A Whisper from the Line editors: Pay attention to what Freeland is saying
Maybe Freeland has clued into just how vulnerable Canada is, and is trying very hard to signal that realization to the necessary people.
Line readers, life can be funny sometimes. Not always “ha ha” funny, but you know — things happen that make you go hmmm. And gosh, did we ever go hmmm yesterday.
In recent dispatches and articles here, we have made very clear that we have real concerns about the health of the Canadian economy. These concerns are varied and diverse, and often bleed over from economic into social — to pick one example we’ve covered, if young Canadians can’t buy houses while older Canadians become multi-millionaires when they sell theirs, that’s a recipe not just for economic pain, but social unrest.
There are, alas, others.
Earlier this week, one of your Line editors was in a conversation with an associate — a successful Canadian business leader and entrepreneur. Our associate asked if we’d paid attention to Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland’s remarks last week when she announced that the Canada Response Benefit, the wage subsidy and the rent subsidies would be ending, replaced by more targeted programs to support people and businesses in areas where COVID-19 case levels remain very high and normal economic and social activity is impossible. We had to confess that we hadn’t, not closely — we’d read the coverage of the announcement of the wrapping up of the broad-based supports and the new more targeted replacements, but hadn’t looked more closely than that.
Check it out, we were told, and note what isn’t there. None of the usual Trudeauvian rhetorical flourishes about building back better or growing the economy from the heart outward and the like. This was a speech aimed not at Canadians generally or even Liberal supporters specifically. This was a signal to the business and international finance community, our associate stressed. The message is: “We get it. We’ve been pushing the limit and we’re going to pull back now.”
That’s just one person’s take, of course, but your Line editors did indeed dig up a copy of the remarks, which you can find here, and we have to say that we agree. Once you are looking for it, it’s hard to miss what’s missing: there is none of the usual Trudeau/Freeland touches that have so long typified this government’s approach to any public statement. The Trudeau government has genuinely excelled at this kind of communication and brand building, and for it to vanish so completely and suddenly out of an important statement is noteworthy. There is nothing wrong with the finance minister speaking in a businesslike manner, of course, nor do we wish to suggest otherwise. But these guys are so reflexively shameless in their branding that the absence of the usual frills can only reflect a choice.
And like we said, life is funny, because your Line editors were chatting about this on Tuesday — what our associate had told us, and what Freeland’s speech contained — when we also noticed these tweets, on the occasion of Trudeau announcing his new cabinet:
See what we mean? Again, it’s not weird for her to be talking about this — she is the finance minister, after all. But the tone has shifted. And that’s … interesting.
And this brings us to funny little coincidence number 3. While chatting with another associate — look, we have a lot of associates, OK, and they all need chatting up — a friend of The Line also noted the changing tone from Freeland, and pointed out that we might have part of our explanation already. “Go check out a report on Canadian bond sales from just before Thanksgiving,” they urged. Duly prodded, we indeed found the report — by the Canadian Press’s Jordan Press. Using documents CP obtained, Press reported that Freeland was warned earlier this year that the federal government would have to shift some of its bond sales — how we raise the money to cover off our deficit spending — away from very long-term bonds. Freeland was apparently warned that there simply is limited demand for long-term Canadian debt on international markets.
That shouldn’t be a shock — as all the major economies were forced to spend bigly during the pandemic, the world is awash with debt from developed countries, of which Canada is just one among several. Indeed, in funny little coincidence number 4, Bloomberg reported on Tuesday that, with concerns of inflation mounting, the Bank of Canada is actively trying to reduce its purchases of our own debt. (Update: It is actually suspending them.) And absolutely all of this assumes that nothing else goes wrong out there, at home or abroad. We aren’t predicting it will, but surely we’ve all learned of late that we can’t take stability for granted? Canada’s overall level of indebtedness has risen sharply during the pandemic, leaving us vulnerable to potential future emergencies. Debt outside of the government sector (excluding the banks, which are a different category) is already above 240 per cent of GDP. Canadians owe a lot.
Hey, maybe it’s all nothing. Maybe it’s all in our heads. Or maybe the Trudeau government, and Freeland in particular, has clued into just how vulnerable Canada is, and how their own spending plans were making it worse, and they are trying very hard to signal that realization to the necessary people in a way that doesn’t alarm the rest of the public.
We’ll see. Stay tuned.
Correction: This piece has been updated to clarify challenges for Canada’s sale of bonds on the international market.
The Line is Canada’s last, best hope for irreverent commentary. We reject bullshit. We love lively writing. Please consider supporting us by subscribing. Follow us on Twitter @the_lineca. Fight with us on Facebook. Pitch us something: lineeditor@protonmail.com
This isn't anything to panic about? This is the threshold of a potential economic disaster. It is great that Feeland seems to be using an enigma machine to speak to business leaders in the country, but her change of tone might be too little too late. A shift to short term bonds to cover our immediate debt obligations is going to put more upward pressure on interest rates which already have upward pressure without even considering bond sales. Most of my associates do not want to touch bonds right now because of the low interest rates and the potential for inflation. It is only going to get worse as time goes on and we do not have the innovation or foreign investment levels in our economy to deal with the slow down of debt creation. If by "isn't anything to panic about" you mean I shouldn't be setting my hair on fire just yet, well I should never be in a position to feel compelled to do that. The time to panic was months and months ago, I think this is all too little too late now.
I ran across an interesting column by Freeland back in 2011, talking about the damage being done by the slow and grinding recovery in the US from the 2008 financial crash - as well as the need for a credible fiscal plan, but with the date deferred until after full recovery. Given the very similar situation we're in today, where the question is when to start fiscal tightening, it makes for interesting reading. https://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/12/us/12iht-letter12.html
On long-term economic damage, and the importance of getting back to full employment rapidly:
"The sort of metaphors we tend to reach for, to borrow one from the White House, are of the car that was driven into the ditch. It is unpleasant to be stuck in the mud, and pushing it out is hard work, but once we are back on the road it will be full speed ahead.
"The better, but grimmer, comparison is to infant malnutrition. Even if that child grows into a well-fed adult, her early experience of deprivation will do lasting damage.
"That ugly image is particularly apt because the hardest hit will probably be young people. Mr. Peck spoke to Lisa Kahn, a Yale economist, who found that getting your first job during a deep recession meant a starting salary 25 percent lower than during a boom, and an income 10 percent less 17 years later. Even mid-career, the recession generation not only takes home a thinner paycheck, it is lower down the corporate hierarchy and more professionally timorous."
On having a credible fiscal plan:
"Like Mr. Peck, Mr. Rubin believes that an agreed plan to close the deficit in the medium term would actually make a job-creating stimulus program in the short term both more feasible and more effective.
"'You can put in place a serious fiscal program, which would generate job-creating confidence, but defer the implementation date,' he said. 'In that context you could do a fiscal stimulus, and at much less risk of it being materially offset by an adverse effect on confidence.'
"We need to create jobs today — and commit to tightening our belts when the economy starts to recover. It is a simple plan that makes sense to a lot of us. But in the scared, beggar-thy-neighbor world Mr. Peck describes, the public-spirited middle ground this approach embodies may no longer exist."