In late-2014, per-person gross domestic product (GDP), a common indicator of living standards, stood at $58,162 (adjusted for inflation). By the end of 2023 it was actually slightly lower. This means Canadian living standards haven’t increased in a decade.
In a recent speech, the Bank of Canada’s senior deputy governor highlighted the risk posed by chronically sluggish productivity growth to the country’s living standards. She also noted that stalled productivity makes it harder to reduce inflation and keep it at (or close to) the Bank’s 2 per cent target.
Productivity is conventionally defined as the value of economic output per hour of work. Over time, it’s the most important determinant of overall economic growth. In a mainly market-based economy such as Canada’s, particular attention should be paid to the productivity performance of the business sector.
Unfortunately, here the news isn’t good.
Business sector productivity has flatlined in Canada, with the level of output per hour worked essentially unchanged from seven years ago. This pattern of productivity stagnation, in turn, is the principal reason why the value of economic output per person has stalled in Canada. In late-2014, per-person gross domestic product (GDP), a common indicator of living standards, stood at $58,162 (adjusted for inflation). By the end of 2023 it was actually slightly lower. This means Canadian living standards haven’t increased in a decade. That’s not a picture any Canadian citizen or policymaker should be happy about.
For many people, GDP is an abstract concept that doesn’t easily map to their lived experience. But the level and rate of growth of GDP clearly matter to the wellbeing of citizens. Academic studies confirm that worker wages are based in part on the productivity level of their employers. Put simply, the most productive businesses generally pay higher wages, salaries and benefits.
Moreover, over time individual and household incomes can only grow if the economy itself generates more output per hour of work and per person. When per-person GDP increases by 2 per cent a year (after inflation), average income doubles within 35 years. With 1 per cent annual growth in per-person GDP, it takes 70 years. At 0.5 per cent growth in per-person GDP, 139 years must pass before the average income will double. In Canada, per-person GDP has been declining outright, an alarming and unusual trend.
Addressing Canada’s productivity crisis should be job one for the federal government’s 2024 budget, which the Trudeau government will table on April 16. In the early 1980s, Canada was roughly 88 per cent as productive as the United States, measured by the value of output per hour of work across the economy. By 2022, that figure had dropped to 71 per cent, and it’s continued to decline since then.
What can be done? So far, the Trudeau government has relied on population growth fuelled by high levels of immigration to drive economic growth. That strategy has manifestly failed, as the government itself recently (if sheepishly) acknowledged by dialing back the numbers of non-permanent immigrants who will be admitted to the country.
A smarter approach is to boost investment in the things that make businesses and workers more productive—machinery, equipment, digital tools and technologies, intellectual property, up-to-date transportation and communications infrastructure, and research and development focused on bringing innovative products and ideas to market, rather than keeping them in the lab or in academic institutions. Canada’s record is poor in most of these areas, as evidenced by the fact we trail far behind the U.S. and many European countries in the level of business investment per employee.
That will need to change if we hope to up our game on productivity and lay the foundations for a more prosperous Canada.
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.
By providing advance notice, the government effectively lit a starting pistol for investors: sell now or face a higher tax later. And sell they did… The result was a short-term windfall for Ottawa.
Was it just a cynical shell game?
Last year, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau announced a major capital gains tax hike, only to delay its implementation — a move that triggered a flurry of asset sales before the higher tax could take effect. That maneuver temporarily swelled federal coffers and made the 2024–25 fiscal outlook appear stronger, although Trudeau is no longer around to capture the political benefits.
As it turns out, his successor, Mark Carney, has been able to swoop in and campaign in Canada’s snap election on the back of reversing the very same tax hike. This sequence — proposal, delay, revenue spike, and cancellation — raises serious questions about the Liberal Party’s credibility on tax fairness and economic stewardship. And it adds a thick layer of irony that Mr. Carney, in his previous role at investment giant Brookfield, reportedly helped position tens of billions in green investment funds through offshore tax havens like Bermuda — a practice that appears starkly at odds with the Liberal campaign’s rhetoric on corporate taxation and fairness.
In April 2024, the Trudeau government unveiled plans to raise the capital gains inclusion rate — the portion of profit from asset sales that is taxable — from 50% to 66.7% for individuals and businesses earning over $250,000 in gains annually. The change, part of the spring budget, was set to take effect on June 25, 2024. By providing advance notice, the government effectively lit a starting pistol for investors: sell now or face a higher tax later.
And sell they did.
In the weeks leading up to the June deadline, Canadians rushed to lock in gains under the lower rate. Some sold off stocks, others divested investment properties — even treasured family cottages — to beat the looming hike. The result was a short-term windfall for Ottawa. Capital gains that might otherwise have been realized gradually over years were instead pushed into a single quarter.
In fact, the prospect alone of the June 25 change was projected to generate C$10.3 billion in additional revenue over two fiscal years — an eye-popping sum from a tax policy that, in the end, was never enacted. This fire-sale effect temporarily inflated federal revenues and painted a rosier picture of the Liberals’ fiscal management than reality would suggest.
Critics say this was no accident.
“It was used to plug a fiscal hole, not because there was some grand strategy on tax policy,” said Sahir Khan, of the University of Ottawa’s Institute of Fiscal Studies and Democracy, pointing to the $20 billion budget overshoot from the previous year.
It was a play that appears unprecedented, potentially financially reckless—and, in the context of Canada’s high-stakes snap election—perhaps politically manipulative. On the face of it, this gambit provided short-term budgetary relief—a sugar high for Ottawa’s ledgers—while any pain would be borne by Canadians cashing out investments early or by future governments left with a revenue hole once the rush subsided.
To better understand the economic impact, I reached out to Victoria-based fund manager Kevin Burkett, whose firm Burkett Asset Management manages $500 million and advises Canadian clients.
“Most major tax changes announced in a federal budget take effect immediately to prevent taxpayers from planning around them,” Burkett told me. “However, this budget introduced a nine-week delay, widely seen as an opportunity to sell assets before higher tax rates applied. In reviewing both the benefits and risks with our clients, those who chose to sell early are understandably frustrated by recent announcements as they’ve now prepaid taxes unnecessarily.”
I asked Burkett whether these circumstances—the abrupt reversal of tax policy and the politics surrounding it—might linger in ways we can’t yet foresee. Has some deeper confidence been shaken?
He measured his words carefully.
“Emphasis on enforcement in tax compliance overlooks the critical role of perceived fairness in maintaining trust in the system,” the British Columbia-based financial manager told me. “In recent years, last-minute policy changes, seemingly political, risk undermining this fairness and eroding confidence in the integrity of tax policy.”
Good-Faith Voters Left Holding the Bag
What about those Canadians who heeded the government’s signals? Consider the family that sold a cherished vacation property, or the entrepreneur who offloaded company shares pre-emptively to avoid a looming tax hike. Now, they find that the increase was never actually enforced. Incoming Liberal leader (and Prime Minister before the campaign writ was dropped) Mark Carney confirmed in early 2025 that the capital gains changes would not move forward at all.
Meanwhile, Ottawa has already happily counted the extra tax revenue generated from their asset sell-offs. It’s hard to escape the conclusion that these Canadians were sacrificial pawns in a larger power play. On March 21, 2025, Carney’s office formally announced the cancellation of the proposed increase to the capital gains inclusion rate, framing the reversal as a pro-investment, pro-entrepreneurship decision: “Cancelling the hike in capital gains tax will catalyze investment … and incentivize builders, innovators, and entrepreneurs,” he said.
The political subtext was clear: the new leader was distancing himself from an unpopular Trudeau-era policy, aiming to boost Liberal fortunes ahead of an election. And boost he did—polling immediately ticked upward for the Liberals once the tax hike was shelved. Carney got to play the hero, scrapping a “widely criticized” proposal and casting himself as a champion of the business class.
Yet, conveniently, he also inherited the short-term fiscal boost Trudeau’s gambit had generated. In effect, Trudeau’s delayed tax hike handed Carney a double win: healthier-looking federal revenues in the near term, and the credit for killing the tax before it ever touched taxpayers. If that sounds orchestrated, it’s because the sequence of events feels almost too politically perfect.
Add this to the layers of irony.
Carney’s rise to the Liberal leadership was accompanied by lofty rhetoric about restoring trust and fairness—including tax fairness. It’s a bit rich, though, considering Carney’s own track record in the private sector on that very issue.
Before entering politics, Carney served as a vice-chair at Brookfield Asset Management, a global investment giant, where he co-led the firm’s expansion into green energy. Notably, as CBC reported this week, Carney personally co-chaired two massive “Global Transition” funds at Brookfield—one launched in 2021 and another in 2024—aimed at financing the shift to a net-zero economy. These projects became marquee pillars of “Brand Carney,” amassing roughly $25 billion from global investors and touted as a major effort to mobilize capital for the climate cause.
The financial structure of these funds tells a less high-minded story. According to documents obtained by Radio-Canada, both Brookfield Global Transition Fund I ($15B) and Fund II ($10B) were registered in Bermuda—a jurisdiction long synonymous with offshore tax advantages. In plainer terms, Mark Carney helped set up green investment vehicles that avoided the very tax burdens average Canadians shoulder.
The same kind of burdening and unburdening that defined Trudeau’s capital gains rug-pull now shadows Carney’s buoyant election campaign, which has gained momentum by adopting policy positions first championed by Pierre Poilievre. Poilievre vowed to undo Trudeau’s unpopular left-wing policies—the very ones Carney now pledges to reverse, despite their origins in his own party.
Canadians would be wise to remember the tax reversal. Fool me once, as the saying goes.
The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.
To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
President Donald Trump announced a permanent 25% tariff on automobiles made in other countries that will go into effect on April 2.
Trump made the announcement Wednesday in the Oval Office. He also hinted that the reciprocal tariffs he plans to announce on April 2 could be more lenient, suggesting the tariffs would be less than fully reciprocal.
“What we’re going to be doing is a 25% tariff on all cars not made in the U.S.,” the president said.
Asked if any changes could avert the auto tariffs, Trump said they would be “permanent.”
“This will continue to spur growth like you haven’t seen before,” Trump said.
Trump said the tariffs will be good news for auto companies that already build products in the U.S. He also said carmakers that don’t build in the U.S. are looking to do so.
“We’re signing an executive order today that’s going to lead to tremendous growth in the automobile industry,” Trump said.
The White House said it expects the auto tariffs on cars and light-duty trucks will generate up to $100 billion in federal revenue. Trump said eventually he hopes to bring in $600 billion to $1 trillion in tariff revenue in the next year or two.
Trump also said the tariffs would lead to a manufacturing boom in the U.S., with auto companies building new plants, expanding existing plants and adding jobs.
Trump also urged House Speaker Mike Johnson to approve a measure that would allow car buyers to deduct the interest on loans for cars that are made in America. Trump said that such a plan would make cars nearly free for buyers.
“So when you get a loan to buy a car … I think it’s going to pay for itself, I don’t think there’s any cost,” he said.
Trump also said the reciprocal tariffs he plans to unveil on April 2 would be fair.
“We’re going to be very nice actually,” he said. “It’ll be, in many cases, less than the tariff they’ve been charging us for decades.”
European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen said tariffs would hurt businesses and consumers.
“I deeply regret the U.S. decision to impose tariffs on European automotive exports,” she said. “Tariffs are taxes – bad for businesses, worse for consumers, in the U.S. and the EU.”
Business groups, including the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and American Farm Bureau Federation, have urged Trump to back off tariff threats.
Trump has promised that his tariffs would shift the tax burden away from Americans and onto foreign countries, but tariffs are generally paid by the people who import the products. Those importers then have a choice: absorb the loss or pass it on to consumers through higher prices. He also promised tariffs would make America “rich as hell.” Trump has also used tariffs as a negotiating tactic to tighten border security.
Tariffs are taxes charged on imported products. The company importing the products pays the tariffs and can either try to absorb the loss or pass the additional costs on to consumers.
