Bank of Canada says immigration curbs long-term inflation

Laura Dhillon Kane, Bloomberg News

Mass immigration to Canada will keep a lid on inflationary pressures in the long run, but has also strained housing markets and helped to drive rent inflation to a 40-year high, says a Bank of Canada official.

Deputy Governor Toni Gravelle said a record-high influx of newcomers has added workers to tight labour markets and significantly improved the country’s potential growth. But after immigration began ramping up in 2015, Canada’s vacancy rate for homes available to rent or buy started to fall, he said.

“Then, when newcomer arrivals picked up sharply in early 2022, that steady decline in the vacancy rate became a cliff,” he said in prepared remarks on Thursday in Windsor, Ont. “Canada’s vacancy rate has now reached a historical low.”

Gravelle delivered the speech focused on housing and immigration a day after the Bank of Canada left the benchmark overnight rate unchanged at five per cent. His remarks shed little new light on policymakers’ decision to pause, which was widely expected by markets and economists in a Bloomberg survey.

He did, however, downplay improvement in a three-month moving average of core measures that the central bank has described as key to its thinking. While that average dropped in October to about 3 per cent, at the top of the bank’s control range, the measure is “volatile,” he said.

“We must remember it’s just one month. We need to see further progress,” he said.

The bank is closely watching inflation expectations, wage growth and corporate pricing behavior, he reiterated. “These indicators are helping us assess whether inflation is on a sustained path to two per cent. Given the risks to the inflation outlook, we remain prepared to raise the policy rate further if needed.”

The impacts of immigration in Canada - which welcomed a million newcomers for the first time last year - have been hotly debated. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s government argues high levels of migrants are needed to offset an aging population, but a public backlash has brewed as housing prices soar, especially amid inadequate home supply.

Gravelle said that since the start of 2022, strong immigration has boosted the level of potential output by two per cent to three per cent without adding materially to inflation. The bank estimates that the increase to consumer spending from the recent increase in newcomers added less than 0.1 percentage points to inflation.

Still, housing construction has been unable to keep up with the rapid rise in demand, and that imbalance has “serious” consequences for inflation, he said.

Shelter price inflation rose to 6.1 per cent annualized in October and contributed 1.8 percentage points to that month’s total inflation reading of 3.1 per cent. While mortgage interest costs are a factor, other components of the shelter inflation basket have not come down as much as they typically would, Gravelle said.

Rent inflation, meantime, accelerated to 8.2 per cent in October, the highest in 40 years.

The situation in Canada stands in contrast with that of the United States, where housing construction has been more flexible to respond to population shifts and where rent inflation is expected to continue to decline, he said.

“Canada needs more homes,” Gravelle said. “And we need to make our housing supply more responsive to increases in demand.”

 

Short-term rentals have 'significantly impacted' housing affordability: Desjardins

Ritika Dubey, The Canadian Press

A new Desjardins report suggests short-term rentals likely contributed to the housing affordability crisis in Canada and around the world.

The report released Monday shows the proliferation of short-term rentals on platforms such as Airbnb and Vrbo has had a significant effect on the affordability and availability of homes by reducing the number of units available for long-term rentals and resale markets.

Randall Bartlett, senior director of Canadian economics at Desjardins, said short-term rentals are often more appealing to real estate investors because they make more money from them than long-term leases.

"From the perspective of the landlord, at a time of high and rising inflation, short-term rentals may offer them an opportunity to offset some of the rising costs because they can increase the rent more quickly than they could in the long-term rental market," Bartlett said in an interview.

Citing a Conference Board of Canada study, the report suggests there was a correlation between Airbnb activity and higher long-term rental prices across 19 Canadian cities with short-term rentals.

It showed every one-percentage-point increase in the share of Airbnbs was associated with a 2.3 per cent increase in rents.

The Desjardins report, using data from analytics firm AirDNA, said Canada has more than 235,800 unique active short-term rental listings on Airbnb and Vrbo, the two largest hosting platforms, amounting to about 1.4 per cent of the country's housing stock.

The national rental vacancy rate hit 1.9 per cent in 2022 — significantly below what's considered the balanced market rate of three per cent, according to the report.

Municipalities across Canada and abroad have implemented a variety of policies to combat short-term rentals, the report said, in the hopes of opening up more housing supply as affordability continues to erode.

"We're seeing this in real-time," said Bartlett, "an experiment going on in Canada, where different jurisdictions are bringing in different regulations of various stringencies," which he said will provide greater insight into the implications for the housing market. 

Bartlett said policy crackdowns on short-term rentals have had mixed results in different jurisdictions around the world.

But, he added, it seems that restricting the use of second or third properties for short-term rentals has been the most successful in bringing more units back into the long-term rental market.

Meanwhile, allowing people to continue to use their primary residence for short-term rentals has helped sustain the app-based vacation rental market, he said.

"Having that distinction seems to support and certainly bring more rental homes back to the long-term rental market," Bartlett said.

The report suggests governments partly restrict commercial non-principal short-term rentals, strictly enforce penalties for non-compliance and hold short-term rental platforms accountable to help ease the housing crisis.

Toronto has restricted short-term rentals to a maximum of 180 nights per year for an entire home, the report noted. However, homeowners can rent out up to three bedrooms in their primary residence for an unlimited number of nights.

In British Columbia, legislation was passed in October that could return 16,000 short-term rentals to the long-term market. This requires online platform accountability — removing listings that don't include a valid business licence and sharing information about short-term rental listings with the province, which may share it with local governments. 

Nathan Rotman, Canada policy lead with Airbnb, said the Desjardins report is "misleading with the figures failing to account for Canadians sharing the home they live in or a cottage — homes that would not be added to the long-term housing market."

Rotman said while Airbnb is willing to work with municipalities to address community concerns, strict short-term rental regulations have not alleviated Canada's housing crisis.

"With the vast majority of hosts in Canada sharing just one home and more than 90 per cent of our top markets in Canada having some form of regulations in place, more home-sharing regulations are not an effective solution to address the country’s housing concerns," Rotman said.

Bartlett said: "At the end of the day, we need to increase supply dramatically and there are a lot of policies to do that." 

He forecasts 2024 is going to be a challenging year for the housing market in Canada. 

Bartlett predicts landlords will continue to feel the pressure of high interest rates on their monthly mortgage payments and a growing population will heap more demand on the housing market overall.

"There's going to be very little price relief," he said. 

"Ultimately, the measures that are being brought in to increase supply — not just by limiting short-term rentals but also cutting the GST on purpose-built rentals and reducing exclusionary zoning — will all help in the long run to bring more supply but not going to help materially in 2024."

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 4, 2023.

Feds recover $40M from defunct Quebec vaccine developer Medicago

The Canadian Press

Retired nurse Donna Lessard takes part in the Medicago COVID-19 vaccine clinical trials with project co-ordinator Raphael Brochu Friday, Jan. 29, 2021, in Mirabel, Que. The parent company of Medicago Inc. has announced it will shut down the Quebec-based biopharmaceutical company which had developed a vaccine against COVID-19. (THE CANADIAN PRESS/Ryan Remiorz)

 

The federal government says it has recovered $40 million from the now-defunct Quebec-based vaccine developer Medicago, and the intellectual property will remain in Canada under a new firm.

The government provided Medicago a $173-million advance in the early days of the COVID-19 pandemic to develop and produce a plant-based vaccine in Quebec City.

The company's Japanese parent company, Mitsubishi Chemical Group, shut down Medicago's operations in February as global demand for vaccinations plummeted.

Though Medicago's vaccine was approved for use in Canada, it was not approved by the World Health Organization due to the company's ties with tobacco giant Philip Morris.

The agreement between Canada and Mitsubishi Chemical Group will transfer the research, intellectual property and equipment to a new operation: Aramis Biotechnologies.

Aramis Biotechnologies is also based in Quebec City and is led by former Medicago employees.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 8, 2023.

CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

Financial intelligence agency levies $1.3 million penalty against CIBC

Ian Bickis, The Canadian Press

Canada's financial intelligence agency says it has levied a $1.3-million penalty against CIBC for non-compliance with money laundering and terrorist financing measures.

The penalty, imposed on Oct. 23 but only reported Thursday, is the second the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada has announced this week after RBC's $7.4-million fine was publicized on Tuesday.

The agency, known as Fintrac, says it imposed the penalty over CIBC's failure to submit a suspicious transaction report when there were grounds to suspect it was related to money laundering or terrorist activity, and failures to report information related to large money transfers from outside Canada.

Fintrac tries to pinpoint money linked to illicit activities by electronically sifting through millions of pieces of information each year from banks, insurance companies, money services businesses and others.

It then discloses intelligence to police and other law-enforcement agencies about the suspected cases.

Fintrac said that during its 2021 examination, it found an instance where CIBC didn't file a suspicious transaction report even though it knew the client had been arrested and charged with criminal offences. The agency's review also found over a thousand instances, out of a sample of 20,000, where information related to money transfers was incomplete.

Sarah Paquet, chief executive of the agency, said in a statement that the rules around reporting are in place to protect Canadians and the security of the economy.

"We will also be firm in ensuring that businesses continue to do their part and we will take appropriate actions when they are needed," she said. 

CIBC spokesman Tom Wallis said in a statement that the bank has robust anti-money laundering and anti-terrorist financing procedures and practices in place. 

He said the administrative matters were related to a relatively small number of transactions that the bank has since resolved and it continues to invest in monitoring and detection capabilities.

"We take our responsibilities seriously and will continue to identify, investigate and do our part to deter and detect financial crimes," Wallis said.

Fintrac said CIBC had paid its penalty in full and proceedings have ended.

RBC, which was hit by the highest-ever penalty by the agency, was found to have failed to submit 16 suspicious transaction reports out of 130 reviewed, when there were reasonable grounds to suspect dealings were related to an attempted or actual money laundering or terrorist financing offence.

In the 2022-2023 financial year, Fintrac issued six notices of non-compliance to businesses for a total of $1,113,569 in penalties.

Fintrac has imposed more than 125 penalties across various sectors since it received the legislative authority to do so 15 years ago.

Other banks are also facing increased scrutiny for their oversight programs, including TD Bank, which disclosed earlier this year that it expects U.S. regulators to impose penalties related to the bank's anti-money laundering compliance program.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 7, 2023.

YE OLDE FASHIONED CRIMINAL CAPITALI$M

Canada Bread denies price-fixing scheme in court filing, points finger at Maple Leaf

Rosa Saba, The Canadian Press

The bread supplier that admitted to price-fixing earlier this year says in new court filings that any anti-competitive behaviour it participated in was at the direction and to the benefit of its then-majority owner Maple Leaf Foods.

In a statement of defence for a class-action lawsuit alleging a bread price-fixing scheme, Canada Bread Co. Ltd. denied participating in a “lengthy, wide-ranging conspiracy” to fix the price of bread. It also denied profiting from the alleged conspiracy, or from the price increases it pleaded guilty to participating in as part of the Competition Bureau’s investigation. 

“To the extent that Canada Bread profited from any actionable anti-competitive behaviour, all of the material benefit accrued to Maple Leaf,” the company said its statement filed to Ontario Superior Court on Oct. 25. 

Allegations of improper pricing conduct at Canada Bread while Maple Leaf was a shareholder are “totally unfounded,” said Suzanne Hathaway, Maple Leaf's senior vice-president, general counsel and communications, in an emailed statement. 

“The Statement of Defence filed by Canada Bread ... simply repeats the baseless accusations they made earlier this year, which were widely reported,” Hathaway said. 

In June, Canada Bread was fined $50 million after pleading guilty to four counts of price-fixing bread products under the Competition Act. The Competition Bureau called it the highest price-fixing fine ever imposed by a Canadian court.

Canada Bread admitted to arranging with its competitor Weston Foods to increase prices on a variety of packaged bread products, resulting in two price increases, one in 2007 and one in 2011. As noted in the Oct. 25 court filings, the company admitted in June that one of its most senior executives, who was also a senior officer at Maple Leaf at the time, participated in the price-fixing agreements. 

At the time, Canada Bread was majority-owned by Maple Leaf. It was purchased by Mexico-based Grupo Bimbo in 2014. 

In its statement of defence, Canada Bread appears to be “trying to have its cake and eat it too,” said Michael von Massow, a food economy professor at the University of Guelph. 

It’s a two-part argument, said von Massow: Canada Bread is saying it didn’t profit from the price-fixing it admitted to, nor to any of the activity it’s denying. But if it’s found to have profited or participated in any misdeeds, the responsibility belongs to Maple Leaf, not Canada Bread.  

“They’re trying to comprehensively cover their risk.”

In June, Maple Leaf told The Canadian Press that it was not aware of any wrongdoing by Canada Bread or its senior leadership during the time Maple Leaf was a shareholder. 

“We have acted ethically and lawfully at all times. We are not aware of and have never engaged in inappropriate or anti-competitive activity, and we will defend ourselves vigorously against any allegation to the contrary.”

However, later that month, news outlets including the Toronto Star and Globe and Mail reported that the Competition Bureau believed former Maple Leaf CEO Michael McCain knew about the alleged anti-competitive conduct the bureau was investigating. 

McCain, now Maple Leaf’s executive chairman, denied involvement. In August, he released a statement on the company’s website regarding “recent headlines” referencing an internal email sent on his behalf in 2007. 

He said the email represented a legal and common practice in retail, not price fixing or other unlawful activity. 

“We continue to believe that the pricing practices of Canada Bread were responsible, consistent with industry practice, and above all, lawful,” McCain said in the statement. 

Canada Bread says in its statement of defence that during the class action period up until it was sold to Grupo Bimbo, its legal and compliance functions were directed by Maple Leaf senior management. It said most of Canada Bread's directors and senior officers were also senior officers at Maple Leaf at this time. 

Maple Leaf's Hathaway reiterated in her statement that the company is unaware of any wrongdoing by Canada Bread and its senior leadership during the time the company was its shareholder, and that Maple Leaf did not engage in any misconduct during that period.

“Current and former Maple Leaf executives with responsibilities at Canada Bread prior to the 2014 sale have all adamantly denied the allegations against them, and a comprehensive review of historic records does not show any illegal conduct as alleged,” she said. 

The Competition Bureau began investigating the alleged bread price-fixing agreements in January 2016. Weston Foods and Loblaw Cos. Ltd., both subsidiaries of George Weston at the time, previously admitted their participation in an “industry-wide price-fixing arrangement” and have received immunity from prosecution by the Competition Bureau in exchange for their co-operation. 

At least $1.50 was artificially added to the price of a bread loaf during the 16-year conspiracy involving Canada’s largest bakery wholesalers and grocery retailers, the Competition Bureau alleged in court documents in 2018.

The class action lawsuit is against Loblaw Cos. Ltd., George Weston Ltd., Weston Foods (Canada) Inc., Weston Bakeries Ltd., Canada Bread Co. Ltd., Grupo Bimbo, S.A.B. de C.V., Maple Leaf Foods Inc., Empire Co. Ltd., Sobeys Inc., Metro Inc., Wal-Mart Stores Inc., Wal-Mart Canada Corp. and Giant Tiger Stores Ltd. 

It alleges that the defendants conspired to fix the price of packaged bread in Canada, and is on behalf of all residents of Canada who purchased packaged bread after Nov. 1, 2001, except for residents of Quebec and parties related to the defendants. 

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 8, 2023.

Quebec unions representing 420,000 public sector workers start weeklong strike

The Canadian Press

Magali Picard, right, of the FTQ union speaks at a news conference of the unions common front, Thursday, December 7, 2023 at the legislature in Quebec City. Eric Gingras of the CSQ, from the left, Robert Comeau of the APTS and Francois Enault of the CSN, left, look on. THE CANADIAN PRESS/Jacques Boissinot

Quebec public sector unions say the government is running out of time to reach a deal for new collective agreements and avoid an unlimited general strike in the new year involving hundreds of thousands of workers.

A group of four unions calling itself the "common front" and representing 420,000 public sector workers, including teachers, education support staff and lab technicians, launched a weeklong strike Friday — its third walkout since November.

Robert Comeau, president of APTS, a health union and member of the common front, said that between Dec. 18 and 19 all four unions are holding meetings, during which it will be the "ideal time" to present an agreement in principle to members.

"Otherwise … we see no other solution than to launch an unlimited general strike if we are forced to do so."

Friday's walkout came after the common front — and other unions negotiating separately with the province — rejected the government's most recent contract offer, which included a salary increase of 12.7 per cent over five years.

Aside from the common front, around 66,000 teachers who are members of the FAE union have been on an unlimited strike since Nov. 23. Meanwhile, the FIQ, representing 80,000 nurses and other health-care workers, will begin a four-day strike on Monday.

On Friday, Treasury Board president Sonia LeBel said the labour conflict has entered a "crucial moment," adding that she received a counter-proposal from the four common front unions. All sides have said they want a deal by the end of the year.

Talks were to resume Friday afternoon, and mediators are scheduled to take part in other discussions over the weekend aimed at settling issues outside of salaries and pensions.

Quebec Premier François Legault said Thursday he's willing to offer workers more money but wants unions to make concessions on management issues, such as the transfer of nurses between health facilities.

The common front unions said there is movement on the length of a potential deal; they have sought a three-year contract while the government has consistently tabled five-year agreements.

“We are ready to open on a collective agreement of more than three years, but with an indexation clause and salary catch-up,” said François Enault, vice-president of common front member CSN.

Before the latest counter-offer, which has not been made public, the common front sought a three-year deal with annual increases tied to the inflation rate: two percentage points above inflation in the first year or $100 per week, whichever is more beneficial, followed by three points higher in the second year and four points higher in the third.

This report by The Canadian Press was first published Dec. 8, 2023.

Canadian Oil & Gas Lashes Out over ‘De Facto Production Cuts’

By Tom Kool - 

OIL PRICE

Dec 07, 2023,

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s announcement on Thursday that the fossil fuel industry will have to slash emissions by 35% to 38% below 2019 levels beginning in 2030.

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) has referred to the federal government’s emissions cap policy as a de facto production cap.

The proposed emissions cap would involve a cap-and-trade system that provides for some flexibility in reaching targets by allowing emitters to purchase offset credits or pay into a decarbonization fund to lower requirements to 20-23%

Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s announcement on Thursday that the fossil fuel industry will have to slash emissions by 35% to 38% below 2019 levels beginning in 2030 has led to an industry backlash warning that this policy will result in a significant reduction of output and high energy prices for consumers.

“No sector of the economy should be allowed to emit unlimited pollution–not when we are all driving toward the same goal of net zero by 2050 to ward off the worst impacts of the climate crisis. The proposed emissions cap sets a limit on pollution, not production,” reads a press release from Ottawa on Thursday.

“All sectors of our economy need to reduce their emissions and that includes oil and gas companies,” the statement read.

The Canadian oil and gas industry immediately responded,

The Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers (CAPP) has referred to the federal government’s emissions cap policy as a de facto production cap. The group has criticized the plan for being too ambitious and emphasized that the industry is working hard to reduce emissions already.

"At a time when the country's citizens are experiencing a substantial affordability crisis, coincident with record budget deficits, the federal government risks curtailing the energy Canadians rely on, along with jobs and government revenues the energy sector contributes to Canada," reads a CAPP statement.

The proposed emissions cap would involve a cap-and-trade system that provides for some flexibility in reaching targets by allowing emitters to purchase offset credits or pay into a decarbonization fund to lower requirements to 20-23%, according to CBC Canada.

Speaking to CBC Canada, Janetta McKenzie, acting director of the Pembina Institute think tank, rejected the fossil fuel industry’s stance on the emissions cut policy, suggesting they are not impossibly ambitious.

"Given the technology solutions that the industry has, this is a realistic target on a realistic timeline," McKenzie told CBC.

By Tom Kool for Oilprice.com

'Necessary,' 'unacceptable,' 'punitive': Range of reaction to emissions cap

Ben Cousins, BNN Bloomberg

Ottawa’s plan to cap emissions in the oil and gas sector is earning mixed reactions, with industry players and some provincial politicians opposing the move that environmental groups are celebrating as “necessary” to fight climate change.

On Thursday, Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault and other federal ministers announced a framework plan to cut emissions in the sector by more than one-third by 2030.

Under the framework, the sector will be forced to cut emissions by 35 to 38 per cent compared to 2019 levels, but can buy offset credits through a “cap-and-trade” system.

Energy and Natural Resources Minister Jonathan Wilkinson told BNN Bloomberg that the announcement is crucial in Canada’s work to combat climate change.

“Every sector of the economy needs to contribute in the fight against climate change that Canada and other countries around the world are waging,” Wilkinson said in a Thursday television interview following the announcement.

“The world is moving from an economic perspective and this is actually about the competitiveness of the oil and gas sector moving forward.”

Wilkinson said if Canada’s oil and gas sector can be a world leader in decarbonization, other countries will find Canadian oil attractive.

“Low-carbon intensity fuels are going to have value in a world that increasingly is going to value them.”

ALBERTA CALLS MEASURES 'ATTACK' ON THE PROVINCE

Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, whose government has repeatedly clashed with Trudeau’s federal Liberals over climate policies aimed at oil and gas, called the policy and “intentional attack” on her province by Ottawa and vowed the fight the measure.

“Alberta owns our resources, and under the Constitution we have the exclusive jurisdiction to develop and manage them,” Smith and Alberta Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz said in a written statement.

The provincial politicians called the federal measure “punitive” towards the oil and gas sector and argued it risks “hundreds of billions of dollars of investments in Alberta’s and Canada’s economies and core social programs.”

“Over the coming months, our cabinet and caucus will develop a constitutional shield in response to this and other recent attacks on our province by what is fast becoming one of the most damaging federal administrations in Canadian history.”

SECTOR SAYS PLAN IS ‘UNACCEPTABLE’

Oil and gas industry stakeholders were swift to denounce the federal government’s announcement.

Lisa Baiton, president and CEO of the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, said the emissions cap puts a ceiling on oil and gas production in the sector.

The industry association said the proposed system would result in “significant curtailments” on industry production, calling the framework “effectively a cap on production.”

“At a time when the country’s citizens are experiencing a substantial affordability crisis, coincident with record budget deficits, the federal government risks curtailing the energy Canadians rely on,” she said.

Wilkinson said the announcement shows the government actually expects Canada’s energy sector to increase production under these regulations.

“Between now and 2030, we anticipate increases in production in Canada and around the world, but we are going to reduce emissions in line with what industry themselves say they can do,” he said.

Wilkinson added even as Canada works to decarbonize in its climate change fight, he still expects there will be a market for oil and gas in the future.

“The demand for oil and gas is never going away entirely,” he said. “There are significant quantities of oil that are used for things like carbon graphite, asphalt and chemicals … gas can be used for ultra-low-carbon hydrogen, so there’s a certain portion of the market that’s going to be there even in a net-zero world.”

Pathways Alliance, a group of six major energy firms working to develop carbon capture projects, took a much more muted tone, however, and said it would need more time analyzing the framework “to determine how it may impact oil sands operations.”  

The Explorers and Producers Association called the measures “unnecessary and unacceptable” and argued that the sector is already “achieving significant emissions reductions” on its own.

“Our sector must compete for investment,” the organization wrote in a statement.

“This requires balance, pragmatism, and incentives instead of punitive measures like an emissions cap that further damage Canada’s reputation as a place where projects are far too expensive, goalposts are uncertain, and environmental performance is not recognized.”

The Canadian Association of Energy Contractors also called for more “pragmatic and affordable policies” as the world decarbonizes.

“The federal government’s emissions cap will hinder Canada’s ability to attract capital. It means higher energy costs and fewer jobs for Canadian energy workers,” Mark Scholz, president and CEO of the CAOEC, wrote in a statement. 

CLIMATE GROUPS CALL MOVE ‘NECESSARY’

Climate groups, on the other hand, welcomed the policy, though some flagged a lack of details around its implementation.

Rick Smith, president of the Canadian Climate Institute, called the emissions cap “reasonable and necessary” and said it should be implemented immediately.

“The stubborn rise in emissions from (the oil and gas sector) is wiping out climate progress in other parts of the economy,” he wrote in a statement.

“Capping oil and gas emissions is a critical element of a package of policies that can ensure Canada meets its emissions reduction targets while supporting the competitiveness of the sector.”

The Canadian Climate Institute has included an emissions cap in its list of four ways to reduce emissions in the oil and gas sector, along with increased regulations to reduce leaks, added support for carbon capture policies and government-backed investments in the green energy transition.

“The oil and gas cap announced today will help the oil sands industry, in particular, deliver on its commitment to work toward net-zero emissions by 2050,” Smith said. “An increasingly stringent cap on oil and gas emissions can drive innovation to better position Canada's energy sector to compete in global markets."

Janetta McKenzie, acting director of the oil and gas program at the clean energy think tank the Pembina Institute, called the announcement a “good news day for climate action in Canada.”

“We commend the federal government for developing the framework to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from Canada’s highest-emitting sector by far,” she wrote in a statement.

She noted that the proposed level of the cap is lower than a previous estimate, but still called it “a real reduction from Canada’s highest-emitting sector” and “completely doable.”

Meanwhile, Clean Energy Canada, a think tank that “works to accelerate Canada’s clean energy transition” also called the announcement “necessary and fair.”

“Canada should be commended for putting in place the world’s first national oil and gas emissions cap by a major fossil-fuel-producing country,” Mark Zacharias, executive director at Clean Energy Canada, wrote in a statement.

“The cap is the last line of defence to ensure that emissions from Canada’s fossil fuel industry don’t put the country offside its climate commitments.”

Zacharias noted, however, that the announcement was “light” on details about how compliance would be enforced and questioned the 2030 deadline.

“The longer the government waits, the harder it will be for industry to make the necessary investments to meet the target,” he said. “Long-term clarity and certainty are key ingredients for investors, and Canada should provide plenty of both.”

UK
To whom is Thatcher fanboy Starmer trying to appeal?

Instead of trying to woo Conservative voters by worshipping at the altar of the Iron Lady, Labour should instead look at the numbers who support a return to the post-war welfare state, writes NICK WRIGHT

MORNINGSTAR , UK
THURSDAY, DECEMBER 7, 2023


Starmer’s substantive purpose is to convince our ruling class — principally the monopolies, banks, defence industry, the upper ranks of the Civil Service, the military and intelligence agencies and the big business media and; above all, the US and Nato, that Labour in government would be a reliable custodian of the existing system.

WHEN Sir Keir Starmer said Margaret Thatcher had effected “meaningful change” he was, briefly, in accord with majority opinion.

If Thatcher transformed post-war Britain she was not the first. Clement Attlee, who led the post-war Labour government that introduced the National Health Service and nationalised the key industries — rail and road transport, coal and steel — that were essential if the profitability of British capitalism was to continue, was first.

His predecessor, Winston Churchill, wanted to preserve Britain’s imperial position and even set in motion plans to mobilise the defeated Wehrmacht once again against the Soviet Union.

If this was too much for the incoming Labour government, Attlee’s administration became no less an enthusiast for empire and the cold war.

When today Toothless in England campaigns for the nationwide restoration of NHS dental treatment, it bids to reverse the long-term damage done by Labour's decision to sacrifice free NHS dentistry (and spectacles) to pay for Britain's involvement in the US war against socialist Korea. The succeeding Tory government introduced prescription charges and today a third of working-age people fail to collect their prescriptions because of cost.

This was neither the first nor the last time the British people would have paid for imperial war with more than the blood of conscripts.

We should not discount the real advances that the working class achieved in this period. More or less full employment, mass public housing and better education and welfare marked a real change from the pre-war insecurity, homelessness, poverty and unemployment.

But if the context of the post-war “welfare state” settlement was the need to reconstruct a war-damaged economy it was also the price capital throughout the continent felt obliged to pay to blunt the advance of European socialism and maintain its power. Between 1950 and 1965 real wages rose by 40 per cent.

Thatcher did much to reverse the post-war settlement.

Her aim, driven by capitalist realism, was to find new sources of profit and reduce government spending.

Thus her time as premier saw two serious recessions. Driving down working people’s proportion of national income in the interest of profitability entailed an attack on working-class power and the trade unions. Privatisation was designed to unlock new revenue streams for capital accumulation, the attack on the welfare state was aimed at reducing public expenditure.

If this is what Starmer means when he praises Thatcher for setting loose “Britain’s natural entrepreneurialism” he is well out of touch with both facts and public opinion.

In reality, Thatcherism was disastrous for workers. Inflation in 1980 was at 20 per cent and even two years later was still at 10 per cent and only reduced to 4 per cent in 1987. In 1981 there were 3 million unemployed. In the main industrial areas of Scotland, Wales and northern England it was at 15 per cent. By 1984 it reached a high of 3.3m or 9.5 per cent.

The 1986 Financial Services Act deregulated the finance sector and shifted the economy even further away from production towards financial services and laid the foundations of instability that found its inevitable destination in the 2008 financial crisis.

Today, industry makes up less than 20 per cent of the labour force, agriculture under 2 per cent and services an inflated 80 per cent

Are Starmer’s latest contortions principally an attempt to win Conservative voters to vote Labour?

Even with today's 20-point lead, a more important priority is convincing Labour voters to continue to vote Labour.

It is not that contingent of Tory voters who worship the ghostly memories of the Iron Lady who might be tempted to change loyalties. The latest Conservative Home polling of actual Tory voters shows Reform UK attracts as many Tories as Labour. Rather, it is that much more significant proportion, a majority even, of Tory voters who want water, gas, electricity and railways back in public ownership.

It hasn’t yet dawned on this body of voters that neither the Tories nor Westminster Labour are prepared to deviate from the Establishment consensus on this question.

An even more productive source of Labour voters might be the 30 per cent or more of mostly working-class voters who rarely think it worthwhile to vote.

Starmer’s substantive purpose is to convince our ruling class — principally the monopolies, banks, defence industry, the upper ranks of the Civil Service, the military and intelligence agencies and the big business media and; above all, the US and Nato, that Labour in government would be a reliable custodian of the existing system.

To those in the labour movement who think he has already proven this beyond doubt reflect that when Starmer insists that Labour today is a different party he is reminding those set above us that the working-class movement has not disappeared and that the strikes of the past two years are a reminder of a potent force that is not subdued while the ceasefire demonstrations reflect a persistent and strengthening anti-war current.

Where the anti-austerity movement, the millions who desire a ceasefire in Palestine and the families of strikers converge, is over their growing understanding that Starmer’s Labour will not challenge either “fiscal responsibility” at the expense of the working class or Nato’s war strategies.

***

The Saturday marketplace in my town is a place where ideas are as freely traded as goods. Last weekend three encounters with Labour stalwarts brought out the anxieties felt by a wide cross section of Labour opinion.

The local party chair, during her stint on the refugee action group stall, was eager to talk up Labour’s chances as essential to get rid of the Tories but, when pressed on what changes a Starmer regime might affect, retreated into generalities, even on the question of immigration policy, so unpalatable was it to face the truth.

Another activist (a former branch secretary) was, in contrast, openly despairing, but ventured the hopeful thought that the Starmer strategy was to reassure (Conservative) voters but might reveal a more radical agenda after the election.

An active if erratic leftwinger had no time for such magical thinking and saw no point in remaining an individual member as the leadership ignores conference decisions, fixes selection meetings, purges critics and refuses to allow discussion.

These are pretty typical responses by regular Constituency Labour Party members. Trade unionists, both those carrying a party card and the much wider group who pay the political levy through their union, are overwhelmingly without illusions.

In part, this is the historical memory of Labour’s failure when in government to repeal Thatcher’s manifold anti-trade union employment laws but is driven more today by Starmer’s consistent failure to back strikers, his almost superstitious fear of picket lines and Westminster Labour’s failure to make the case for a full restoration of trade unions rights and support statutory backing for sector bargaining.

Neither TUC resolutions, Labour conference decisions nor the campaigning of bodies like the Institute and the Campaign for Trade Union Freedom have any effect on the Parliamentary Labour Party or the shadow cabinet.

This coming weekend the TUC special conference will discuss how to oppose the government’s latest offensive designed to sabotage strikes in services and the public sector.

Fiery words will be spoken and delegates will be filled with resolve that this Tory offensive will be defeated. But on the broader question of the balance of power between labour and capital, there is no confidence that Labour is on the side of labour.

Richard Tice, the present leader of Reform UK, honed in on Labour’s weak flank when, on BBC Newsnight, he played the classic fascist game plan calling for British wage rises as the key to reducing immigration.

When we compute the clearly demonstrated power of the broad movements against austerity and imperial war it becomes clear that the decisive factor in making profound changes in present-day Britain is the working class within which the trade union movement needs to become much more political in dealing with the power of our class enemies, wherever they are.

In another world …

The Financial Times this week tells us that the rating agency Moody’s cut its outlook on China’s sovereign credit rating because “there was rising evidence that the state would provide financial support for weaker regions.”

China’s predicted GDP growth this year is around 5 per cent, declining to 4 per cent next year. The prediction for the US next year is 1.5 per cent, and for Britain, it may not reach 1 per cent.

Nick Wright blogs at www.21centurymanifesto.com.

When it comes to Palestine, why is free speech in the US a lopsided affair?

Criticising Israel has cost Americans their jobs, sparked investigations into campus groups and even spurred the censure of the only Palestinian-American in Congress.




In New York, a woman threw hot coffee on a man as he held his toddler, accusing him of supporting Hamas because he wore the traditional Arab scarf known as a keffiyeh.

In Florida, the government attempted to order the shutdown of several campus chapters of Students for Justice in Palestine, accusing them of being affiliated with Hamas.

And in Michigan, a man was arrested after posting a call on Facebook to “go and hunt Palestinians.”

These aren’t isolated cases. Rights groups across the US have reported a massive increase in complaints following the October 7 Hamas attack on Israel and the country’s subsequent invasion of Gaza. More than 11,000 Palestinians have been killed in the bombings, including at least 4,600 children.

But expressing concern about these deaths has cost Americans their jobs, sparked investigations into campus groups and even spurred the censure of the only Palestinian-American in Congress. Some people have also faced violence, harassment and threats for speaking out against Israeli human rights abuses.

One organisation said it has received 1,283 requests for help and reports of bias in the past month, a 216 percent increase over the previous year. The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR), the nation’s largest Muslim civil rights and advocacy organisation, said most cases included the violation of free speech, employment issues, hate crimes and bullying.

“Both Islamophobia and anti-Arab racism are out of control in ways we have not seen in almost ten years,” said CAIR Research and Advocacy Director Corey Saylor in a statement. “Political leaders, corporations, media outlets, civic organisations and others all have a role to play in ending this surge in bigotry.”
,,
Everyone is using the same talking points, and they’re all perpetuating a lot of the lies... It’s created a culture of fear.

Jewish Americans have also expressed fear over a rise in anti-Semitic incidents since October 7, ranging from bullying to violence.

But the Anti-Defamation League has said the group hasn’t received any reports of workplace discrimination since the Hamas attacks, the Cut reports. And under pressure to pick a side, leaders of more than 150 corporations, including Amazon, Meta and Disney have released statements of solidarity with Israel in recent weeks.

Conversely, those sympathetic to Palestine are experiencing an environment that’s almost more inhospitable than after the September 11, 2001 attacks, said Chris Habiby, National Government Affairs and Advocacy Director of the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee (ADC).

“It’s partly that it’s coming from all sides. There’s no side of the political spectrum that really feels like they’re on our side, defending our rights. I think that it feels very coordinated. Everyone is using the same talking points, and they’re all perpetuating a lot of the lies that have been spoken. It’s created a culture of fear,” he told TRT World.


AP

The US Constitution guarantees the First Amendment right to free speech, but that doesn't necessarily apply on college campuses or in the workplace.

According to the US Constitution, the government can only limit free speech or freedom of expression under very narrow parameters, such as cases of incitement or direct threats.


Private universities and employers, however, have more leeway to call out students or fire outspoken workers, said Adam Steinbaugh, an attorney for the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE).


But that doesn’t mean they should suppress free speech, he told TRT World.

“I think that what we want to see is a ‘more speech’ solution. The answer can’t just be instinctive censorship, especially at universities. The right to freedom of expression we enjoy in the US is something that can be lost very easily. If you weaken the expressive freedom of your enemy, you wind up weakening the expressive freedom of your ally,” Steinbaugh said.


REUTERS
US Secretary of State Antony Blinken meets with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in October.

Notably, the US has considered Israel to be an ally since its inception 75 years ago. Speaking to Israelis in Tel Aviv during an October visit, US Secretary of State Antony Blinken reinforced this notion, telling Israelis "you may be strong enough on your own to defend yourself, but as long as America exists you will never, ever have to. We will always be there, by your side.”


Whether that support translates into curbing the free speech of Americans remains to be seen.


In the short term, experts forecast a big uptick in litigation, as courts process lawsuits from people who have lost their jobs and students who were accused of being connected to terrorist groups. Indeed, threats of legal liability have already prompted Florida officials to pause efforts to ban pro-Palestinian campus groups.


A rally held by American Muslims for Palestine calling for a cease fire in Gaza marches down Pennsylvania Avenue in Washington, DC, on October 21, 2023. 

REUTERS/Bonnie Cash

But in the long term, expect a prolonged fight against the suppression of free speech, rights groups warn. Pro-Israeli groups are pushing for more anti-boycott laws, expanding the definition of anti-Semitism to include criticism of Zionism, and making it easier to associate pro-Palestinian voices with terrorism, the Guardian reports.

Palestinian American scholar Rashid Khalidi, however, said all hope is not lost. Speaking to the Guardian, he said a shift in popular opinion is coming.

“I think the narrative was pretty firmly in the hands of people who supported Israel, (but) there’s a generational change taking place, with young people having an entirely different set of views. They consume different media. I think they’re more educated, more worldly, and better informed than their elders.”

Indeed, support for Israel among the American public continues to drop, according to recent national polls.

UK

TORY REVANCHISM
Children will only be referred to transgender clinics if their parents agree

Michael Searles
Thu, 7 December 2023 

Susie Green, the former chief of the transgender charity Mermaids, bypassed GPs and sent children to the Tavistock’s clinic - Ken McKay/ITV/Shutterstock

Children will only be referred to transgender clinics if their parents agree, under a planned overhaul of NHS rules.

The health service is set to clamp down on the lax referral processes that have led to incidents such as Susie Green, the former chief of the transgender charity Mermaids, bypassing GPs and sending children to the Tavistock’s controversial clinic.

Teachers, social workers and GPs have all historically been able to send children to the Tavistock without having to gain parental consent.

Under the new plans, outlined in a public consultation document published on Thursday night, children will only be referred to one of the new gender services if they, their parents and a specialist agree that it is in the best interests of the child, in two separate reviews.

It is the latest in a series of proposals to overhaul the children’s services following a damning review by Dr Hilary Cass, the former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.

Dr Cass’s interim report found that the approach under the Tavistock, which was the sole NHS gender clinic for children, put its patients “at considerable risk” of poor mental health and was not “a safe or viable long-term option”.

Experts have criticised the clinic’s “affirmative” approach to treating children with supposed gender dysphoria, where they feel that they are not the same sex as they were born, and a lack of exploring alternative health conditions before putting children on puberty blockers.

The new documents confirmed that the Tavistock’s gender identity development service would be permanently closed from March 31 – a year later than initially planned.

It will be replaced by regional centres, with sites in London and Manchester set to be the first two to open in the spring.

The NHS has also committed to limiting the use of puberty blockers to a clinical trial, although more than 100 children have been put on the treatment in the almost 18 months since that announcement.

The proposals follow a review by Dr Hilary Cass, the former president of the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health

Under a new “referral consultation service”, children who may be sent on to a gender service, will have a “consultation, advice and liaison meeting”.

This will involve parents, clinicians and the child in question agreeing on the best path forward, deciding whether or not that involves a referral to a children’s gender service, and then creating a care plan with other services that can be accessed while on the waiting list.

The consultation document said these steps were necessary “in view of the relatively high number of children and young people who present to gender incongruence services with other complex needs, such as mental health needs, neurodiversity or autism”.

It added that it would also help address concerns raised by the Care Quality Commission “about the lack of support or risk assessment” for children on a waiting list.

Previously, children did not need parental consent to be referred to the Tavistock, and in some cases it was not needed to start puberty blocker treatment under Gillick competence rules, which allow clinicians to determine if a child is mature enough to make a decision themselves.

Despite plans to tighten the referral practice, the NHS did not row back on plans to introduce a minimum age of seven for a child to be referred, which was first revealed by The Telegraph.

It will also be temporarily introducing a maximum age of 16. Teenagers aged 17 can be referred to an adult clinic.

Any children who have already been referred to a gender identity service and are yet to be seen – of which there are as many as 8,000 – will not be subject to the new referral restrictions, the NHS said.

A spokesman for the NHS said: “These proposals are intended to ensure that children who may be experiencing challenges with their gender identity are properly connected to local services and that age-appropriate referrals are made to the new specialist gender service which will go live next year.

“In a separate consultation, NHS England has also proposed that the new specialist children’s gender service will not routinely be able to provide any medical intervention, including the use of puberty blockers, to children under 16 years of age.”