From the Fraser Institute

By Steven Globerman

Prime Minister Mark Carney recently visited the White House for meetings with President Donald Trump. In front of the cameras, the mood was congenial, with both men complimenting each other and promising future cooperation in several areas despite the looming threat of Trump tariffs.

But in the last two weeks, in an effort to secure U.S. access to key critical minerals, the Trump administration has purchased sizable stakes in in two Canadian mining companies—Trilogy Metals and Lithium Americas Corp (LAC). And these aggressive moves by Washington have created a dilemma for Ottawa.

Since news broke of the investments, the Carney government has been quiet, stating only it “welcomes foreign direct investment that benefits Canada’s economy. As part of this process, reviews of foreign investments in critical minerals will be conducted in the best interests of Canadians.”

In the case of LAC, lithium is included in Ottawa’s list of critical minerals that are “essential to Canada’s economic or national security.” And the Investment Canada Act (ICA) requires the government to scrutinize all foreign investments by state-owned investors on national security grounds. Indeed, the ICA specifically notes the potential impact of an investment on critical minerals and critical mineral supply chains.

But since the lithium will be mined and processed in Nevada and presumably utilized in the United States, the Trump administration’s investment will likely have little impact on Canada’s critical mineral supply chain. But here’s the problem. If the Carney government initiates a review, it may enrage Trump at a critical moment in the bilateral relationship, particularly as both governments prepare to renegotiate the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA).

A second dilemma is whether the Carney government should apply the ICA’s “net benefits” test, which measures the investment’s impact on employment, innovation, productivity and economic activity in Canada. The investment must also comport with Canada’s industrial, economic and cultural policies.

Here, the Trump administration’s investment in LAC will likely fail the ICA test, since the main benefit to Canada is that Canadian investors in LAC have been substantially enriched by the U.S. government’s initiative (a week before the Trump administration announced the investment, LAC’s shares were trading at around US$3; two days after the announcement, the shares were trading at US$8.50). And despite any arguments to the contrary, the ICA has never viewed capital gains by Canadian investors as a benefit to Canada.

Similarly, the shares of Trilogy Minerals surged some 200 per cent after the Trump administration announced its investment to support Trilogy’s mineral exploration in Alaska. Again, Canadian shareholders benefited, yet according to the ICA’s current net benefits test, that’s irrelevant.

But in reality, inflows of foreign capital augment domestic savings, which, in turn, provide financing for domestic business investment in Canada. And the prospect of realizing capital gains from acquisitions made by foreign investors encourages startup Canadian companies.

So, what should the Carney government do?

In short, it should revise the ICA so that national security grounds are the sole basis for approving or rejecting investments by foreign governments in Canadian companies. This may still not sit well in Washington, but the prospect of retaliation by the Trump administration should not prevent Canada from applying its sovereign laws. However, the Carney government should eliminate the net benefits test, or at least recognize that foreign investments that enrich Canadian shareholders convey benefits to Canada.

These recent investments by the Trump administration may not be unique. There are hundreds of Canadian-owned mining companies operating in the U.S. and in other jurisdictions, and future investments in some of those companies by the U.S. or other foreign governments are quite possible. Going forward, Canada’s review process should be robust while recognizing all the benefits of foreign investment.

Steven Globerman

Senior Fellow and Addington Chair in Measurement, Fraser Institute

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

From 2014 to 2024, gross government debt (including federal, provincial and local governments) increased from 85.5 per cent of the economy (measured by GDP) to 110.8 per cent—a larger increase than any other G7 country. When debt grows faster than the economy, government finances are unsustainable.

Ahead of the Carney government’s long-awaited first budget scheduled for Nov. 4, a recent CBC commentary described the long-standing debate about the federal deficit and the state of federal finances as “something of a phoney war.” And that calls to balance the budget—expressed today and over the last decade—have lacked any serious discussion about the trade-offs between allowing deficits to persist versus balancing the budget.

While there’s certainly something to be said about the political theatre that regularly dominates the House of Commons—which we agree focuses too often on scoring political points instead of adequately assessing the merits of policy—it’s wrong to downplay concerns about the state of federal finances. Such concerns aren’t “phoney.”

Consider this. From 2014 to 2024, gross government debt (including federal, provincial and local governments) increased from 85.5 per cent of the economy (measured by GDP) to 110.8 per cent—a larger increase than any other G7 country. And federal gross debt increased from 53.0 per cent of the economy in 2014/15 to a projected 70.0 per cent in 2024/25. When debt grows faster than the economy, government finances are unsustainable. And the Carney government seemingly plans to continue this same approach.

In other words, the government plans to continue to spend more than it collects in revenue, continue to run massive deficits, and continue to rack up large amounts of debt.

Why should Canadians care?

Because the costs of government debt land squarely on their backs. For example, when government debt levels rise, the cost of debt interest often also rises. This year the federal government will spend a projected $54.5 billion on debt interest costs—equivalent to what it sends to the provinces for health care. Moreover, when governments borrow money, they can help drive up the cost of borrowing by increasing demand for the limited pool of savings that both government and the private sector compete for—making it more expensive for a family to take out a mortgage or businesses to attract investments. And to pay for today’s debt accumulation, governments in the future may raise taxes—a burden that will fall disproportionately on younger generations.

Again, given this alarming deterioration in the state of government finances over the last decade and the costs it imposes on Canadians, there’s nothing disingenuous about calling for more fiscal discipline from Ottawa.

Of course, getting federal finances back in order is no small task—the Trudeau government’s forays into areas of provincial jurisdiction (which carry huge price tags), combined with Carney’s massive new spending commitments for defence and other programs, mean the government cannot balance the budget without significant trade-offs. In the past, the federal government has overcome similar fiscal circumstances by committing to balance the budget and outlining a clear plan to achieve this goal. The Carney government should heed these lessons and apply them in its upcoming budget.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute