Federal budget fails to ‘break the glass’ on Canada’s economic growth crisis

“You’ve seen those signs that say, ‘In emergency, break glass.’ Well, it’s time to break the glass,” said Carolyn Rogers, Bank of Canada senior deputy governor, in a speech last month while warning that Canadians may see living standards fall if nothing is done to promote economic growth.

In advance of the Trudeau government’s 2024 budget released on Tuesday, many called for the government to finally address Canada’s stagnant economic growth. But despite the growing consensus that this issue represents a national crisis, the Trudeau government simply continued with the same approach that helped get us to this point in the first place.

“You’ve seen those signs that say, ‘In emergency, break glass.’ Well, it’s time to break the glass,” said Carolyn Rogers, Bank of Canada senior deputy governor, in a speech last month while warning that Canadians may see living standards fall if nothing is done to promote economic growth.

Ten days later in a joint interview, former Quebec premier Jean Charest and former federal finance minister Bill Morneau urged the Trudeau government to focus on economic growth in the budget. Specifically, Morneau suggested Canada needs more business investment “from other sources than the government.”

These are just two examples of the growing consensus that Canada is suffering an economic and productivity growth crisis.

Economic growth generally refers to the increase in gross domestic product (GDP), which measures the total output of the economy and is driven by three factors—the labour supply, the capital stock and the efficiency in which labour and capital are used.

Canada’s GDP growth in recent years has been driven almost entirely by the labour supply, as the country has experienced historically high population growth. However, although GDP in aggregate has been growing, GDP per person (a common indicator of living standards) has been declining at an alarming rate. Since the second quarter of 2022 (when it peaked post-COVID), inflation-adjusted GDP per person has fallen from $60,178 to $58,111 in the fourth quarter of 2023—and has declined during five of those six quarters, and now sits below where it was at the end of 2014.

Labour productivity, which is the amount of output (GDP) produced per hour worked, has seen a similar decline. Statistics Canada recently reported that the fourth quarter of 2023 represented the first time productivity increased since the beginning of 2022, and that for the prior six quarters labour productivity had declined or remained stagnant.

The consequence of both declining GDP per person and lower productivity, as Carolyn Rogers warned, is a lower standard of living for Canadians. To reverse this crisis, the Trudeau government must address the cause of Canada’s weak economic growth—a severe lack of business investment.

Business investment provides the capital needed to equip workers with the technology and equipment to become more efficient and productive. Yet according to a recent study, from 2014 to 2021, inflation-adjusted business investment per worker in Canada fell from $18,363 to $14,687.

This decline in business investment is partly the result of the Trudeau government’s disinterest in encouraging entrepreneurship and private-sector business investment. Indeed, the government’s approach of high spending, more regulation and significant involvement in the economy has done little to foster widespread economic growth.

And by raising capital gains taxes on individuals and businesses, which the Trudeau government did in this latest budget, in the words of former Bank of Canada governor David Dodge, the government is doing “exactly the wrong thing” to boost productivity. Rather, these measures simply provide more reason for people and businesses to invest elsewhere.

This latest Trudeau budget doubles down on a failed approach. Spending is up, government involvement in the economy is increasing, and increased capital gains taxes will only make our investment challenges more difficult. We need a complete reversal in policy to solve our economic growth crisis.

Authors:

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#BillMorneau #CarolynRogers #DavidDodge #EconomicGrowthCrisis #FederalBudget2024 #FraserInstitute #GradyMunro #JakeFuss feature

Up Next

Business investment key to addressing Canada’s productivity crisis

Don't Miss

Brussels NatCon conference will continue freely after court overturns police barricade

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Surgery Denied. Death Approved.

Economy / 5 hours ago

Affordable housing out of reach everywhere in Canada

Business / 5 hours ago

Canada invests $34 million in Chinese drones now considered to be ‘high security risks’

Business

Canada invests $34 million in Chinese drones now considered to be ‘high security risks’

Published on December 8, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

Of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police’s fleet of 1,200 drones, 79% pose national security risks due to them being made in China

Canada’s top police force spent millions on now near-useless and compromised security drones, all because they were made in China, a nation firmly controlled by the Communist Chinese Party (CCP) government.

An internal report by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) to Canada’s Senate national security committee revealed that $34 million in taxpayer money was spent on a fleet of 973 Chinese-made drones.

Replacement drones are more than twice the cost of the Chinese-made ones between $31,000 and $35,000 per unit. In total, the RCMP has about 1,228 drones, meaning that 79 percent of its drone fleet poses national security risks due to them being made in China.

The RCMP said that Chinese suppliers are “currently identified as high security risks primarily due to their country of origin, data handling practices, supply chain integrity and potential vulnerability.”

In 2023, the RCMP put out a directive that restricted the use of the made-in-China drones, putting them on duty for “non-sensitive operations” only, however, with added extra steps for “offline data storage and processing.”

The report noted that the “Drones identified as having a high security risk are prohibited from use in emergency response team activities involving sensitive tactics or protected locations, VIP protective policing operations, or border integrity operations or investigations conducted in collaboration with U.S. federal agencies.”

The RCMP earlier this year said it was increasing its use of drones for border security.

Senator Claude Carignan had questioned the RCMP about what kind of precautions it uses in contract procurement.

“Can you reassure us about how national security considerations are taken into account in procurement, especially since tens of billions of dollars have been announced for procurement?” he asked.

The use of the drones by Canada’s top police force is puzzling, considering it has previously raised awareness of Communist Chinese interference in Canada.

Indeed, as reported by LifeSiteNews, earlier in the year, an RCMP internal briefing note warned that agents of the CCP are targeting Canadian universities to intimidate them and, in some instances, challenge them on their “political positions.”

The final report from the Foreign Interference Commission concluded that operatives from China may have helped elect a handful of MPs in both the 2019 and 2021 Canadian federal elections. It also concluded that China was the primary foreign interference threat to Canada.

Chinese influence in Canadian politics is unsurprising for many, especially given former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s past  admiration for China’s “basic dictatorship.”

As reported by LifeSiteNews, a Canadian senator appointed by Trudeau told Chinese officials directly that their nation is a “partner, not a rival.”

China has been accused of direct election meddling in Canada, as reported by LifeSiteNews.

As reported by LifeSiteNews, an exposé by investigative journalist Sam Cooper claims there is compelling evidence that Carney and Trudeau are strongly influenced by an “elite network” of foreign actors, including those with ties to China and the World Economic Forum. Despite Carney’s later claims that China poses a threat to Canada, he said in 2016 the Communist Chinese regime’s “perspective” on things is “one of its many strengths.”

Business

The EU Insists Its X Fine Isn’t About Censorship. Here’s Why It Is.

Published on December 8, 2025

Todayville

By Christina Maas

Europe calls it transparency, but it looks a lot like teaching the internet who’s allowed to speak.

When the European Commission fined X €120 million on December 5, officials could not have been clearer. This, they said, was not about censorship. It was just about “transparency.”

They repeat it so often you start to wonder why.

The fine marks the first major enforcement of the Digital Services Act, Europe’s new censorship-driven internet rulebook.

It was sold as a consumer protection measure, designed to make online platforms safer and more accountable, and included a whole list of censorship requirements, fining platforms that don’t comply.

The first target is Elon Musk’s X, and the list of alleged violations look less like user safety concerns and more like a blueprint for controlling who gets heard, who gets trusted, and who gets to talk back.

The Commission charged X with three violations: the paid blue checkmark system, the lack of advertising data, and restricted data access for researchers.

None of these touches direct content censorship. But all of them shape visibility, credibility, and surveillance, just in more polite language.

Musk’s decision to turn blue checks into a subscription feature ended the old system where establishment figures, journalists, politicians, and legacy celebrities got verification.

The EU called Musk’s decision “deceptive design.” The old version, apparently, was honesty itself. Before, a blue badge meant you were important. After, it meant you paid. Brussels prefers the former, where approved institutions get algorithmic priority, and the rest of the population stays in the queue.

The new system threatened that hierarchy. Now, anyone could buy verification, diluting the aura of authority once reserved for anointed voices.

Reclaim The Net is sustained by its readers.

Your support fuels the fight for privacy, free speech and digital civil liberties while giving you access to exclusive content, practical how to guides, premium features and deeper dives into freedom-focused tech.

Become a supporter here.

However, that’s not the full story. Under the old Twitter system, verification was sold as a public service, but in reality it worked more like a back-room favor and a status purchase.

The main application process was shut down in 2010, so unless you were already famous, the only way to get a blue check was to spend enough money on advertising or to be important enough to trigger impersonation problems.

Ad Age reported that advertisers who spent at least fifteen thousand dollars over three months could get verified, and Twitter sales reps told clients the same thing. That meant verification was effectively a perk reserved for major media brands, public figures, and anyone willing to pay. It was a symbol of influence rationed through informal criteria and private deals, creating a hierarchy shaped by cronyism rather than transparency.

Under the new X rules, everyone is on a level playing field.

Government officials and agencies now sport gray badges, symbols of credibility that can’t be purchased. These are the state’s chosen voices, publicly marked as incorruptible. To the EU, that should be a safeguard.

The second and third violations show how “transparency” doubles as a surveillance mechanism. X was fined for limiting access to advertising data and for restricting researchers from scraping platform content. Regulators called that obstruction. Musk called it refusing to feed the censorship machine.

The EU’s preferred researchers aren’t neutral archivists. Many have been documented coordinating with governments, NGOs, and “fact-checking” networks that flagged political content for takedown during previous election cycles.

They call it “fighting disinformation.” Critics call it outsourcing censorship pressure to academics.

Under the DSA, these same groups now have the legal right to demand data from platforms like X to study “systemic risks,” a phrase broad enough to include whatever speech bureaucrats find undesirable this month.

The result is a permanent state of observation where every algorithmic change, viral post, or trending topic becomes a potential regulatory case.

The advertising issue completes the loop. Brussels says it wants ad libraries to be fully searchable so users can see who’s paying for what. It gives regulators and activists a live feed of messaging, ready for pressure campaigns.

The DSA doesn’t delete ads; it just makes it easier for someone else to demand they be deleted.

That’s how this form of censorship works: not through bans, but through endless exposure to scrutiny until platforms remove the risk voluntarily.

The Commission insists, again and again, that the fine has “nothing to do with content.”

That may be true on a direct level, but the rules shape content all the same. When governments decide who counts as authentic, who qualifies as a researcher, and how visibility gets distributed, speech control doesn’t need to be explicit. It’s baked into the system.

Brussels calls it user protection. Musk calls it punishment for disobedience. This particular DSA fine isn’t about what you can say, it’s about who’s allowed to be heard saying it.

TikTok escaped similar scrutiny by promising to comply. X didn’t, and that’s the difference. The EU prefers companies that surrender before the hearing. When they don’t, “transparency” becomes the pretext for a financial hammer.

The €120 million fine is small by tech standards, but symbolically it’s huge.

It tells every platform that “noncompliance” means questioning the structure of speech the EU has already defined as safe.

In the official language of Brussels, this is a regulation. But it’s managed discourse, control through design, moderation through paperwork, censorship through transparency.

And the louder they insist it isn’t, the clearer it becomes that it is.

Reclaim The Net Needs Your Help

With your help, we can do more than hold the line. We can push back. We can expose censorship, highlight surveillance overreach, and amplify the voices of those being silenced.

If you have found value in our work, please consider becoming a supporter.

Your support does more than keep us independent. It also gives you access to exclusive content, deep dive exploration of freedom focused technology, member-only features, and practical how-to posts that help you protect your rights in the real world.

You help us expand our reach, educate more people, and continue this fight.

Please become a supporter today.

> Become a Supporter <

Thank you for your support.