Business
Understanding the Nature of Canada’s Fiscal and Economic Challenges
From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Jason Clemens
” between 2016 and 2019 (pre-COVID), growth in per-person GDP (inflation-adjusted) was an anemic 0.9 percent. According to one study, among the last five pre-recession periods in Canadian history, the Trudeau period (again, 2016 to 2019) recorded the weakest economic growth “
The Trudeau government was first elected in 2015 based in part on a new approach to government policy, which promised greater prosperity for Canadians based on short-term deficit spending (totaling $25.1 billion over three years), lower taxes for most Canadians (except higher-income earners), and a more active approach to economic development (LPC, 2015). This new policy direction stood in stark contrast to the consensus of the previous 20 years (Clemens and Palacios, 2017). The result has been a marked deterioration in the country’s finances, economic stagnation, and a collapse in business investment. If Canada is to restore its fiscal and economic health, Ottawa must enact fundamental policy reform.
Government spending, taxes, and debt
The Trudeau government has markedly increased spending to finance both new programs and increases in existing programs. Federal spending (excluding interest costs) increased from $256.3 billion in 2014-15 (the year before the Trudeau government took office) to $448.2 billion in 2022-23 (an increase of 74.9 percent) (Canada, 2023a) and a projected $453.0 billion in 2023-24 (Canada, 2023b). Not surprisingly, COVID-related spending contributed to increases in 2019-20 to 2021-22. But in 2022-23 and thereafter, there is no COVID-related spending.
The federal government has used tax increases and large increases in borrowing to finance these spending increases. In 2016, the federal government increased the top personal income tax rate imposed on entrepreneurs, professionals , and business owners from 29 percent to 33 percent. Consequently, the combined top personal income tax rate (federal and provincial) now exceeds 50 percent in eight provinces (with the remaining provinces only slightly below 50 percent) and in 2022 Canada had the 5th highest tax rate out of 38 OECD countries. This represents a serious competitive challenge for Canada’s ability to attract and retain entrepreneurs, investors, skilled professionals, and businesses.
And while the Trudeau government reduced the middle personal income tax rate, it also eliminated several tax credits. The combination of the two policy changes means that 86 percent of middle-income families now pay higher personal income taxes (Palacios et al., 2022). If the analysis also includes increases to the Canada Pension Plan contribution rate, almost all Canadians now pay higher taxes.
The Trudeau government also borrowed to finance its new spending. Figure 1 contrasts the originally
planned deficits with the actual deficits incurred by the Trudeau government (excluding COVID-related
spending) from 2016-17 to 2022-23. The actual borrowing exceeds the originally planned borrowing
every year (except 2021-22), often by significant margins, due to the government’s inability to control
spending growth.
The string of deficits means federal debt (measured as gross debt) has ballooned to $1.9 trillion
(2022-23) and is projected to reach $2.4 trillion by 2027/28, fueling a dramatic growth in interest costs,
which have grown by 53.2 percent (inflation-adjusted) between 2014/15 and 2023/24 and will reach
a projected $46.5 billion in 2023/24. Interest costs now consume substantial revenue that is then unavailable for government services or tax reduction.
Simply put, Trudeau government policy changes have produced large increases in government spending, taxes, and borrowing. Unfortunately, these policy changes have not resulted in a more robust and vibrant economy.
Weak economic growth and collapsing business investment
The broadest measure of living standards is GDP per person, which calculates the total value of all goods and services produced in the economy in a given year (adjusted by the population). As illustrated in Figure 2, between 2016 and 2019 (pre-COVID), growth in per-person GDP (inflation-adjusted) was an anemic 0.9 percent. According to one study, among the last five pre-recession periods in Canadian history, the Trudeau period (again, 2016 to 2019) recorded the weakest economic growth (Clemens, Palacios, and Veldhuis, 2021). Another study found that Canada’s per-person GDP growth from 2013 to 2022 was the weakest on record since the 1930s (Cross, 2023). And per-person GDP in 2022 (inflation-adjusted) had still not recovered from the pandemic losses and was basically stagnant at 2018 levels (see figure 2).
Prospects for the future, given current policies, are not encouraging. The OECD projects that Canada will record the lowest rate of per-person GDP growth among 32 advanced economies from 2020 to 2030 and from 2030 to 2060(OECD, 2021).Countries such as Estonia, South Korea, and New Zealand are expected to vault past Canada and achieve higher living standards by 2060.
According to a recent analysis, Canada’s economic growth crisis is due in part to the decline in business investment, which is critical to increasing living standards because it equips workers with tools and technologies to produce more higher-quality goods and services. This, in turn, fuels innovation and improved productivity (Cross, 2023). There are obvious explanations for the decline in business investment including regulatory barriers, particularly related to the energy and mining sectors (Globerman and Emes, 2021), and government deficits, which imply tax increases in the future, dampening investment today. Business investment (inflation-adjusted), excluding residential construction, has declined by 1.8 percent annually since 2014.
According to a 2023 study (Hill and Emes, 2023), between 2014 and 2021, business investment per worker (inflation-adjusted, excluding residential construction) decreased by $3,676 (to $14,687) compared to growth of $3,418 (to $26,751) in the United States. Put differently, in 2014, Canadian
businesses invested 79 cents per worker for every dollar invested in the United States. By 2021, that level of investment had declined to just 55 cents per worker.
Moreover, the amount of investment in Canada by foreigners has decreased while the amount of investment by Canadians outside of the country has increased. In 2008, the two levels were roughly comparable—$65.7 billion in foreign direct investment (FDI) in Canada vs. $84.6 billion in investment by Canadians outside of the country. However, a sizeable change began in 2015; by 2022, the amount of FDI ($64.6 billion) was significantly smaller than the amount of investment by Canadians outside the country ($102.3 billion).
Finally, while Canada’s labour market has consistently demonstrated its strength and resilience, the labour market numbers hide some concerning trends. For example, between February 2020 (when the pandemic began) and June 2023, private-sector job creation (net) was fairly weak at 3.3 percent compared to 11.8 percent job growth in the government sector (Eisen, Ryan and Palacios, 2023). In other words, the recovery and growth in the private sector following the pandemic has not been as strong as expected.
Conclusion: The Path Forward
There is reason for optimism, however, since many of Canada’s challenges are of the federal government’s own making. The Chrétien Liberals in the 1990s faced many of the same challenges that we do today (Veldhuis, Clemens, and Palacios, 2011). By shifting the focus to more prudent government spending, balanced budgets, debt reduction, and competitive tax rates, the Chrétien Liberals—followed in large measure by the Harper Tories—paved the way for two decades of prosperity when Canada outperformed other OECD countries on economic growth, job-creation, and business investment.
To help foster greater prosperity for Canadians today, the federal government can learn from the Chrétien Liberals, and the Harper Tories. The rest of this series identifies policy options that can increase living standards for Canadians by repairing federal finances, improving tax competitiveness, and lowering economic barriers. These reforms could help build a more prosperous country through the creation of good jobs which would lead to rising incomes for Canadians.
Authors:
Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein
Alex Epstein
This is the kind of integrity we need from industry—and from Congress.
Dear Chairman Smith and Chairman Crapo:
We, the undersigned American energy producers and investors, write to voice our principled support for full repeal of the Inflation Reduction Act’s (IRA) energy subsidies, including subsidies that would appear to be to our firms’ and industry’s benefit. This is the only moral and practical path forward if we are to truly unleash American energy.
In recent weeks, Congress has been embroiled in battles over which, if any, of the IRA energy subsidies to cut. Lobbyists representing every corner of the energy landscape, including trade groups that many of us are part of, are jockeying to preserve their own piece of the pie, claiming that it is uniquely valuable.
We have oil lobbyists fighting to keep carbon capture and hydrogen subsidies, solar and wind lobbyists fighting to keep solar and wind subsidies, biofuel lobbyists fighting to keep biofuel subsidies, and EV lobbyists fighting to keep EV subsidies.
If this continues, we will likely preserve most if not all of the subsidies, which, deep down, everyone knows are not good for America.
The fundamental truth about subsidies is very simple. For any product, including energy, a subsidy is just a way of taking money from more efficient producers—and from taxpayers—and giving it to less efficient producers. The result is always less efficient production and therefore higher costs or lower quality for Americans.
The most egregious example of subsidies’ destructiveness is the IRA’s solar and wind subsidies, which pay electric utilities to invest much more money in solar and wind than they otherwise would, and thus much less in coal and gas than they otherwise would. Ultimately this means higher electricity prices and certainly less electricity reliability for Americans.
The IRA subsidies’ devastating harm to American energy is more than enough to compel us, as energy producers, to oppose them.
But their harm goes far beyond energy, as they will dramatically increase our debt and ultimately undermine every aspect of our economy.
A central Congressional priority is to curb the national debt during the upcoming budget reconciliation exercise. But according to credible estimates, the IRA will cost over $1 trillion over the next decade and trillions more after that. Worse, the IRA subsidies are expected to misallocate, into uncompetitive business and jobs, $3 trillion of investment by 2032 and $11 trillion by 2050. That’s a disaster for our economy, and for real job opportunities.
Clearly, the right thing to do is to eliminate all these subsidies. When lobbyists say that these subsidies are essential for America, what they’re really saying is that their backers have made investments in projects that have no near term cost-effectiveness and that are totally dependent on indefinite subsidies to sustain themselves.
Most people know the truth, but are afraid to say it due to institutional pressures. Too many Congressmen are afraid of alienating trade groups. Too many trade groups are afraid of alienating their large and vocal members who have made investments hoping for indefinite subsidies. All the while, too few are talking about freedom.
That’s why we invite our colleagues to do the right thing: level with the American people, say that we made a mistake, and that those who built subsidy-dependent businesses took on the kind of risk that we do not want to reward.
Keeping the IRA subsidies—despite all the evidence that they benefit only special interests at the expense of America—risks making our nation ever more like Europe, where industries do not succeed by providing the best value to consumers, but by providing the best favors to politicians. That’s not the America we want to work in.
Sincerely,
Bud Brigham, Founder, Atlas Energy Services and Brigham Exploration
David Albin, Managing Partner, Spectra Holdings
Adam Anderson, CEO, Innovex International
Thurmon Andress, Chairman and CEO, Andress Oil
Don Bennett, Managing Partner, Bennett Ventures LP
Greg Bird, CEO and President, Jetta Operating Company
David de Roode, Partner, Lockton
Andy Eidson, CEO, Alpha Metallurgical Resources
Matt Gallagher, President and CEO, Greenlake Energy
Mike Howard, CEO, Howard Energy
Justin Thompson, CEO, Iron Senergy
Ed Kovalik, CEO, Prairie Operating Company
Thomas E. Knauff, Executive Chairman, EDP
Lance Langford, CEO, Langford Energy Partners
Mickey McKee, CEO, Kodiak Gas Services
Mike O’Shaughnessy, CEO, Lario Oil and Gas Company
D. Martin Phillips, Founder, EnCap Investments LP
Karl Pfluger, midstream executive
David Rees-Jones, President, Chief Energy
Rob Roosa, CEO, Brigham Royalties
Bobby Shackouls, Former CEO, Burlington Resources
Ross Stevens, Founder and CEO, Stone Ridge Holdings Group
Kyle Stallings, CEO, Desert Royalty Company
Justin Thompson, CEO, Iron Senergy
Mike Wallace, Partner, Wallace Family Partnership
Ladd Wilks, CEO, ProFrac
Denzil West, CEO, Admiral Permian Operating
Bill Zartler, Founder and CEO, Solaris Oilfield Infrastructure
Additional signatories (email [email protected] to add yours):
Jimmy Brock, Executive Chairman, Core Natural Resources
Ted Williams, President and CEO, Rockport Energy Solutions LLC
To make sure as many politicians as possible see this letter, help us by sharing on Twitter/X and tagging your Congressmen! Congress is currently undecided about what to do about the IRA subsidies, so now is the moment to make your voice heard.
“Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein” is my free Substack newsletter designed to give as many people as possible
access to concise, powerful, well-referenced talking points on the latest energy, environmental,
and climate issues from a pro-human, pro-energy perspective.
Share Energy Talking Points by Alex Epstein
Business
Possible Criminal Charges for US Institute for Peace Officials who barricade office in effort to thwart DOGE
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By
The Department of Justice is exploring potential criminal charges against former U.S. Institute of Peace (USIP) officials who attempted to block the Trump administration’s leadership changes at the federally funded think tank Monday, a senior DOJ official told the Daily Caller News Foundation.
The official, who requested anonymity, told the DCNF the DOJ is examining whether certain USIP actions — such as the removal and destruction of internal and external door locks — created illegal fire hazards. The official also flagged the widespread distribution of internal flyers instructing USIP staff not to cooperate with incoming Trump administration officials as potentially obstructive conduct. The DCNF was the first to report on USIP’s internal flyer campaign and destruction of door locks.
“Eleven board members were lawfully removed, and remaining board members appointed Kenneth Jackson acting president,” Anna Kelly, White House deputy press secretary, previously told the DCNF. “Rogue bureaucrats will not be allowed to hold agencies hostage. The Trump administration will enforce the President’s executive authority and ensure his agencies remain accountable to the American people.”
The inquiry — which remains in its early stages, the official emphasized — follows a contentious standoff Monday after former USIP leadership tried to block the installation of Kenneth Jackson, who President Donald Trump appointed as the institute’s new president on March 14. The Trump administration determined the institute had failed to comply with a Feb. 19 executive order requiring federally funded organizations like USIP to scale operations down to their bare statutory minimums, triggering a leadership shakeup the institute attempted to resist.
USIP leadership began preparing for a confrontation weeks before the executive order was issued. A Feb. 6 internal document exclusively obtained by the DCNF outlined plans to deny building access to outside officials and reasserted the institute’s discretion over security systems and facilities. Flyers with the names and photos of Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) officials were posted throughout the building, instructing staff to report their presence and avoid conversation.
After Jackson and other DOGE officials arrived on March 14 with law enforcement and a copy of Trump’s order, they were turned away by USIP’s legal counsel, sources previously told the DCNF. Over the following weekend, USIP leadership escalated its resistance — terminating its private security firm, disabling internet and phone systems and resorting to walkie-talkie communication inside the building.
DOGE officials returned Monday to find the building locked down and staff barricaded on the fifth floor. USIP officials called the Metropolitan Police Department (MPD), sources previously told the DCNF, who only later arrived at the request of the U.S. Attorney’s Office for D.C. after reports of obstruction by institute staff. MPD entered the fifth floor through emergency stairwells and removed former USIP President George Moose and other senior officials from the premises.
While a federal judge declined to issue a restraining order halting the leadership transition Wednesday, she sharply criticized DOGE’s cooperation with law enforcement, despite the circumstances surrounding USIP’s refusal to comply.
The DOJ official did not specify which individuals were under investigation or when a decision on charges might be made.
Where To Draw The Line: Is Carney’s Daughter Off-Limits to Media?
Poilieve introduces “Canada First Shovel-Ready Zones” pre-approved areas to build mines, data centres, pipelines, LNG plants and more
Trump says Carney would be ‘easier’ to deal with than Poilievre as Canada’s prime minister
Al Gore Attempts To Keep The Sinking Climate Crisis Ship Afloat
-
Alberta2 days agoLeading proponent of Alberta Independence predicts provincial referendum in 2025
-
Economy2 days agoLatest dire predictions about Carney’s emissions cap
-
Business1 day agoTrump Tariffs are not going away. Canada needs to adapt or face the consequences
-
Business1 day agoA Look at Canada’s Import Tariffs
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoIt’s on! Federal Election called for April 28
-
COVID-191 day ago10 Shocking Stories the Media Buried This Week
-
Business7 hours ago
Possible Criminal Charges for US Institute for Peace Officials who barricade office in effort to thwart DOGE
-
David Clinton1 day agoYou’re Actually Voting for THEM? But why?