Business
Canada falls further behind U.S. in race to attract top talent

From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss
The United States Congress recently passed President Donald Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill,” which among things extended and made permanent the income tax rate reductions and revised tax brackets first implemented in the 2017 Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. This should raise alarm bells for policymakers north of the border as Canada will continue to have uncompetitive personal income tax rates compared to our American counterparts, and fall even farther behind in the race to attract entrepreneurs, professionals, investors and top talent.
Jurisdictions around the world compete to attract and retain top talent including entrepreneurs, engineers and doctors, who contribute significantly to the economy. While taxes are one of many factors these professionals consider when deciding where to live and work, jurisdictions with relatively low taxes generally enjoy a competitive edge in attracting these individuals.
According to research, taxes have the largest effect on mobility for high-skilled individuals. For example, relatively high personal income tax (PIT) rates in one jurisdiction incentivize workers to reduce their tax burden by relocating to a lower tax jurisdiction. This creates competition between jurisdictions, as the lowest tax jurisdictions are typically more successful at attracting and retaining professionals, business owners and entrepreneurs.
Indeed, according to Moretti and Wilson (2017), the number of “star” scientists in a state increases by 0.4 per cent annually if the after-tax income in that state increases by 1 per cent due to a reduction in PIT rates. Put differently, high-income scientists are acutely sensitive to personal income taxes and make decisions about where to work in part based on the level of taxation in a given jurisdiction. Similarly, Agrawal and Feremny (2018) found workers in finance, real estate and health care are more sensitive to taxes and more likely to migrate than other professionals.
Research from Akcigit et al. (2015) similarly discovered “superstar” inventors are significantly affected by top tax rates when deciding where to locate. Another study (Iqbal, 2000) on international mobility examined the exodus of Canadian professionals to the U.S. and determined that high-skilled Canadians respond strongly to tax rates—specifically that a “1 percent increase in the existing tax gap (measured by the ratio of total tax revenue to GDP) can push 2 percent more Canadians toward the United States.”
The effect also shows up in international professional sports. Henrik Kleven and his colleagues (2013) examined data on European soccer players and found countries with low taxes attract more “high ability players” that have high rates of compensation. Among NHL fans and pundits, there’s been recent discussion about the Florida Panthers having an advantage in attracting the most talented hockey players because the players do not pay state-level income taxes.
Florida certainly has wonderful beach weather and other luxuries, but its advantage in tax rates give professional hockey teams such as the Panthers and Tampa Bay Lightning a competitive edge in recruiting top talent. Big names such as Sam Bennett, Aaron Ekblad and Brad Marchand recently re-upped with the Panthers on bargain contracts, in part due to relatively low tax rates. Another big name, Mitch Marner, left Toronto this summer for greener pastures and substantially lower taxes (with sunny weather) in Nevada by signing a lucrative eight-year contract with the Las Vegas Golden Knights.
Moreover, five of the last six Stanley Cup-winning teams have come from U.S. states that do not impose state level income taxes (the Colorado Avalanche being the only exception). And again, although taxes are not the sole factor in any player’s career decisions, they are undoubtedly a key reason why these teams successfully manage the salary cap and build the best possible roster.
Why is this relevant for Canada?
Our personal income tax (PIT) rates are uncompetitive compared to other advanced countries that we directly compete with for talented people, particularly the U.S. Among 38 countries within the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Canada’s personal income tax system is ranked the 8th-least competitive. And Canada’s top combined (federal and provincial) PIT rate was the fifth-highest among those same 38 high-income countries in 2024 as illustrated in the chart below. The country’s combined PIT rate is higher than in countries such as Australia (17th), the United Kingdom (20th) and the U.S. (23rd). Again, this makes Canada less attractive to professionals, entrepreneurs and business owners who drive innovation, investment and private-sector job creation—all things fundamental to the economy.
Over the last decade, tax hikes at the federal and provincial levels have increased top PIT rates in every province. For example, the Trudeau government in 2015 raised the top federal PIT rate from 29 per cent to 33 per cent. Provinces such as Alberta, British Columbia, and Newfoundland and Labrador followed suit.
The Carney government has shown little interest in correcting this problem. While the prime minister cancelled Trudeau’s planned capital gains tax hike, Prime Minister Carney has done little else to attract or retain top talent, despite the recent change to the bottom federal PIT rate from 15 per cent to 14 per cent on income below $57,375. While this move may slightly help improve Canada’s competitiveness for lower- and lower-middle-income workers, it does almost nothing to make the country more attractive to doctors, scientists, engineers and entrepreneurs (and yes, athletes).
When Trump’s Big Beautiful Bill helped solidify the U.S. advantage, it exacerbated Canada’s competitiveness problem. If we compare PIT rates in the 10 Canadian provinces to the 50 U.S. states and the District of Columbia, the scale of our problem becomes apparent (see second chart below). Specifically, when ranking the top combined (federal and provincial/state) PIT rates in 2025, Canadian provinces hold nine of the top 10 highest rates among the 61 North American jurisdictions. Saskatchewan (at 15th highest) is the only province to escape the top 10.
Newfoundland and Labrador has the highest top PIT rate (54.80 per cent) among Canadian and U.S. jurisdictions followed by Nova Scotia (54.00 per cent), Ontario (53.53 per cent), Quebec (53.31 per cent) and New Brunswick (52.50 per cent) compared to top PIT rates as low as 37.00 per cent in Texas, Florida, Nevada, Washington and Tennessee, which impose no state-level personal income taxes.
In addition to the rate differences, there are also differences in income thresholds. For instance, in Ontario the top combined PIT rate (53.53 per cent) kicks in at C$253,414 compared to C$1,384,538 in California, a notorious high-tax state. That difference in the income threshold matters for professionals, business owners and entrepreneurs when deciding where to live.
In addition to top earners, Canada’s PIT rates are also uncompetitive at other income levels. At C$150,000, Canadians in all 10 provinces face higher PIT rates than Americans in every U.S. state (see chart below), with the highest rates in Quebec (47.46 per cent), Prince Edward Island (45.00 per cent) and Ontario (44.97 per cent). While Albertans enjoy the lowest rate (36.00) in Canada, it’s still higher than in California (33.30 per cent). And at C$150,000, nine U.S. states have combined (federal and state) income tax rates at 24.0 per cent.
If we move down the income ladder to C$75,000 (see chart below), Canadian provinces hold nine of the top 10 highest PIT rates, starting with Nova Scotia (37.17 per cent), P.E.I. (37.10 per cent) and Quebec (36.12 per cent). Americans living in geographically similar states such as New Hampshire (22.00 per cent), Vermont (28.60 per cent) and Maine (28.75 per cent) all face significantly lower PIT rates than their Canadian counterparts in the Atlantic region. Oregon (30.75 per cent) is the only U.S. jurisdiction in the top 10 and B.C. (28.20 per cent) is the only Canadian province outside of the top 10.
Finally, PIT rates in Canada are also uncompetitive at C$50,000 (see chart below). Again, Canadian provinces hold nine of the top 10 highest rates while the remaining province sits at 12th in the rankings. Nova Scotia (28.95 per cent) once again has the highest rate followed by Newfoundland and Labrador (28.50 per cent), P.E.I. (27.47 per cent) and Manitoba (26.75 per cent).
Ontarians face the lowest rate in Canada at this income level but still pay a higher rate than Americans in 48 states plus the District of Columbia. In Nevada, New Hampshire, Florida and Texas, workers only pay a 12.00 per cent tax rate at C$50,000.
Across all income levels examined, a couple of trends emerge. First, residents in energy-producing provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador consistently pay PIT rates that exceed those in comparable energy-driven states such as Texas, Oklahoma, Alaska, Wyoming, North Dakota, West Virginia and New Mexico that directly compete with these provinces for investment and talent. For example, Alberta’s top combined PIT rate is 11.00 percentage points higher than in Texas, Wyoming and Alaska. Newfoundland and Labrador fares even worse with top PIT rates 17.40-percentage points higher than in those U.S. jurisdictions.
Another obvious trend is that Canadian jurisdictions have higher income tax rates, at both the lower and top end of the income spectrum, than virtually all U.S. states. In other words, the provinces with the lowest rates are generally less competitive than states with the highest tax burdens in the U.S. That’s a big problem for a Canadian economy already struggling to increase productivity, innovation and living standards. These comparably high tax rates reduce the incentives to save, invest and start a business—all key drivers of prosperity—while deterring top talent from locating in Canada.
The problem then worsens when we look beyond taxes towards the multitude of regulatory barriers businesses must sift through, which scares away investors and entrepreneurs. According to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, Canadian businesses spent an estimated $51.5 billion, and an average of 735 hours, on regulatory compliance in 2024. Imagine what business owners and entrepreneurs could do with their time and money spent on innovation instead. Add in relatively high housing prices and cold winter weather in many parts of the country, and it’s difficult to see why professionals, business owners and entrepreneurs would consider relocating to a Canadian city today.
Make no mistake, Canada has immense potential. We have an abundance of natural resources, a highly educated workforce and many young people clamoring for a better future. But we cannot realize that potential if our policymakers are not bold and daring enough to change course.
Creating an environment to foster higher living standards for Canadians means we must meaningfully reduce taxes to make us substantially more competitive with our American neighbours and other industrialized countries around the globe. Tinkering around the edges of our tax system with a small tax reduction here or there simply will not get it done. To attract and retain top talent, Ottawa and the provinces must give high-skilled people a robust reason to call Canada home. Why not start with making Canada the most competitive tax system in the world?
Business
Trump Warns Beijing Of ‘Countermeasures’ As China Tightens Grip On Critical Resources

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
Despite their strategic significance, the U.S. imports 80% of the rare earths it consumes, primarily from China, which dominates global production and controls roughly 92% of the world’s refining capacity.
President Donald Trump on Friday threatened China with a massive tariff hike and hinted his upcoming summit with Chinese President Xi Jinping could be canceled as a result of Beijing’s latest escalation in trade hostilities.
China ramped up its economic pressure campaign this week, first by imposing new export controls Thursday on rare earth minerals critical to the production of vehicles, weapons systems, and other advanced technologies. On Friday, Beijing escalated further, announcing new port fees on American ships and launching an antitrust investigation into U.S. tech giant Qualcomm.
In response to what he described as “great trade hostility,” Trump said there was “no reason” to meet with Xi in South Korea later this month.
Dear Readers:
As a nonprofit, we are dependent on the generosity of our readers.
Please consider making a small donation of any amount here.
Thank you!
“Dependent on what China says about the hostile ‘order’ that they have just put out, I will be forced, as President of the United States of America, to financially counter their move. For every Element that they have been able to monopolize, we have two,” the president posted on Truth Social.
Trump announced later on Friday that the U.S. would impose a 100% tariff on China starting Nov. 1, in addition to existing levies, and implement export controls on “any and all critical software.” He added that the tariffs could go into effect sooner, “depending on any further actions or changes taken by China.”
Despite their strategic significance, the U.S. imports 80% of the rare earths it consumes, primarily from China, which dominates global production and controls roughly 92% of the world’s refining capacity.
Under the new rules, foreign suppliers must obtain Beijing’s approval to export any product made with Chinese rare-earth processing technology or containing rare-earth materials that comprise as little as 0.1% of the item’s value. The restrictions also extend to the export of technology used in rare-earth mining, smelting, and magnet manufacturing, and add five more rare-earth elements to China’s existing control list.
Trump warned that Beijing’s move could “clog” global markets and “make life difficult for virtually every country in the world.”
“I have always felt that they’ve been lying in wait, and now, as usual, I have been proven right! There is no way that China should be allowed to hold the World “captive,” but that seems to have been their plan for quite some time,” the president wrote.
“But the U.S. has Monopoly positions also, much stronger and more far reaching than China’s. I have just not chosen to use them, there was never a reason for me to do so — UNTIL NOW!” Trump said.
The Chinese Transport Ministry also said it will begin collecting port fees on vessels owned by U.S. companies or individuals — and even those built in America — starting Oct. 14. The rollout overlaps with Washington’s plan to impose new charges on large Chinese vessels docking at U.S. ports the same day.
The president also noted that Beijing’s timing was “especially inappropriate,” noting that it coincides with the peace deal he helped broker between Israel and Hamas to bring the two-year conflict to an end.
Automotive
Governments continue to support irrational ‘electric vehicle’ policies

From the Fraser Institute
Another day, another electric vehicle (EV) fantasy failure. The Quebec government is “pulling the plug” on its relationship with the Northvolt EV battery company (which is now bankrupt), and will try to recoup some of its $270 million loss on the project. Quebec’s “investment” was in support of a planned $7 billion “megaproject” battery manufacturing facility on Montreal’s South Shore. (As an aside, what normal people would call gambling with taxpayer money, governments call “investments.” But that’s another story.)
Anyway, for those who have not followed this latest EV-burn out, back in September 2023, the Legault government announced plans to “invest” $510 million in the project, which was to be located in Saint-Basile-le-Grand and McMasterville. The government subsequently granted Northvolt a $240 million loan guarantee to buy the land for the plant, then injected another $270 million directly into Northvolt. According to the Financial Post, “Quebec has lost $270 million on its equity investment… but still had a senior secured loan tied to the land acquired to build the plant, which totals nearly $260 million with interest and fees.” In other words, Quebec taxpayers lost big.
But Northvolt is just the latest in a litany of failure by Canadian governments and their dreams of an EV future free of dreaded fossil fuels. I know, politicians say that it’s a battle against climate change, but that’s silly. Canada is such a small emitter of greenhouse gases that nothing it could do, including shutting down the entire national economy, would significantly alter the trajectory of the climate. Anything Canada might achieve would be cancelled out by economic growth in China in a matter of weeks.
So back to the litany of failed or failing EV-dream projects. To date (from about 2020) it goes like this: Ford (2024), Umicore battery (2024), Honda (2025),General Motors CAMI (2025), Lion Electric (2025), Northvolt (2025). And this does not count projects still limping along after major setbacks such as Stellantis and Volkswagen.
One has to wonder how many tombstones of dead EV fantasy projects will be needed before Canada’s climate-obsessed governments get a clue: people are not playing. Car buyers are not snapping up these vehicles as government predicted; the technologies and manufacturing ability are not showing up as government predicted; declining cost curves are not showing up as government predicted; taxpayer-subsidized projects keep dying; the U.S. market for Canada’s EV tech that government predicted has been Trumped out of existence (e.g. the Trump administration has scrapped EV mandates and federal subsidies for EV purchases); and government is taking the money for all these failed predictions from Canadian workers who can’t afford EVs. It really is a policy travesty.
And yet, like a bad dream, Canada’s governments (including the Carney government) are still backing an irrational policy to force EVs into the marketplace. For example, Ottawa stills mandates that all new light-duty vehicle sales be EVs by 2035. This despite Canadian automakers earnest pleas for the government to scrap the mandate.
Canada’s EV policy is quickly coming to resemble something out of dysfunctional-heroic fiction. We are the Don Quixotes, tilting futilely at EV windmills, and Captain Ahabs, trying to slay the dreaded white whale of fossil-fuelled transportation with our EV harpoons. Really, isn’t it time governments took a look at reality and cut their losses? Canada’s taxpayers would surely appreciate the break.
-
Business2 days ago
Call for Federal Inquiry as Pressure Mounts for Release of Buried Report on Buddhist Land Transactions in PEI
-
Internet2 days ago
Social media pushes pornography on children within minutes, report finds
-
Energy1 day ago
In the halls of Parliament, Ellis Ross may be the most high-profile advocate of Indigenous-led development in Canada.
-
Alberta19 hours ago
Fact, fiction, and the pipeline that’s paying Canada’s rent
-
Automotive2 days ago
Governments continue to support irrational ‘electric vehicle’ policies
-
Energy1 day ago
“It is intellectually dishonest not to acknowledge the … erosion of trust among global customers in Canada’s ability to deliver another oil pipeline.”
-
Aristotle Foundation1 day ago
Efforts to halt Harry Potter event expose the absurdity of trans activism
-
International18 hours ago
Trump-brokered Gaza peace agreement enters first phase