This column by @jackmintz raises some concerns as a potential policy response to the expected cancellation of the KXL permit.

1/

First, Dr Mintz cites numbers for direct and indirect jobs created by KXL for both Canada and USA. It isn’t clear where these numbers came from or if they are permanent jobs. Methods for calculating induced jobs are notorious for their unreliable and non-robust methodology.

2/
Second, Dr Mintz proposes that Canada retaliate with duties and other trade restrictions, as what happened with aluminum. However, KXL is very different, and this changes the scope of available responses, especially under our trade agreements.

3/
Canada viewed the US duties on aluminum and steel as violating trade agreements. The retaliatory duties were permitted under those agreements as a response to those violations. They are not permitted in response to cancelling KXL.

4/
It is also somewhat odd to see an economist arguing for a trade war in any event, especially one tat would be initiated by a small, trade-exposed economy against a much larger economy. No one wins in a trade war.

5/
Some actions, such as a Netflix tax/royalty (and similar for international online services) aren’t offside trade agreements. Dr Mintz notes that Canada is already considering these policies, along with other nations.

6/
Prior to doing so, it makes sense for Canada to properly understand the effect such a tax regime would have, including whether or not there are benefits to proceeding in tandem with other countries.

7/
As a retaliatory measure, therefore, it isn’t very useful. It would be foolish to promise to rescind the tax in exchange for KXL if it is a good policy and other countries go ahead with it in due course.

8/
Jumping the gun by implementing the tax now, before the analysis is complete, risks creating a tax measure that is bad for Canada. As a general rule, bad policy decisions should be avoided, even if they are just to spite someone else.

9/
This DOES NOT MEAN Canada should just accept the cancellation of KXL. There may be many valid reasons for Canada to push the President to reconsider, and there may also be valid options for how Canada can make its case stronger.

10/
But in defending KXL, Canada should be mindful of its obligations under trade agreements as well as what policy options are in the best interests of Canadians generally. We should never let a wedge issue push us into a policy response that only hurts us.

/fin

More from Government

This article by Jim Spellar for @LabourList misses the point about why Labour needs to think seriously about constitutional reform - and have a programme for it ready for government.


The state of our constitution is a bit like the state of the neglected electric wiring in an old house. If you are moving into the house, sorting it out is a bit tedious. Couldn’t you spend the time and money on a new sound system?

But if you ignore the wiring, you’ll find that you can’t safely install the new sound system. And your house may well catch fire.

Any programme for social democratic government requires a state with capacity, and a state that has clear mechanisms of accountability, for all the big and all the small decisions that in takes, in which people have confidence.

That is not a description of the modern UK state.

You May Also Like

First update to https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL since the challenge ended – Medium links!! Go add your Medium profile now 👀📝 (thanks @diannamallen for the suggestion 😁)


Just added Telegram links to
https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL too! Now you can provide a nice easy way for people to message you :)


Less than 1 hour since I started adding stuff to https://t.co/lDdqjtKTZL again, and profile pages are now responsive!!! 🥳 Check it out -> https://t.co/fVkEL4fu0L


Accounts page is now also responsive!! 📱✨


💪 I managed to make the whole site responsive in about an hour. On my roadmap I had it down as 4-5 hours!!! 🤘🤠🤘
I’m torn on how to approach the idea of luck. I’m the first to admit that I am one of the luckiest people on the planet. To be born into a prosperous American family in 1960 with smart parents is to start life on third base. The odds against my very existence are astronomical.


I’ve always felt that the luckiest people I know had a talent for recognizing circumstances, not of their own making, that were conducive to a favorable outcome and their ability to quickly take advantage of them.

In other words, dumb luck was just that, it required no awareness on the person’s part, whereas “smart” luck involved awareness followed by action before the circumstances changed.

So, was I “lucky” to be born when I was—nothing I had any control over—and that I came of age just as huge databases and computers were advancing to the point where I could use those tools to write “What Works on Wall Street?” Absolutely.

Was I lucky to start my stock market investments near the peak of interest rates which allowed me to spend the majority of my adult life in a falling rate environment? Yup.