From the Fraser Institute

By Jock Finlayson

Approximately three years have passed since the end of the initial phase of the COVID pandemic that saw large swathes of the economy shuttered for most of the 2020-2021 period. And it’s almost nine years since the 2015 federal election, which resulted in a majority government for Justin Trudeau’s Liberals. So, it’s a good time to do a pulse check on Canadians to see how they’re faring and feeling about the country.

Overall, the news isn’t particularly cheerful, on either front.

Dealing first with economic prosperity, the big story is that Canada’s population has been growing faster than the volume of output produced by the economy (defined as gross domestic product, adjusted for inflation). This means the economy has been shrinking on a per-person basis, prompting some analysts to coin the term “per-person recession” to describe the performance of Canada’s economy since 2022.

The trend has been stark in the last two years, but it started earlier. The absolute level of per-person output is smaller today than in 2018 in seven of 10 provinces including Ontario. More importantly, income and earnings growth has been essentially stagnant for most Canadians over roughly the last decade. Canada has also fallen further behind the best-performing advanced economies on productivity, per-person income and real wages.

What about public attitudes? A recent Ipsos survey finds 70 per cent of Canadians think the country is “broken,” an opinion especially common among young adults. Older Canadians have a more positive view of things. A Statistics Canada survey shows a significant drop in the percentage of Canadians reporting high levels of “life satisfaction.” The same survey shows that 40 per cent of respondents between the ages of 25 and 54 say it’s difficult to meet their financial needs.

The shock delivered by the recent bout of high inflation no doubt has contributed to this gloomy assessment. And it doesn’t help the public mood that housing has never been less affordable, that crime is on the rise, and that basic health-care services are harder to access than they were five or 10 years ago.

Other data paint a more nuanced picture of how Canada is doing. The Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD)—a collection of mostly rich countries—publishes a “Better Life Index,” which aims to gauge overall citizen wellbeing.  In the most recent iteration of the Index, Canada beats the OECD average on income, employment levels, education attainment, life expectancy at birth, and environmental quality, among other indicators. Our relative ranking has slipped in some areas—a worrisome sign—but overall, Canada puts up a decent score.

Still, stagnant real incomes and an economy that’s expanding more slowly than the population is not an ideal place to land. To do better, Canada will need at least a few years of stronger per-person economic growth. This will require a turnaround in our notably lacklustre productivity record and a sustained pick-up in business investment. Revisiting the federal government’s ambitious immigration targets may also be necessary, as Trudeau government ministers have publicly (albeit somewhat sheepishly) acknowledged.

Getting the economic fundamentals right is essential to making progress on most economic and social indicators. As the OECD notes, “while money may not buy happiness, it is an important means to achieving higher living standards and thus greater well-being.”

From the Fraser Institute

By Ross McKitrick

Some commentators in the media want the the federal Conservatives to take a leadership position on climate, and by extension make Canada a world leader on the journey to the low-carbon uplands of the future. This would be a mistake for three reasons.

First, unlike other areas such as trade, defence or central banking, where diplomats aim for realistic solutions to identifiable problems, in the global climate policy world one’s bona fides are not established by actions but by willingness to recite the words of an increasingly absurd creed. Take, for example, United Nations Secretary General António Guterres’ fanatical rhetoric about the “global boiling crisis” and his call for a “death knell” for fossil fuels “before they destroy our planet.” In that world no credit is given for actually reducing emissions unless you first declare that climate change is an existential crisis, that we are (again, to quote Guterres) at the “tip of a tipping point” of “climate breakdown” and that “humanity has become a weapon of mass extinction.” Any attempt to speak sensibly on the issue is condemned as denialism, whereas any amount of hypocrisy from jet-setting politicians, global bureaucrats and celebrities is readily forgiven as long as they parrot the deranged climate crisis lingo.

The opposite is also true. Unwillingness to state absurdities means actual accomplishments count for nothing. Compare President Donald Trump, who pulled out of the Paris treaty and disparaged climate change as unimportant, to Prime Minister Justin Trudeau who embraced climate emergency rhetoric and dispatched ever-larger Canadian delegations to the annual greenhouse gabfests. In the climate policy world, that made Canada a hero and the United States a villain. Meanwhile, thanks in part to expansion of natural gas supplies under the Trump administration, from 2015 to 2019 U.S. energy-based CO2 emissions fell by 3 per cent even as primary energy consumption grew by 3 per cent. In Canada over the same period, CO2 emissions fell only 1 per cent despite energy consumption not increasing at all. But for the purpose of naming heroes and villains, no one cared about the outcome, only the verbiage. Likewise, climate zealots will not credit Conservatives for anything they achieve on the climate file unless they are first willing to repeat untrue alarmist nonsense, and probably not even then.

On climate change, Conservatives should resolve to speak sensibly and use mainstream science and economic analysis, but that means rejecting climate crisis rhetoric and costly “net zero” aspirations. Which leads to the second problem—climate advocates love to talk about “solutions” but their track record is 40 years of costly failure and massive waste. Here again leadership status is tied to one’s willingness to dump ever-larger amounts of taxpayer money into impractical schemes loaded with all the fashionable buzzwords. The story is always the same. We need to hurry and embrace this exciting economic opportunity, which for some reason the private sector won’t touch.

There are genuine benefits to pursuing practical sensible improvements in the way we make and use fossil fuels. But the current and foreseeable state of energy technology means CO2 mitigation steps will be smaller and much slower than was the case for other energy side-effects such as acid rain and particulates. It has nothing to do with lack of “political will;” it’s an unavoidable consequence of the underlying science, engineering and economics. In this context, leadership means being willing sometimes to do nothing when all the available options yield negative net benefits.

That leads to the third problem—opportunity cost. Aspiring to “climate leadership” means not fixing any of the pressing economic problems we currently face. Climate policy over the past four decades has proven to be very expensive, economically damaging and environmentally futile. The migration of energy-intensive industry to China and India is a very real phenomenon and more than offsets the tiny emission-reduction measures Canada and other western countries pursued under the Kyoto Protocol.

The next government should start by creating a new super-ministry of Energy, Resources and Climate where long-term thinking and planning can occur in a collaborative setting, not the current one where climate policy is positioned at odds with—and antagonistic towards—everything else. The environment ministry can then return its focus to air and water pollution management, species and habitat conservation, meteorological services and other traditional environmental functions. The climate team should prepare another national assessment but this time provide much more historical data to help Canadians understand long-term observed patterns of temperature and precipitation rather than focusing so much on model simulations of the distant future under implausible emission scenarios.

The government should also move to extinguish “climate liability,” a legal hook on which dozens of costly nuisance lawsuits are proliferating here and elsewhere. Canada should also use its influence in the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change to reverse the mission creep, clean out the policy advocacy crowd and get the focus back on core scientific assessments. And we should lead a push to move the annual “COPs”—Conferences of the Parties to the Rio treaty—to an online format, an initiative that would ground enough jumbo jets each year to delay the melting of the ice caps at least a century.

Finally, the new Ministry of Energy, Resources and Climate should work with the provinces to find one region or municipality willing to be a demonstration project on the feasibility of relying only on renewables for electricity. We keep hearing from enthusiasts that wind and solar are the cheapest and best options, while critics point to their intermittency and hidden costs. Surely there must be one town in Canada where the councillors, fresh from declaring a climate crisis and buying electric buses, would welcome the chance to, as it were, show leadership. We could fit them out with all the windmills and solar panels they want, then disconnect them from the grid and see how it goes. And if upon further reflection no one is willing to try it, that would also be useful information.

In the meantime, the federal Conservatives should aim merely to do some sensible things that yield tangible improvements on greenhouse gas emissions without wrecking the economy. Maybe one day that will be seen as real leadership.