What the New CPP Agreement Means for You

pensions CPP

The agreement  reached in Vancouver to enhance the CPP last week was historic in nature. Still,  some people will benefit far more than others. Many Ontario workers, for example,  would have been better off with the provincial pension plan that was abandoned by the Ontario Government within days of the signing of the CPP accord.

There is no question that Canada’s finance ministers reached an historic agreement in Vancouver on June 20. There is also no question that the changes in CPP design that the ministers agreed upon represent an eventual increase in CPP benefits for all workers when compared to the current CPP design.

That said, two additional questions need to be asked when assessing the agreement:

1)      To what extent are the workers most in need of a boost in their retirement savings getting the increase in benefits they need to truly retire in dignity and security. In other words, are the CPP changes agreed upon in Vancouver targeted towards those most in need ; and

2)      Are Ontario workers – who comprise almost 40% of the Canadian labour force – better off under the new CPP regime than they would have been under the Ontario Retirement Pension Plan (ORPP) that was scheduled to be fully implemented in 2019 – the first year of a 7-year phase-in of the agreed upon CPP changes that won’t be completed until 2025? This is relevant given that with the signing of the CPP accord, the Ontario Government moved within days to kill its ORPP initiative.

Background to the Vancouver agreement

Before answering these two questions, it is important to provide some context to the discussions that took place in Vancouver on June 20th.

The task for the finance ministers meeting in Vancouver was to see if there was a formula for reform that had a chance of getting 7 provinces containing two-thirds of Canada’s population (the amending formula for the CPP) to buy into. This was always going to be a challenge given that B.C., Saskatchewan and Quebec had been clear in the previous federal-provincial meeting in December, 2015 that they had little appetite for any sort of CPP/QPP enhancement and Manitoba’s brand new Conservative government was almost certain to join this “sceptic” group. Continue reading

Medical assistance in dying legislation passes in Senate and becomes law

A-young-hand-touches-and--011

Late Friday the Senate concurred with the Liberal Government and passed a bill that was more restrictive than many groups, including the courts, had argued for.

After an expedited vote in the House of Commons late Thursday, an amended Bill C – 14 (medically assisted dying) went back to the Senate for consideration Friday. The Government refused to back down on the clause that a patient’s natural death be “reasonably foreseeable” in order to qualify for medical assistance in dying – a clause that was removed by the Senate earlier in the week.

But in the end, senators deferred to the elected Commons and passed the bill in a vote of 44 to 28 late Friday.  The bill then received Royal Ascent and became law.

As explanation for the Friday reversal, some senators said they worried about access issues without a federal law, while others believed safeguards would be stronger with the Senate amendments accepted by the government. And several felt it was simply not their place as an unelected body to effectively veto the wishes of the elected Commons. Continue reading

The fight for a $15 per hour minimum wage in Ontario

photo $15 macondlad's

On April 4, 2016, New York Governor Andrew Cuomo signed a law which will significantly increase the minimum wage in New York  from the current rate of $9, to $15. The remarkable New York $15/hr. minimum wage victory contains many lessons for Canadian minimum wage activists.

 

On April 15, thousands of fast-food workers in more than 200 U.S. cities, and thousands more workers in other countries, including Canada, participated in a global show of force in support of a $15-per-hour minimum wage and mandatory paid sick days.

In the U. S., the $15 minimum wage campaign has made remarkable legislative gains in the past two years. In 2015, policymakers in 14 cities, counties and states approved $15 minimum wage laws including impressive legislative breakthroughs at the state level in New York and California.

In contrast with the recent U.S. experience, actual legislative victories in Canada on the minimum wage file have been extremely modest. Alberta’s general minimum wage increased to $11.20 from $10.20 per hour on October 1, 2015 and Premier Rachel Notley’s NDP government campaigned on a pledge to hike Alberta’s minimum wage to $15 per hour by 2018. The Notley campaign plank and the campaign promise by the federal NDP to re-instate a federal minimum wage and increase it to $15 per hour by 2019 are certainly encouraging as is Ontario NDP leader Andrea Horwath’s recent support for a $15/hr. minimum wage in Ontario. Continue reading

Uber in Canada: what governments must do to protect the public interest

16-03-29 Uber

.As governments across the country grapple with the implications of the so-called sharing economy, they need to remember that the interests of the Canadian public and the interests of corporate behemoths such as Uber, are not the same.

This is the fourth post in a four-part series of articles on Uber.

The argument in posts 1, 2, and 3 can be summarized as follows:  Uber’s flagship UberX service is unambiguously illegal in most cities in Canada because municipal and provincial taxi licensing law (British Columbia and Quebec license taxis at the provincial level) considers UberX a taxi service and Uber refuses to apply for a taxi licence for UberX under these laws. And it doesn’t apply for a taxi license for UberX because it does not want UberX to operate under the same rules as the rest of the taxi industry and incur the same licencing fee, insurance, and consumer safety costs that the rest of the industry pays.

Nor does it want its UberX service to charge the same regulated fares as its taxi competitors – it wants to be able to charge “surge pricing” which sometimes increases the fare for an Uber passenger as much as 10-fold over the regular fare.

In other words, while Uber is competing for the exact same passenger dollars as the rest of the taxi industry, Uber wants to play by its own rules when it comes to industry regulatory costs and fares.

Why? Simple – without its own set of rules that reduce its costs, the UberX service can’t afford to undercut the fares of existing taxi brokers – by far its most important competitive advantage. Put differently, Uber’s business strategy is simply a political strategy designed to pressure Canadian licensing authorities into creating a separate, cheaper set of taxi rules for UberX to operate under.

How does Uber justify having new licensing rules written just for itself – rules that significantly reduce its costs relative to the costs it would incur operating under the same rules that other taxi companies operate under? Why does Uber think it deserves special treatment?

In Uber’s public statements, it is its unique technology that sets it apart from other taxi services. Uber likes to advertise itself as a technology company that provides a “digital application service” to connect passengers to drivers. In other words, according to Uber its defining feature is that it provides a software platform that connects a customer with a service. And because it is essentially a technology company, unlike other cab companies, it needs its own rules.

The problem with this rationale is obvious – by now, many taxi companies employ Uber-like digital technology that puts drivers in touch with passengers (in addition to traditional phone dispatch). And it goes without saying that the established taxi industry doesn’t think a whole new set of rules are needed just so they can deploy their nifty new apps. Continue reading

Uber in Canada: Cutting corners on taxes and benefits

16-03-12 Uber photo

Uber pays no Corporate Income Tax in Canada and it avoids paying for all forms of employee benefits by declaring its drivers “independent contractors”. The truth is that Uber is not a benign intermediary between drivers and passengers but rather a $50 billion corporate behemoth designed by an army of lawyers to exploit regulatory grey areas for the expressed purpose of undercutting fares charged by its competitors.

This is the third installment of a four part series on Uber’s entry into Canada.

To summarize Parts 1 & 2: at the heart of Uber’s global business strategy is a political strategy. Because Uber has difficulty competing with established taxi companies under existing taxi industry rules, it needs to pressure Canadian licensing authorities into creating a separate set of taxi rules for it to operate under. Put bluntly: without its own set of rules that reduce its costs, Uber can’t afford to undercut the fares of existing taxi brokers – by far its most important competitive advantage.

There are four deal-breakers for Uber in any new set of licencing rules that it pries from governments through its ferocious lobbying: 1) the new rules must allow UberX to charge “surge pricing” with no maximum cap (think New Year’s Eve, an 8.9 times multiplier, and a $1,115 charge for a 60-minute ride in Montreal) while its competitors must continue to charge fixed-rate fares; 2) the new rules must exempt Uber from the commercial insurance coverage that is mandatory for licensed taxis so Uber drivers can carry a new, less comprehensive kind of “hybrid” insurance policy that is cheaper than commercial coverage; 3) Uber must be exempted from the existing licensing fees that govern both cab owners and drivers – and be given its own licensing fee regime with much lower fees; and 4) the background safety check rules for Uber drivers should not be so onerous as to scare off potential Uber drivers. For Uber this usually means that it objects to rules requiring that driver safety checks be done through local police departments.

Because getting new rules that lower its costs is so crucial to Uber’s business strategy, when Uber doesn’t get the above provisions in a new set of rules from taxi regulators, it will either leave the market (e.g. Calgary) or simply operate illegally outside the existing rules (e.g. Toronto and many other Canadian cities). For example, even though Calgary gave Uber much of what it wanted in a new set of rules passed by Calgary City Council in late February, Uber still pulled out of the Calgary market because the specifics of the new licensing fee and driver background check rules weren’t to its liking.

There are two other major areas where Uber plays by different rules that give it an advantage over its competitors: 1) its (apparently legal) international tax avoidance strategy; and 2) its (legally contested) claim that Uber drivers are independent contractors as opposed to employees. These issues, of course, are not regulated within municipal (or provincial) taxi licensing regimes but are nevertheless central to Uber’s Canadian (indeed global) growth strategy.

The rest of this post deals with Uber’s global tax avoidance and labour strategies.

Continue reading

The secret strategy behind the Uber invasion of Canada

File illustration picture showing the logo of car-sharing service app Uber on a smartphone next to the picture of an official German taxi sign in Frankfurt, September 15, 2014. A Frankfurt court earlier this month instituted a temporary injunction against Uber from offering car-sharing services across Germany. San Francisco-based Uber, which allows users to summon taxi-like services on their smartphones, offers two main services, Uber, its classic low-cost, limousine pick-up service, and Uberpop, a newer ride-sharing service, which connects private drivers to passengers - an established practice in Germany that nonetheless operates in a legal grey area of rules governing commercial transportation. REUTERS/Kai Pfaffenbach/Files (GERMANY - Tags: BUSINESS EMPLOYMENT CRIME LAW TRANSPORT)

Even though Uber is competing for the exact same passenger dollars as the rest of the taxi industry, Uber wants to play by its own rules when it comes to fares, insurance, and licensing fees. Uber even objects to being subject to the same background checks on its drivers as the rest of the taxi industry.

This is the second of  four Canada Fact Check articles on Uber’s entry into Canada.

The main argument in Part 1 was that Uber’s flagship UberX service is unambiguously illegal in most cities in Canada because the law considers UberX a taxi service and Uber refuses to apply for a taxi licence. And it doesn’t apply for a taxi license for its UberX service for the simple reason that it does not want its UberX service to operate under the same rules as the rest of the taxi industry and incur the same licencing fee, insurance, and consumer safety costs that the rest of the industry pays. In other words, while Uber is competing for the exact same passenger dollars as the rest of the taxi industry, Uber wants to play by its own rules when it comes to fares and industry regulatory costs.

But Uber also knows that sooner or later the fact that its UberX service is operating illegally is going to catch up with it. In other words, it knows that UberX eventually has to operate under some sort of government sanctioned regulatory regime in Canada. And that’s why, long-term, it needs to have Canadian licensing jurisdictions implement separate sets of taxi rules tailored to its business model. Not tailored to its “innovative” technology as Uber and some of its boosters might claim, mind you, but tailored to the way Uber maximizes its profits.

To accomplish this, Uber has written its own taxi rules and hired well connected, high powered lobbyists with close ties to politicians such as Toronto’s Mayor Tory, to shop Uber written rules around to key Canadian licensing jurisdictions. And Edmonton is the first major Canadian city to make the Uber authored rules law.

To summarize: at the heart of Uber’s global business strategy is a political strategy. Because Uber doesn’t have the business smarts to compete with established taxi companies under existing industry rules, it has to operate either illegally or pressure local licensing authorities to create a separate set of taxi rules for its main service – UberX – to operate under. Continue reading

Why Uber is Bad For Canada

16-02-02 uber

Taxi drivers in cities across Canada have taken to the streets to pressure municipalities to enforce existing taxi industry regulations in the face of the Uber challenge.

Just over five years after it began offering rides in San Francisco, the Uber passenger service now operates in 342 cities spread across more than 60 countries. It retains some 327,000 freelance drivers in the U.S. and hundreds of thousands more around the world. In Uber’s most recent round of financing, investors assigned it a value of $51 billion—a milestone it reached faster than Facebook had before it. According to a recent report by Reuters, Uber has told prospective investors that it will reach $10.8 billion in global ride payments in 2015—giving it $2 billion in revenue when it takes its 20% cut. It projected those numbers, the Reuters report says, to more than double to $26.12 billion this year.

While it primarily offers car rides today, Uber is aiming to be much more. With its UberRush service, the company has experimented with delivery. Uber CEO Travis Kalanick has described Uber as a new platform to help replace inefficient 20th-century transportation systems. Continue reading

Climate change policies hit corporate push back

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Addresses Paris Climate Change Conference

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau Addresses Paris Climate Change Conference. Despite Trudeau’s high profile Paris claim that “Canada is back”, almost all the heavy lifting on the climate change file is being done at the provincial level.

Prime Minister Trudeau received considerable media attention earlier this week in his appearances at the UN Climate Change Conference in Paris.

But beyond the photo-ops starring our telegenic PM, the question still remains as to what exactly Canada is bringing to the table in Paris?

The context

The purpose of the Paris UN conference is to somehow reach an agreement covering the post-2020 period that would require participating countries to set carbon-reduction targets that, while not legally binding on individual countries, will be considered “moral” obligations.

What then is Canada proposing to contribute to the fight against global warming?

On the international front, Trudeau has already announced that Canada will contribute $2.65 billion over five years to help developing countries reduce their reliance on fossil fuels, doubling Canada’s current contribution. And in Paris he also reaffirmed a campaign pledge to invest $300 million in research and development on clean technology.

But the far trickier issue is how to reach the domestic emissions targets already established here at home.

Trudeau has committed to reducing Canada’s carbon emissions by 30 per cent from 2005 levels by 2030. That’s the same target set by the Conservatives, the difference being that the Liberals regard it as “a floor, not a ceiling.” Most importantly, within 90 days of Paris he plans to host a meeting with the premiers to firm up the specific carbon-pricing policies and investments that will be required to make good on that pledge. Continue reading

Is Canada finally getting a national pharmacare program?

Pharmacare health minister Jane philpott Trudeua

Health Minister Jane Philpott has been tasked by Prime Minister Trudeau with finding solutions to Canada’s prescription drug affordability problem.

Momentum has been building for a national pharmacare program since a June meeting of provincial health ministers.

Canada’s new Health Minister, Jane Philpott, says she plans to be in touch with her provincial counterparts to begin the preliminary work of establishing a new health accord which, according to some health experts, could include at least the broad outlines of a national pharmacare program. The 2004 Health Accord expired March 31st, 2014 after the Harper government refused to renegotiate it.

So what can Canadians expect from their new federal government when it comes to making prescription drugs more affordable?

In contrast to other policy areas, the Liberal election platform planks on pharmacare were strikingly vague.  According to the platform:

“We will improve access to necessary prescription medications. We will join provincial and territorial governments to negotiate better prices for prescription medications and to buy them in bulk – reducing the cost governments pay to purchase drugs.”

Not too many clues here as to where the new Trudeau government might end up on pharmacare. That said, Ontario’s Liberal government  has been a strong provincial advocate for an aggressive approach to drug coverage and was extremely critical of the Harper government’s hands-off approach to the issue. Given the close ties between the two Liberal governments, most observers expect the new federal government to be active in future national pharmacare talks.

That next health ministers meeting is expected to take place on January 21-22, 2016 in Vancouver and federal health Minster Philpott has said she will be attending. Continue reading

Bay Street and the Hydro One Sale

Of the many options available to the Ontario government to finance its $130 billion infrastructure plan, selling 60% of Hydro One is pretty much the worst.

Of the many options available to the Ontario government to finance its $130 billion infrastructure plan, selling 60% of Hydro One is pretty much the worst.

It is becoming increasingly clear that the Ontario government is making a serious mistake in its plan to sell off a majority interest in Hydro One. According to a report from Ontario’s new Financial Accountability Officer, the province will be in even worse financial shape after the planned sale of 60 per cent of Hydro One than it is now.

Even former TD Bank CEO Ed Clark, the driving force behind the sale, readily admits that there will be significant forgone revenue from the sale of Hydro One down the road. But he, like Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne, dismisses this on the grounds that the  partial sale of Hydro One is needed to help pay for Ontario’s plan to spend $130.5 billion over 10 years on transit, bridges, highways and other infrastructure.

Unfortunately, while it is undoubtedly true that the planned investments in Ontario infrastructure are badly needed, it is also true that of the various options available to the province to pay for its ten-year, $130.5 billion infrastructure investment, selling 60% of Hydro One is pretty much the worst option.

So why is the Ontario government selling off one if its most valuable assets in what seems like a clear cut case of “short-term gain for long-term pain”?

The sell-off of Hydro One is yet another chapter in the ongoing saga of an Ontario government mesmerized by private sector promises that a healthy dose of private sector, market “discipline” will somehow translate into the public good.

The names are familiar: eHealth, Ornge, the Mississauga and Oakville private gas plants, and public-private hospitals and transit – to name just a few.

The problem? Each and everyone turned out to be a train wreck of truly monumental proportions.

And now Hydro One. Continue reading