract that appropriately rewards our workforce and positions the organization for the future. That includes no concessionary bargaining, addressing staffing needs, and once again becoming the market leader in wages,” said a Kaleida Health spokesperson.

THESE ARE INVESTMENTS NOT TAXES

1. Uh, Mr. Poilievre? Canada Pension Plan premiums are not a tax

   https://www.theglobeandmail.com/.../article-pierre-poilievre-cpp-premiums-tax

   16 hours ago · opinion. Uh, Mr. Poilievre? Canada Pension Plan premiums are not a tax. Rob Carrick Personal Finance Columnist. Published 2 hours ago Updated 1 hour ago. T

EI, CPP premiums are on the rise, but there is more to the story than numbers

Ryan Tumilty - Thursday

OTTAWA – With new leader Pierre Poilievre at the helm, the Conservatives have made the cost of living their focus and have narrowed in on some looming increases in Employment Insurance and Canada Pension Plan premiums


Canada Pension Plan contribution rates for both employees and employers will rise to 5.95 per cent by 2023 from 4.95 per cent in 2018.© Provided by National Post

In the House of Commons Wednesday, Poilievre accused the government of making a bad economic situation worse for Canadians with new charges.

“It plans to raise both EI and CPP premiums, the paycheque tax, right at a time when we are facing 40-year highs in inflation; all-time highs and increased housing prices,” he said and then called on the government to cancel all of the increases.

As it stands, EI and CPP premiums will both increase on Jan. 1, 2023, taking a small dent out of Canadians’ paycheques.
Federal tribunal reverses EI denial for worker fired for not taking COVID vaccine
Conservatives consider supporting Liberal bill that would double GST credits

In April next year, the Liberals’ carbon tax will rise as well, adding $15 per tonne to a new total of $65 per tonne in the provinces where the federal program applies. Those increases are slated to continue until the tax reaches $130 per tonne in 2030.

The CPP increases are part of the government’s broader plan to increase benefits to retirees. The maximum benefit a retired Canadian can receive today from CPP is about $15,000, but under a deal worked out with provincial governments, including some Conservatives premiers, the contributions and benefits will be around $20,000 per year in a few years time.

To pay for those increased benefits, contributions are rising as well from 5.7 per cent of earnings this year to 5.95 per cent starting on Jan. 1. For a person with the maximum amount of pensionable earnings the contribution would rise by about $300 next year.

Trevor Tombe, an economist at the University of Calgary, said even if the Liberals wanted to postpone the coming CPP hikes, it can’t do so without provincial agreement.

“The federal government can’t change that unilaterally even if they wanted. It’s a joint federal, provincial program that requires agreement across governments,” he said in an email.

Of the three increases the Conservatives are calling to freeze, the carbon tax is the one the Liberals have the most direct control over. The government could choose to reduce or delay that tax, but the Liberals’ overall plan to reduce carbon emissions and meet Canada’s Paris target is based on a rising carbon levy.

Related video: Poilievre pushes inflation in first question period
Duration 2:08 View on Watch

7:39
'Today is important, targeted supports for Canadians who need it most': Associate finance minister.cbc.ca

When Poilievre and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland sparred over the issue during Wednesday’s question period, Freeland was quick to point out that even with the coming increase EI rates were higher when the Conservatives were in power and specifically when Poilievre was minister of the department.

Employment insurance premiums are based on a set amount per $100 of an employee’s earnings up to a maximum of $61,500.

The Conservative leader was minister of employment and social development in the final year of Stephen Harper’s government, 2015, when the rate Canadians paid was $1.88 per $100 on a maximum of $49,500 in annual income.



Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre rises during Question Period, in Ottawa, Thursday, Sept. 22, 2022.© Adrian Wyld

The hike set to hit Canadians in January will bring the figure to $1.63, higher than the $1.58 it is now, but still lower than it was at any point during the Conservatives’ entire last tenure in office. Employers also pay into the system at a rate of 1.4 times the rate employees pay, which means they will pay $2.28 per $100 next year.

But one number doesn’t tell the whole story, because the amount of income covered under the program has also risen. When Poilievre was minister, the program cost a maximum of $930.60 for a worker, but next year it will cost a maximum of $1,002.45. An employer’s maximum contribution will be $1,403.43.

The government has the final say on EI premiums and the Liberals have frozen rates for the last two years. They also reduced the number of hours you need to work to qualify. The government does receive annual recommendations for rates based on estimates by economists and actuaries. Legislation requires the government to aim to ensure the overall EI account returns to balance over seven years.

When the account is in surplus, governments can lower premiums or, as both Conservatives and Liberals have done before, use the surplus funds for the government’s general revenues.

But the EI account today is far from surplus, the pandemic drained it to the point where it ended the last fiscal year $29 billion in the red. The government’s assessment of EI actually recommended a larger increase of $1.74 per $100 of earnings, but legislation prevents any increase of more than $0.05 in a single year.

Rachel Samson, Vice-President of research at the Institute for research on public policy, said with a debt that large in the account, the government’s only options is to increase premiums or spend taxpayer funds.

“Someone has to pay for it and it’s a question of who is going to be paying for those costs,” she said.

Samson said there are also larger issues with the program that need to be addressed, because as more people have started working as contractors or gig workers, the systems covers less and less people with only 40 per cent of Canadians covered today.

“If you’re thinking about it as an economic stabilization tool, in terms of preserving the purchasing power of workers that are laid off during a recession, it’s not fulfilling that role, potentially, as well as it could.”

Freeland said the increase to EI premiums adds up to $31 for the average Canadian worker next year. She said the Conservative approach to freeze EI contribution would cost $2.5 billion. She said the government believes that money could be better spent, pointing to the government’s plan to boost the GST credit for low-income families.

“Doubling the GST credit for six months is around $2.5 billion and the proposed EI freeze is around $2.5 billion,” she said. “I would say our targeted meaningful support is the right compassionate choice.”

Twitter: RyanTumilty

Email: rtumilty@postmedia.com

– with additional reporting by Catherine Lévesque.

HE HAS NOT CHANGED HIS TUNE SINCE 2016

Pierre Poilievre on Canada Pension Plan

In the House of Commons on October 24th, 2016. See this statement in context.

Canada Pension PlanGovernment Orders

October 24th, 2016 / 5:15 p.m.

Conservative

Pierre Poilievre Carleton, ON

Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the leader of Her Majesty's loyal opposition for recently naming me the spokesperson for work and opportunity for the Conservative caucus. I will approach this issue and all issues by breaking them down into those two constituent parts, work and opportunity.

The reason that those two things are so important is because they will determine the well-being of our people. The best anti-poverty program is a good job. The greatest social safety net we have is a strong family and a strong community. I am here today to talk about how we can use the power of work and opportunity to lift people up, particularly people who are less fortunate. It is through that prism that I will comment on the government's proposed increase in Canada pension plan payroll taxes.

Let us start with the impact of that policy on work. What will be the impact on work? First, it will make it more expensive to work. Anybody who has a job and receives a wage will pay higher payroll taxes. According to one estimate, it will be as much as $2,200 in extra payroll taxes, and that will be matched by the employer. It would be $2,200 per household, and an equivalent amount for each contribution by the employee will then be paid by the employer.

That deals with the second half of the work dimension. Not only will it be more expensive to work, it would be more expensive to hire. When it becomes more expensive to hire, understandably less hiring happens. That is particularly the case for small businesses, whose ability to take on marginal costs like payroll taxes is lower than that of larger firms.

This is particularly important because new evidence has emerged this month showing that small and medium-sized firms are vastly outpacing big business when it comes to hiring people. A report from Scotiabank said:

Annual payroll growth among small firms (fewer than 100 employees) averaged 1.4% from 2010-2015, significantly stronger than the 0.9% increase among large firms (500 or more employees), though lagging the 2.0% gain among mid-sized firms (100-499 employees). Small firms generated more than 500,000 net new jobs over this period, or 45% of national payroll gains.

In other words, small companies were responsible for half of the net new hiring that occurred between 2010 and 2015, and large businesses, the kind that the Liberal government likes to associate with, are not generating jobs in the same numbers as the small and medium-sized enterprises. This new payroll tax will make it more expensive for the small companies to hire people, and therefore they will do less hiring.

Anyone who has been out in their communities and talked to small electrician firms, small construction companies, local mom and pop shops, will say they are hearing of the increased burden of government that applies every time a small business tries to hire someone, whether it is restrictive labour laws, higher payroll taxes, provincial and municipal building code restrictions, or the endless volumes of paperwork that a small business must complete for the mere crime of creating jobs and providing goods and services in a community. All of these burdens make it more difficult for entrepreneurs to hire and grow their payroll, and this new payroll tax will make it harder still.

Let us be clear. The government has argued that the CPP payroll tax increase is not a tax at all. It argues that it is simply deferred income, that it goes in one end of the CPP machine, and that when the person retires, it comes out the other. That is not the case for small business. The entrepreneur will pay an increased premium, but he or she will get absolutely nothing in return for it. Their pension will not go up as a result of the increased payroll tax. Their costs will simply go up.

The reality is that they do not have spare change sitting around waiting to throw at the government, so they will have to make difficult decisions. The Canadian Federation of Independent Business has already said that many employers will either cut wages or jobs to make up the extra cost from new tax burden.

That is how this new tax will affect small business in particular, but what about businesses in the export market? Canada is a trading nation. Without exports, we do not have an economy.

I look at the struggling manufacturing sector in Ontario, already hammered with literally tens of billions of dollars in inflated electricity prices imposed by the provincial government to reward well-connected, so-called green energy firms. We look at the new carbon tax these firms will have to pay just to keep their factories operating, and now they will have to pay new contributions to CPP. Large manufacturing firms, particularly in the auto sector, have already warned that this triple whammy will make it more difficult to create jobs here in Canada.

We have a global supply chain where investment goes to where the returns are, and if the returns on hiring Canadians are lower because the costs are higher, then these firms will just build and hire somewhere else. They have lots of options. Other places around the world are competing fiercely for opportunities and jobs for their people, and they are doing it by lowering taxes and streamlining red tape. The government is doing precisely the opposite of that, so we can expect that this new and expanded tax on jobs will mean fewer jobs and less work.

As the critic for work and opportunity, I think that is terrible. We need to expand job opportunities for people by lowering the cost of hiring. If we do that, then entrepreneurs, large and small, will come here and hire in record numbers. That is the agenda we should push.

Let me remind our colleagues across the way who say we need to have more contributions to the CPP, that if someone loses their job, the contribution they make to their CPP retirement is zero. They get absolutely nothing put away in a rainy day fund, in their retirement nest egg. If we want to ensure that people have enough money to retire, we have to make sure they have a chance to work so they can contribute to their savings in the present day rather than taxing them out of a job.

Let us move to the second part of my new duties as critic and spokesperson on the issue of opportunity for Canadians. What kind of opportunity will this proposal bring to the Canadian people? The government says that we need to increase the mandatory contributions to CPP because people cannot afford to save for their retirement. Let us think about that for a second: people cannot afford to save for their retirement, so we will force them to save.

If the government's position is that no one has any money to set aside at the end of the month, then how will they afford to pay this new tax? It has to come from somewhere. It is not magic. The amount that the government is proposing the average family contribute is $2,000. If Canadians do not have $2,000, what will they do when this new tax kicks in? They will not have a lot of options.

In fact, options are precisely what we should be providing them. We should live in a big, opportunity filled free enterprise economy where Canadians get to choose what is right for them. That is what free enterprise means, and that is why it is the greatest poverty fighting machine ever invented.

Prior to the current government's taking office, we as a Conservative government introduced the tax-free savings accounts. The government does not actually understand the purpose or the use of those accounts. It has suggested that tax-free savings accounts are merely a tool for the rich. They are exactly the opposite. It has been proven that RRSPs tend to be weighted more in that direction. TFSAs are weighted to favour low-income people. That is because low-income people often do not have access to the biggest tax-free savings account that has ever existed in Canada, which is the capital gains tax exemption on a primary residence. We have long had a tax-free savings account for real estate so that we can grow the value of our property infinitely without paying any capital gains tax at all as long as it is our primary residence. What about low-income people who do not have a primary residence but who instead rent because they have never been able to afford a down payment? A tax-free savings account is precisely the equivalent for them. It gives them the ability to save tax free through equities and other savings instruments the way that more affluent Canadians already have saved tax free through the ownership of a principal residence.

Lower income people pay a lower marginal tax rate because they are in a lower tax bracket. As a result, an RRSP does not necessarily save them as much money when they contribute to it. Therefore, if their marginal tax rate is somewhere around 20%, an RRSP contribution does not defer nearly as much either in percentage or absolute terms as if they were a millionaire, like the finance minister, and pay a marginal tax rate of 48%. The millionaire would save 48% whereas the working class person would only save or defer 18% or 19% on an RRSP. With tax-free savings accounts, not only do the savings accrue over time but the accounts also exempt a low-income person from having eventual GIS and OAS benefits clawed back later in life because TFSA earnings are exempt from that clawback. Therefore, lower income people can retain the GIS and the OAS while they take gains out of their tax-free savings account.

The government will say that low-income people never contribute in the first place. Actually, the statistics from Finance Canada prove exactly the opposite. The average income of a TFSA contributor is $42,000. Maybe the government does not consider that middle class. Its so-called middle-class tax cut did not give a penny to anyone earning below $45,000 a year. I consider that middle class. At the very least, the people who earn $42,000 a year are working hard to join the middle class, and TFSAs are one way to help them do it.

Of those who actually maxed out their tax-free savings account, the average income is about $60,000 a year. Our friends across the way will say that it is impossible for someone earning only $60,000 to max out a $5,500 tax-free savings account. That is because the Liberal government does not understand when and how people contribute to those accounts. They do not always do it out of their income but out of big life events. When a spouse dies, an elderly survivor may want to put the inheritance in a place where it will not be taxed. That is why he or she would take that inheritance and put it into a tax-free savings account. If a senior gets too old and can no longer climb the stairs in his or her large multi-level house, if he or she disposes of the house and moves into an apartment, he or she has turned a hard, real asset into a liquid asset and can put that money into a tax-free savings account. That is why the people who have maxed out TFSAs are not all rich. They are often people with low incomes who have had major life events that cause them to turn their assets into cash, and they want to turn that cash into tax-free income. We wanted to give them the opportunity to do that, which is why we created the tax-free savings account, and that is why we increased the amount people can contribute to it.

On the other hand, the government wants to force everyone to contribute through the CPP, arguing that this instrument is the only way people should be allowed to make contributions to their savings. However, we are increasingly finding data that shows that it is not the best savings instrument compared to the other alternatives out there in the marketplace.

In fact, a recent study by the Fraser Institute demonstrated that the 1.07% management cost of running the CPP is quite high. It is not low, as was argued earlier. It is actually quite high, and Canadians, increasingly, can access exchange traded funds with the click of a mouse on the Internet, from very reputable firms like Vanguard, iTrade, or others. These funds are massively diversified, with extremely low management costs, much lower than the CPP. In fact an investor can own the entire American stock market, the entire Canadian stock market, and even the entire worldwide stock market and be diversified into every single company that exists and is publicly traded on planet earth, with a management expense ratio lower than the current CPP's.

Warren Buffett was recently asked how he would encourage the average investor to prepare for their future. Given that most people do not have the time or expertise to pick one stock at a time, he suggested exchange traded funds because of their extremely low management expense ratios, because it costs so little to invest in them, and because they diversify so widely it protects the investor against major losses.

That is just one vehicle, but there are all sorts of other vehicles available to people if they so choose. I am not here to offer them financial advice. I think most of us in this place struggle just to plan our own financial futures. However, we do acknowledge the cornucopia of opportunity for people out there in the private sector, and that Canadians are smart and wise enough to make those decision for themselves. They should not be robbed of those decisions by a government that thinks it knows best how they ought to prepare for their future. That is exactly what this government is doing by forcing people to invest more money in an expensively managed CPP savings account.

I conclude by turning the attention of the House to a column recently written by Kevin Libin in the Financial Post, who said:

So what if a new report by Morneau Shepell, the human resources firm once chaired by our current federal finance minister, finds that the new enhanced CPP doesn’t significantly tackle all that much—and, in some ways, makes our retirement system even worse.

The article goes on to say:

Even Bill Morneau, before he was a politician and still worked at the human resources firm that bears his family’s name, co-authored a book with Vettese that repudiated—

First U.S. hydrogen train to use Canadian fuel cells

Jeff Lagerquist
Mon, September 26, 2022 

Ballard Power Systems says any rail line served by a diesel locomotive can be converted to hydrogen power

. (Photo Illustration by Igor Golovniov/SOPA Images/LightRocket via Getty Images)

Shares of Canadian fuel cell producer Ballard Power Systems (BLDP.TO)(BLDP) climbed on Monday after the company said the first hydrogen train in the United States is expected to enter service in 2024 using its technology.

Vancouver-based Ballard builds fuel cell solutions for trucks, buses, trains, and ships. The company announced an initial order of six fuel cell engines on Monday from Stadler Rail. The Swiss manufacturer is under contract to deliver a hydrogen-powered train capable of seating over 100 passengers to the San Bernardino County Transportation Authority in southern California.

Toronto-listed shares climbed 3.09 per cent to $9.00 as at 11:20 a.m. ET on Monday.

Ballard Power Systems Inc. (BLDP.TO)

Ballard says nearly any train route served by a diesel locomotive can be served by a "hydrail train." The company's fuel cells convert hydrogen into electricity, which is fed into batteries that power the train's motors. The vehicle's brakes capture excess energy, improving efficiency.

Last March, Ballard inked a deal with Canadian Pacific Railway (CP.TO)(CP) that was expanded earlier this year to a total of 14 fuel cell modules. The company recently announced a fuel cell order from a company contracted to develop India's first hydrogen-powered trains. It's also working with Germany's Siemens Mobility on a train fleet planned to be in service in the Berlin-Brandenburg region in late-2024.

Once a top-performing name on the Toronto Stock Exchange, Ballard shares surged in late-July amid investor excitement over the U.S. Inflation Reduction Act (IRA), which includes a massive climate spending component.

However, shares have fallen over 45 per cent year-to-date, due in part to recession fears and protracted COVID-19 lockdowns in China, where the company runs a manufacturing facility with its largest investor and strategic partner, Weichai Power.

In August, CEO Randy MacEwen said the company's latest quarterly results came in "softer than expected," citing weaker sales and tighter margins.

While Ballard has long pinned its hopes on China's energy transition, MacEwen calls the IRA legislation a "major catalyst" in the U.S., where the company has a small manufacturing footprint.

"It wasn't too long ago, maybe two years ago, where the U.S. market was not a high priority for us," MacEwen said on an Aug. 10 post-earnings call with analysts.

"That has clearly changed over the last year."

Jeff Lagerquist is a senior reporter at Yahoo Finance Canada. Follow him on Twitter @jefflagerquist.

Alberta won't participate in federal efforts to seize prohibited weapons, Shandro says

Provincial justice minister says Alberta will not agree to having RCMP officers act as confiscation agents

The Canadian Press · Posted: Sep 26, 2022 

Alberta Justice Minister Tyler Shandro says he received a letter from the minister of public safety asking for police resources to begin confiscating firearms this fall.

 (Government of Alberta)

The Alberta government is taking steps to oppose federal firearms prohibition legislation and the potential seizure of thousands of assault-style weapons.

Since May of 2020, Ottawa has prohibited more than 1,500 different models of assault-style firearms from being used or sold in Canada.

Gun ownership laws in Canada are about to change. Here's what is happening in Alberta

It has committed to establishing a buyback program to remove those firearms from communities.

Alberta Justice Minister Tyler Shandro says he received a letter from the minister of public safety asking for police resources to begin confiscating firearms starting this fall.

Government tables bill to limit handguns, pledges to buy back assault-style weapons

He says Alberta will not agree to having RCMP officers act as confiscation agents and will protest any such move under the provincial-federal agreement that governs policing.

"Alberta taxpayers pay over $750 million per year for the RCMP and we will not tolerate taking officers off the streets in order to confiscate the property of law-abiding firearms owners," said Shandro, speaking at a news conference in Calgary.

Doug King, a professor of justice studies at Mount Royal University in Calgary, pushed back against Shandro's portrayal of the buyback program.

New federal gun control legislation 'virtue signalling,' Sask. premier says

While officers might seize weapons in the course of their duties, no one should worry "that, in rural Alberta, that the RCMP are going to be busting down their doors looking for illegal firearms," he said.

"That's not going to happen," King said. "I mean, let's be real."

As for telling the RCMP not to enforce a federal law, King said that would be "extraordinarily unusual," and not likely very effective.

Alberta also plans to seek intervener status in six ongoing judicial review applications challenging the constitutionality of the legislation.

Public Safety Minister Marco Mendicino's office did not immediately respond to a request for comment.

KLEIN DID THIS IN THE NINTIES WHICH LED TO THE FAILURE IN PART, OF THE LIBERALS FEDERAL GUN REGISTRY, SEE MY; BILLION DOLLAR BOONDOGGLE

Sunday, January 16, 2005
Canada’s Billion Dollar P3 Boondoggle

What the Liberals and Conservatives Don’t Want You To Know

The real story behind the cost overruns at the Canadian Firearms Centre

"Just read your piece on the firearms P3 – quite a revelation. I am amazed we have never heard this before – congratulations for bringing it to light." Murray Dobbin, author of Paul Martin Canada's CEO

Giorgia Meloni, far-right ‘Christian mother,’ is Italy’s new leader. Here’s how that might change Europe and the world

Stance on migrants, EU seen as a potential break with the international status quo, but positions on Ukraine and China might mollify allies.

By Joanna Chiu

TOR STAR 

Staff Reporter
Mon., Sept. 26, 2022

A party with neo-fascist roots, the Brothers of Italy, has triumphed in Italy’s snap general elections, setting up Giorgia Meloni as the country’s first far-right leader since the fall of Benito Mussolini.

Meloni, 45, now likely to become Italy’s first female prime minister, praised Mussolini in her early career, saying in 1996 on French television that the fascist dictator “was a good politician, in that everything he did, he did for Italy.”

The rising star of Europe’s far right more recently summed up her values in a now-famous chant at a 2019 rally: “I am a woman, I am a mother, I am Italian, I am Christian … No one will take that away from me.”

Italy’s lurch to populism and the far right immediately shifted continental politics, putting a Euroskeptic party in position to lead a founding member of the European Union and its third-largest economy. Right-wing leaders across Europe immediately hailed Meloni’s victory.

The snap election after PM Mario Draghi’s government collapsed comes at a crucial time as Europe grapples with energy and cost-of-living crises — mostly triggered by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine — that look set to intensify this winter.

Meloni is chair of the right-wing European Conservative and Reformist group in the European Parliament, which gathers her Brothers of Italy, Poland’s Law and Justice Party and Spain’s Vox as well as the Sweden Democrats, who finished on top of a national elections this month on a platform of cracking down on crime and limiting immigration.

During her campaign, Meloni called Italy’s past investment deal with China a “big mistake” and said the EU must “put pressure as hard as possible” to prevent China from causing military conflict over Taiwan.

On Monday, as final results were tallied, the Star asked experts about what Meloni’s win could mean for Europe and the world.



What comes next?

While Meloni’s conservative coalition was the clear winner, a government’s formation is still weeks away and will involve consultations among party leaders and President Sergio Mattarella. Given Italy’s fractured political makeup, no single party ever stands much chance of winning enough seats to govern alone, but right-wing and right-leaning centrists forged a campaign pact that had propelled Meloni into power.

Near-final results showed the centre-right coalition netting some 44 per cent of the vote, with Meloni’s Brothers of Italy snatching up 26 per cent. Her coalition partners divided up the remainder, with the anti-immigrant Northern League of Matteo Salvini winning nearly nine per cent and the more moderate Forza Italia of former prime minister Silvio Berlusconi taking around eight per cent.

Voter turnout declined to a historic low of 64 per cent. Polls suggested voters stayed home in part because they were disenchanted by the backroom deals that had created three different governments since the previous national election in 2018.

The Economist Intelligence Unit had rated Italy a “flawed democracy” in 2019, citing its short-lived coalition governments. Since the end of the Second World War, the nation has changed governments at a rate of once every 1.14 years.

Neo-fascist roots

Meloni’s party traces its origins to the postwar neo-fascist Italian Social Movement, but she sounded a moderate, unifying tone in a victory speech early Monday.

“If we are called to govern … we will do it for all Italians and we will do it with the aim of uniting the people (of this country),” she said. “Italy chose us.”

While she had praised Mussolini in her youth, Meloni addressed criticism about her party’s threat to democracy head-on, saying in a campaign video: “The Italian right has handed fascism over to history for decades now, unambiguously condemning the suppression of democracy and the ignominious anti-Jewish laws.”

However, analysts say her party clearly clashes with the EU’s dominant principles.

“The history of the European Union is rooted in a set of principles that appear distant from the ideology of the Italian far right, especially in terms of civil rights, minorities, migration, and refugees,” said Paolo Wulzer, professor of history of international relations at University L’Orientale of Naples.

So far, the rise of populism in Europe has weakened “but not collapsed the European project,” Wulzer told the Star, but Italy is far more influential than other countries that elected far-right leaders.

“Italy’s weight and relevance in the European Union is incomparable to countries like Poland or Hungary. Italy has the potential to influence the future of the European Union in a very significant way.”

The vice-president of the European Parliament, Katarina Barley of the Germany’s ruling Social Democrats, said Meloni’s victory was “worrying” given her affiliations with Hungary’s Prime Minister Viktor Orban and Donald Trump.

“Her electoral lip service to Europe cannot hide the fact that she represents a danger to constructive coexistence in Europe,” Barley was quoted as saying in German daily Die Welt.

Migrants

A shift likely to cause friction with European powers regards migrants. Meloni has called for a naval blockade to prevent migrant boats from leaving North African shores, and has proposed screening potential asylum-seekers in Africa, before they set out.

However, she may have little room to boldly challenge pro-migration EU policies given the windfall Italy gets from Brussels in COVID recovery funds. Italy secured some 191.5 billion euros, the biggest chunk of the EU’s 750-billion-euro recovery package, and is bound by certain reform and investment milestones it must hit to receive it all.

Although Meloni’s party has been vocally against migrants from the Mediterranean, it is seen as unlikely that this could alter Italy’s support of Ukraine and acceptance of Ukrainian refugees.

Tough on China

Meloni pledged to strengthen ties with Taiwan and reverse course on her country’s involvement in China’s Belt and Road Initiative.

In 2019, Italy became the first major European country to join Beijing’s global infrastructure investment project, but Meloni has called the move a “big mistake” and said she would find it hard to approve the renewal, scheduled for 2024, of Italy’s memorandum of understanding with China.

Describing the relationship between her country and Taiwan as a “sincere friendship,” Meloni said recently that she has been “following closely with unease” events around Taiwan as a result of intensified Chinese threats.

Last month, China’s army completed the largest military exercises ever around Taiwan, sending warships and planes across the dividing line of the strait separating Taiwan and continental Asia. “This is an unacceptable conduct by Beijing, a conduct that we strongly condemn,” she said.

Meloni’s tough China stance could be one of her policies that would bring her in closer alignment with Italy’s traditional allies, says Enrico Fardella, visiting scholar at John Cabot University in Rome and director of the ChinaMed project, which tracks China’s role in the Mediterranean.

Her criticism of Beijing over issues such as human rights represent a “consistent component of her political career,” Fardella said, but he thinks the timing of her Taiwan statements was also intended to send a message to the U.S., NATO and other parties that Italy would hew closer to their criticism of China.

“A critical stance towards China, however, has become quite shared among most of the political forces in Italy and in the EU and it can function as a balancer of Meloni’s more controversial positions,” Fardella told the Star.

With files from the Associated Press

Joanna Chiu is a B.C.-based staff reporter for the Star. She covers global and national affairs. Follow her on Twitter: @joannachiu