Business groups are justifiably opposed to the federal government’s June 25 increase of the inclusion rate for capital gains tax. But there is another corporate income tax increase looming. It will come in the form of a 2018 corporate tax reduction that is set to expire starting this year. Ottawa ironically intended it to make Canada more competitive amid the 2018 tax reform and cut in the United States.
According to a study by Trevor Tombe at the University of Calgary’s School of Public Policy, Canada’s corporate income tax rate on new investments will jump from 13.7 percent to 17 percent by 2027. Even worse, for Canada’s high-value-added manufacturing sector, taxation will triple. Higher corporate income taxes, in a nation experiencing difficulties in encouraging domestic or foreign investment in new plant equipment, will struggle to reverse meagre productivity growth—a problem noted by the Bank of Canada.
Heavier taxation will hinder future improvement in incomes and the standard of living, making it a serious issue. Increasing income tax on businesses and investment will not increase prosperity and personal income. The legislation to make the 2018 provisions permanent is, alarmingly, not urgent to politicians.
At least one policy could make Canada more attractive to business, investors, and hard-pressed ordinary citizens. It would be to slash corporate income taxes substantially. Another is to make paying taxes easier, as Magna Corporation founder Frank Stronach suggested. It may surprise some Canadians, but Ottawa’s take from corporate income taxes is a relatively small. However, it is a fast-rising proportion of federal overall revenue: 21 percent in fiscal 2022–23, according to the government, up from 13 percent in fiscal 2000–21, notes the OECD.
Letting companies pay taxes and reducing the tax burden on ordinary people might seem OK to some. However, what happens is that every corporate expense, including taxes, reduces cash flow that reaches individuals. The money remaining in the hands of businesses could either be reinvested or paid out as dividends to owners. Let’s remember that owners are founding families, pension fund beneficiaries (employees, citizens), and ordinary individuals.
As there are fewer available funds, there will be a reduced capacity for capital investment. Investment is required to replace existing equipment, or add new equipment, devices, software, and vehicles for businesses. It only keeps companies competitive and makes employees more productive. This, in turn, makes the whole economy more profitable, thereby increasing taxes paid to governments.
As for the questionable reason for the tax increase, aiming to generate more revenue, recent experience in the United States is informative. The 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act reduced corporate income tax from 39 percent of pre-tax income to 21 percent. It resulted in U.S. federal corporate income tax revenue rising 25 percent from 2017 to 2021. Capital investment rose dramatically too, by 20 percent, a key goal of many Canadian policymakers.
If anything, Canada should cut corporate income taxes to below the levels of its main trading partners and rivals. To do so, it will have to extricate itself from the ill-conceived international treaty that compels signatory nations and territories to have a floor rate of at least 15 percent of pre-tax income. Ottawa seems enamoured of multinational agreements and organizations, so it may be highly reluctant to abrogate membership in this growth-dampening arrangement. The statutory federal corporate income tax rate in Canada is 15 percent, but all provincial governments impose their own levies on top of that, ranging from 8 percent in Alberta to 16 percent in Prince Edward Island.
By cutting taxes, we can pave the way for a brighter economic future, marked by increased productivity and the prosperity we all yearn for. This move will also ensure our international competitiveness, a goal we are currently struggling to achieve with our current 25 percent rate (OECD). Canada has a hard time attracting investors. Raising taxes will neither attract more of them nor encourage more investment from existing Canada-domiciled entrepreneurs and companies.
Ian Madsen is senior policy analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.
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.
For the summer leading up to the 2025 fall budget, the Carney government has launched a federal spending review aimed at finding savings that will help pay for recent major policy announcements. While this appears to be a step in the right direction, lessons from the past suggest the government must be more ambitious in its review to overcome the fiscal challenges facing Canada.
In two letters sent to federal cabinet ministers, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne outlined plans for a “Comprehensive Expenditure Review” that will see ministers evaluate spending programs in each of their portfolios based on the following: whether they are “meeting their objectives” are “core to the federal mandate” and “complement vs. duplicate what is offered elsewhere by the federal government or by other levels of government.” Ultimately, as a result of this review, ministers are expected to find savings of 7.5 per cent in 2026/27, rising to 10 per cent the following year, and reaching 15 per cent by 2028/29.
This news comes after the federal government has recently made several major policy announcements that will significantly impact the bottom line. Most notably, the government added an additional $9.3 billion to the defence budget for this fiscal year, and committed to more than double the annual defence budget by 2035. Without any policies to offset the fiscal impact of this higher defence spending (along with other recentchanges), this year’s budget deficit (which the Liberal’s election platform initially pegged at $62.3 billion) will likely surpass $70.0 billion, and potentially may reach as high as $92.2 billion.
A spending review is long overdue. Recent research suggests that each year the federal government spends billions towards programs that are inefficient and/or ineffective, and which should be eliminated to find savings. Moreover, past governments (both federal and provincial) have proven that fiscal adjustments based on spending reviews can be very successful—just look at the Chrétien government’s 1995 Program Review.
In its 1995 budget, the federal Chrétien government launched a comprehensive review of all federal spending that—along with several minor tax increases—ultimately balanced the federal budget in two years and helped Canada avert a fiscal crisis. Two aspects of this review were critical to its success: it reviewed all federal spending initiatives with no exceptions, and it was based on clear criteria that not only tested whether spending was efficient, but which also reassessed the federal government’s role in delivering programs and services to Canadians. Unfortunately, the Carney government’s review is missing these two critical aspects.
The Carney government already plans to exclude large swathes of the budget from its spending review. While it might be reasonable for the government to exclude defence spending given our recent commitments (though that doesn’t appear to be the plan), the Carney government has instead chosen to exclude all transfers to individuals (such as seniors’ benefits) and provinces (such as health-care spending) from any spending cuts. Based on the last official spending estimates for this year, these two areas alone represent a combined $254.6 billion—or more than half of total spending after excluding debt charges—that won’t be reviewed.
This is a major weakness in the government’s plan. Not only does this limit the dollar value of savings available, it also means a significant portion of the government’s budget is missing out on a reassessment that could lead to more effective delivery of services for Canadians.
For example, as part of the 1995 program review, the Chrétien government overhauled how it delivered welfare transfers to provincial governments. Specifically, the federal government replaced two previous programs with a new Canada Health and Social Transfer (CHST) that addressed some major flaws with how the government delivered welfare assistance. While the transition to the CHST did include a $4.6 billion reduction in spending on government transfers, the new structure gave the federal government better control over spending growth in the future and allowed provincial governments more flexibility to tailor social assistance programs to local needs and preferences.
In addition to considering all areas of spending, the Carney government’s spending review also needs to be more ambitious in its criteria. While the current criteria are an important start—for example, it’s critical the government identifies and eliminates spending programs that aren’t achieving their stated objectives or which are simply duplicating another program—the Carney government should take it one step further and explicitly reflect on the role of the federal government itself.
Among other criteria that focused on efficiency and affordability of programs, the 1995 program review also evaluated every spending program based on whether government intervention was even necessary, and whether or not the federal government specifically should be involved. As such, not only did the program review eliminate costly inefficiencies, it also included the privatization of government-owned entities such as Petro-Canada and Canadian National Railway—which generated considerable economic benefits for Canadians.
Today, the federal government devotes considerable amounts of spending each year towards areas that are outside of its jurisdiction and/or which government shouldn’t be involved in the first place—national pharmacare, national dental care, and national daycare all being prime examples. Ignoring the fact that many of these areas (including the three examples) are already excluded from the Carney government’s spending review, the government’s criteria makes no explicit effort to test whether a program is targeting an area that’s outside of the federal purview.
For instance, while the government will test whether or not a spending program fits within the federal mandate, that mandate will not actually ensure the government stays within its own jurisdictional lane. Instead, the mandate simply lays out the key priorities the Carney government intends to focus on—including vague goals including, “Bringing down costs for Canadians and helping them to get ahead” which could be used to justify considerable federal overreach. Similarly, the government’s other criterion to not duplicate programs offered by other levels of government provides little meaningful restriction on government spending that is outside of its jurisdiction so long as that spending can be viewed as “complementing” provincial efforts. In other words, this spending review is unlikely to meaningfully check the costly growth in the size of government that Canada has experienced over the last decade.
Simply put, the Carney government’s spending review, while a step in the right direction, is missing key elements that will limit its effectiveness. Applying key lessons from the Chrétien government’s spending review is crucial for success today.
President Donald Trump on Saturday said he will impose 30% tariffs on imported goods from the European Union and Mexico in his latest move to balance trade between the U.S. and other countries.
The tariffs are set to go into effect Aug. 1.
Saturday’s announcement comes a day after the U.S. Department of Treasury released a report Friday showing that tariff revenue helped revenue in the month of June exceed expenses by $27 billion.
“We have had years to discuss our Trading Relationship with The European Union, and we have concluded we must move away from these long-term, large, and persistent, Trade Deficits, engendered by your Tariff, and Non-Tariff, Policies, and Trade Barriers,” Trump wrote in the letter to the EU and posted on his Truth Social account. “Our relationship has been, unfortunately, far from Reciprocal.”
The 30% tariff on EU goods is higher than expected. EU trade ministers are scheduled to meet Monday and could agree to increase tariffs on U.S. goods as retaliation.
In his letter to Mexico, Trump said the U.S. neighbor to the south has helped stem the flow of illegal narcotics and people from entering the country but added that it needed to do more to prevent North America from being a “Narco-Trafficking Playground.”
Earlier in the week, Trump announced new tariffs on several other countries, including 20% tariffs on imports from the Philippines; 25% on Brunei and Moldova; 30% on Algeria, Iraq and Libya; and 50% on Brazil.
All of the new tariffs announced this week are scheduled to go into effect Aug. 1.
• The Center Square reporters Therese Boudreaux and Andrew Rice contributed to this report.
