News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 02, 2020
 8.9K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 40K     0 
News   GLOBAL  |  Apr 01, 2020
 5.1K     0 

I expect that in isolation most federal program are inconsequential. Adding a new program that is not in the top tier of spending can seem like peanuts. That's how death by a thousand cuts works.

No disagreement there; though I see this one as comparatively good value for money; though, I would have done the program differently.....but that's water under the proverbial bridge.

People w/o dental coverage often go to ERs and get emergency access to oral surgery; where preventative or low intervention care would have been much cheaper.

If the nature of their problem doesn't get intervention, it often gets a prescription for pain killers........

There are lot of Federal programs that could be revisited. This one would not top my list.
 
People w/o dental coverage often go to ERs and get emergency access to oral surgery; where preventative or low intervention care would have been much cheaper.
Then in balance, funding to ERs should be reduced as these patients migrate to the dental plans. But that accounting exercise never happens. That’s how government spending constantly spirals upward, because any savings found in a program by moving services/costs to another program are simply gobbled up by new spending.

I wish our governments would just live within their means. If programs spending exceeds revenue, then increase revenue through higher taxation or cut spending.
 
Then in balance, funding to ERs should be reduced as these patients migrate to the dental plans. But that accounting exercise never happens. That’s how government spending constantly spirals upward, because any savings found in a program by moving services/costs to another program are simply gobbled up by new spending.

While I agree w/the above to a certain point; taken to its logical extreme you have just argued that government can never spend another dollar ever again.

I can't agree to that.

The object ought to be to identify those programs that can should be cut, in many cases entirely; and bank those savings.

The low hanging fruit is the endless number of tax credits we've lobbed into the income tax system. Streamlining those, even on a tax-neutral basis (where you apply the value of the credit to the recipients in the form of a higher basic exemption and/or lower tax rates) would bring considerable savings in administration.

In some cases, it would clearly be preferably (to me) to apply savings to program area the credit is intended for.....

Example, RESP credit eliminated, but the cost of the credit would be applied to a transfer to the provinces to lower tuition.

This is not administration heavy. as that transfer already exists, and lower tuition is a policy choice.
 
While I agree w/the above to a certain point; taken to its logical extreme you have just argued that government can never spend another dollar ever again.
Not true. But what we can’t do is to invent savings that will never be realized as a justification for new spending. We should spend on X because it’s cheaper than Y, but X-Y does not equal actual savings.
 
Last edited:
Then in balance, funding to ERs should be reduced as these patients migrate to the dental plans. But that accounting exercise never happens. That’s how government spending constantly spirals upward, because any savings found in a program by moving services/costs to another program are simply gobbled up by new spending.

I wish our governments would just live within their means. If programs spending exceeds revenue, then increase revenue through higher taxation or cut spending.
It would be interesting to know the number of people who would be diverted as a percentage of total ED visits. Hospitals would be limited to things like pain management, infection control, etc. since no hospital that I am aware of has the staff or facilities to treat actual dental issues.

Regardless, the number, however small, might serve to reduce ED wait times by a minute or two. Certain not a diversion to the point where funding could be pulled away.

I did some reading on it and am curious about the 'cost recovery' line item, since co-pays are listed separately.
 
Hospitals would be limited to things like pain management, infection control, etc. since no hospital that I am aware of has the staff or facilities to treat actual dental issues.

Most larger hospitals actually have dental surgery programs:


1702388568762.png


Plus:

1702388602752.png


And one for cancer patients:


***

Sunnybrook:


1702388733869.png

*****

Obviously most of the above services are not intended for the general practice of dentistry where there is no special need or complexity involved.

That said, the capability is there at many hospitals and it is deployed, rarely, to serve those who come in through the ER. Though usually this is for extreme cases, and most typically, the service provided is tooth extraction.

A good summary of the impact of dental care visits to ERs and GPs can be found here:

 
Last edited:
Thanks for that. I didn't think the number would be that high. I was not aware that hospitals provided non-oncology based treatment and have never heard of someone who was treated in or by a dentist in a hospital setting. I did for forget the Sunnybrook dental services provided to the veterans' wing as my father-in-law was there and benefitted from it; although it is a bit of an outlier in terms of medical facilities.
 
We generally place non-Ontario, provincial news in the federal thread, so I will place this here:


Alberta being sued for nearly 11B by multiple coal mining companies.

This is the key bit, from the above:

1702436592050.png


Does this sound like any other populist government we know?

****

My take, I don't think the government ever owes any business or individual future, unrealized profits.

I think that would be a terrible legal precedent in Canada.

That said, I think the companies in question do have a fair case for actual expenses laid out in service of a police enacted by the government.

But I would want to see them prove they expended that money solely in the one month they had a good faith basis to believe they could earn a return doing so.
 
We generally place non-Ontario, provincial news in the federal thread, so I will place this here:


Alberta being sued for nearly 11B by multiple coal mining companies.

This is the key bit, from the above:

View attachment 526775

Does this sound like any other populist government we know?

****

My take, I don't think the government ever owes any business or individual future, unrealized profits.

I think that would be a terrible legal precedent in Canada.

That said, I think the companies in question do have a fair case for actual expenses laid out in service of a police enacted by the government.

But I would want to see them prove they expended that money solely in the one month they had a good faith basis to believe they could earn a return doing so.
With the UCP in power I'm quite frankly surprised that the moratorium is still in effect.
 
A few interesting federal items this morning.

Lets start with a poll, published in The Star, from Abacus, that suggests the Conservatives are down 5 points in the latest poll, and this reduces their advantage over the Liberals to 10 points, 37 to 27, with the NDP trailing at 19.


I don't think the Libs can count this as particularly good news as the poll would still indicate a Conservative majority were an election held tomorrow, its also possible that its an outlier until we see at least one other poll corroborate the result.

Nonetheless, its a comparatively significant movement; and I'll admit, I'm hard pressed to think of any recent news out of Ottawa that would have merited the shift.

They were in the field Dec 7-12; the Dental care announcement was largely the big play in this time, but I'd be surprised if that re-announcement moved all that many votes.
 
Next, we have a piece suggesting that the Federal Innovation minister is in talks to bring a foreign grocer to Canada.


I'm not sure I buy this. Canada's big grocers are largely too hefty in size for any international player to pick-up, and there are few regional players left on which one could piggyback entry.

The reasons a foreign grocer would be hesitant to enter the market here are well known, and needn't be repeated; I'm not sure how enthused Canadians would be at the announcement of a billion dollar plus subsidy
to Aldi to enter the Canadian market.

And really one of the two Aldis, nord or sud (Trader Joe's, or Aldi, in the U.S. context) would be the obvious players. Lidl, is another German discount grocer whose name periodically comes up. The only other international player (non-U.S.) I can musing about is Carrefour; but I'm not sure their balance sheet would permit it.

From the U.S. We already have Wal-mart and Costco here, and Target isn't coming back; that would see one look at the larger main-line grocers to the south and Meijer is really the only obvious fit. Publix is concentrated in Florida and H-E-B in Texas. Kroger is large, but I don't see it as a good fit for the Canadian market. That only leaves Dutch supermarket Ahold Delhaize which those familiar w/the U.S. market would most likely recognize as Food Lion.

We shall see.
 
Last edited:
One more piece, this one from the Globe looks at Canada's lagging productivity.


The piece cites some of the following:

- Too little competition domestically.

This, it is suggested, relates to government policy that coddles weak companies, limits on foreign competition, protection for incumbents in business, among other things.
Also noted is a lack of entrepreneurship skill; though its conceded, this would be an education and generational change project.

- Specifically cited are the cost of flying/absence of foreign carriers, the cost of cellular/internet and absence of foreign competition, and the supply management system in agriculture.

* Note that I essentially agree with these, but what is omitted from discussion is important. For instance, the U.S. subsidizes its dairy industry enormously, and actually has what amounts of a Federal Cheese Reserve.
That doesn't mean we should accept the status quo, but we we do need to think on the trade-offs/costs of change. Equally, the largest factor in flight costs between major Canadian cities is actually airport fees, which result from
exorbitant rents the Federal government charges airport corps. The government could fix this with the stroke of a pen, but it would cut hundred of millions, (419M in 2019) from the Federal bottom line.

The pass-through fee at Pearson adds $35 to each departing ticket.

This is material on cheaper, big city pair flights.

Where we're really over prices is lower traffic, single major carrier mid-sized markets; but I don't see vast numbers of carriers wanting to serve Thunder Bay.

- The need to cut subsidies to small and medium businesses and also remove growth penalties is identified.

- As is the perpetual need to remove inter provincial trade barriers. One very small thing I think we ought to be able to pull off is agreeing to a common Canadian work week of 40 hours.

Lets take a look at this small inconvenience to business, where a slight increase in generosity to workers would be real simplification of national payroll.

1702477336502.png


Also varying are:

Minimum shift size
Minimum time off between shifts
Minimum break time required
Paid Sick Days
Statutory holidays
Paid Vacation Requirements.

Bringing most of the above inline would simplify things for national/cross-provincial businesses.

Stat. Holidays would likely be the most challenging as Quebec will always have St. Jean Baptist/Fete Nationale as an outlier.

But even agreeing on a 'core 9' across all provinces would simplify things.
 
View attachment 526846


Stat. Holidays would likely be the most challenging as Quebec will always have St. Jean Baptist/Fete Nationale as an outlier.
I really do not think that the provincial differences in stat holidays would make much difference or add to payroll admin costs. Quebec does have the Fete Nationale but does not have Family Day and there are lots of 'provincial outliers'.

The chart below displays a list of national and provincial stat holidays observed in Canada. See: https://www.statutoryholidays.com/ (I am not sure this is 100% right, the Maritimes celebrate Thanksgiving as far as I know.)

Holiday
Day Observed
Observance
January 1​
Nationwide​
Islander Day​
Third Monday in February​
PE​
Third Monday in February​
BC, AB, SK, ON, NB​
Heritage Day​
Third Monday in February​
NS​
Louis Riel Day​
Third Monday in February​
MB​
St. Patrick's Day​
March 17​
NL​
Friday before Easter Sunday​
Nationwide except QC​
Monday after Easter Sunday​
QC​
St. George's Day​
April 23​
NL​
Victoria Day
National Patriotes Day in QC​
Monday preceding May 25th​
Nationwide except NB, NS, PE, NL​
National Aboriginal Day​
June 21​
NT​
Féte Nationale
St. Jean Baptiste Day​
June 24​
QC​
Discovery Day​
June 24​
NL​
Canada Day
Memorial Day in NFL​
July 1​
Nationwide​
Nunavut Day​
July 9​
NT​
First Monday in August​
AB, BC, SK, ON, NB, NU​
First Monday of September​
Nationwide​
September 30​
Nationwide​
Second Monday in October​
Nationwide except NB, NS, PE, NL​
November 11​
Nationwide except ON, QC, NS, NL​
December 25​
Nationwide​
December 26​
ON​
 
I really do not think that the provincial differences in stat holidays would make much difference or add to payroll admin costs. Quebec does have the Fete Nationale but does not have Family Day and there are lots of 'provincial outliers'.

The chart below displays a list of national and provincial stat holidays observed in Canada. See: https://www.statutoryholidays.com/ (I am not sure this is 100% right, the Maritimes celebrate Thanksgiving as far as I know.)

I'm well aware of all of the variations.

The complicating factors look like this:

Victoria Day is a day off in most, but not all provinces. But its not a paid day off in the Atlantic provinces

Thanksgiviing is likewise not a paid day off in most Atlantic provinces.

Remembrance day is a paid day off in the west, but not a day off at all in Ontario.

The concern isn't really of different nomenclature.

Its that a national business has to shut down in part of the country on 'day x' and on 'day y' in another part, which impairs smooth operation.

Its also a fair bit of work for a national payroll office to have to deal with the same employee classification but set up different overtime rules, different holiday pay rules, etc etc.

Is it a world beating difference that would improve competition/productivity by 10%? No.

Again, I think one needs to take this as part of a larger whole. I don't think we need complete uniformity, But greater harmonization would be beneficial.
 
Next, we have a piece suggesting that the Federal Innovation minister is in talks to bring a foreign grocer to Canada.


I'm not sure I buy this. Canada's big grocers are largely to hefty in size for any international player to pick-up, and there are few regional players left on which one could piggyback entry.

The reasons a foreign grocer would be hesitant to enter the market here are well known, and needn't be repeated; I'm not sure how enthused Canadians would be at the announcement of a billion dollar plus subsidy
to Aldi to enter the Canadian market.

And really one of the two Aldis, nord or sud (Trader Joe's, or Aldi, in the U.S. context) would be the obvious players. Lidl, is another German discount grocer whose name periodically comes up. The only other international player (non-U.S.) I can musing about it is Carrefour; but I'm not sure their balance sheet would permit it.

From the U.S. We already have Wal-mart and Costco here, and Target isn't coming back; that would see one look at the larger main-line grocers to the south and Meijer is really the only obvious fit. Publix is concentrated in Florida and H-E-B in Texas. Kroger is large, but I don't see it as a good fit for the Canadian market. That only leaves Dutch supermarket Ahold Delhaize which those familiar w/the U.S. market would most likely recognize as Food Lion.

We shall see.
Meijer would be a strong contender to enter through a small presence in Ontario - but they only operate out of 6 states in the US, I struggle to believe they would try to enter an international market before expanding domestically first, beyond the locational advantages Ontario plays being next to their current operating area. I wouldn't expect to see them out west or even outside of Ontario if they did come.

Aldi or Lidl are the only real options. They could work as they have relatively small footprints as well, which would make it easier for them to secure new leases without buying out an existing player. Meijer comparatively needs a huge footprint which would be challenging to secure leases for as they would basically need new construction space. Their opportunity in Ontario was really a few years ago after Target abandoned dozens of stores across the market which were properly sized to accomodate their needs.

If the feds want to drop grocery prices though, I agree with your other comments that the real low-hanging fruit is the supply management of dairy and other products. Dropping that would drop grocery prices pretty substantially.
 

Back
Top