Canada’s economic performance cratered after Ottawa pivoted to the ‘green’ economy

There are ostensibly two approaches to economic growth from a government policy perspective. The first is to create the best environment possible for entrepreneurs, business owners and investors by ensuring effective government that only does what’s needed, maintains competitive taxes and reasonable regulations. It doesn’t try to pick winners and losers but rather introduces policies to create a positive environment for all businesses to succeed.

The alternative is for the government to take an active role in picking winners and losers through taxes, spending and regulations. The idea here is that a government can promote certain companies and industries (as part of a larger “industrial policy”) better than allowing the market—that is, individual entrepreneurs, businesses and investors—to make those decisions.

It’s never purely one or the other but governments tend to generally favour one approach. The Trudeau era represented a marked break from the consensus that existed for more than two decades prior. Trudeau’s Ottawa introduced a series of tax measures, spending initiatives and regulations to actively constrain the traditional energy sector while promoting what the government termed the “green” economy.

The scope and cost of the policies introduced to actively pick winners and losers is hard to imagine given its breadth. Direct spending on the “green” economy by the federal government increased from $600 million the year before Trudeau took office (2014/15) to $23.0 billion last year (2024/25).

Ottawa introduced regulations to make it harder to build traditional energy projects (Bill C-69), banned tankers carrying Canadian oil from the northwest coast of British Columbia (Bill C-48), proposed an emissions cap on the oil and gas sector, cancelled pipeline developments, mandated almost all new vehicles sold in Canada to be zero-emission by 2035, imposed new homebuilding regulations for energy efficiency, changed fuel standards, and the list goes on and on.

Despite the mountain of federal spending and regulations, which were augmented by additional spending and regulations by various provincial governments, the Canadian economy has not been transformed over the last decade, but we have suffered marked economic costs.

Consider the share of the total economy in 2014 linked with the “green” sector, a term used by Statistics Canada in its measurement of economic output, was 3.1 per cent. In 2023, the green economy represented 3.6 per cent of the Canadian economy, not even a full one-percentage point increase despite the spending and regulating.

And Ottawa’s initiatives did not deliver the green jobs promised. From 2014 to 2023, only 68,000 jobs were created in the entire green sector, and the sector now represents less than 2 per cent of total employment.

Canada’s economic performance cratered in line with this new approach to economic growth. Simply put, rather than delivering the promised prosperity, it delivered economic stagnation. Consider that Canadian living standards, as measured by per-person GDP, were lower as of the second quarter of 2025 compared to six years ago. In other words, we’re poorer today than we were six years ago. In contrast, U.S. per-person GDP grew by 11.0 per cent during the same period.

Median wages (midpoint where half of individuals earn more, and half earn less) in every Canadian province are now lower than comparable median wages in every U.S. state. Read that again—our richest provinces now have lower median wages than the poorest U.S. states.

A significant part of the explanation for Canada’s poor performance is the collapse of private business investment. Simply put, businesses didn’t invest much in Canada, particularly when compared to the United States, and this was all pre-Trump tariffs. Canada’s fundamentals and the general business environment were simply not conducive to private-sector investment.

These results stand in stark contrast to the prosperity enjoyed by Canadians during the Chrétien to Harper years when the focus wasn’t on Ottawa picking winners and losers but rather trying to establish the most competitive environment possible to attract and retain entrepreneurs, businesses, investors and high-skilled professionals. The policies that dominated this period are the antithesis of those in place now: balanced budgets, smaller but more effective government spending, lower and competitive taxes, and smart regulations.

As the Carney government prepares to present its first budget to the Canadian people, many questions remain about whether there will be a genuine break from the policies of the Trudeau government or whether it will simply be the same old same old but dressed up in new language and fancy terms. History clearly tells us that when governments try to pick winners and losers, the strategy doesn’t lead to prosperity but rather stagnation. Let’s all hope our new prime minister knows his history and has learned its lessons.

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Don't Miss

Canadians paid $90 billion in government debt interest in 2024/25

Todayville

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.

Follow Author

Canada’s economic performance cratered after Ottawa pivoted to the ‘green’ economy

Business / 3 hours ago

Canadians paid $90 billion in government debt interest in 2024/25

Alberta / 5 hours ago

From Underdog to Top Broodmare

Business

Canadians paid $90 billion in government debt interest in 2024/25

Published on October 31, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss, Tegan Hill and William Dunstan

Next week, the Carney government will table its long-awaited first budget. Earlier this year, Prime Minister Mark Carney launched a federal spending review to find $25 billion in savings by 2028. Even if the government meets this goal, it won’t be enough to eliminate the federal deficit—projected to reach as high as $92.2 billion in 2025/26—and start paying down debt. That means a substantial amount of taxpayer dollars will continue to flow towards federal debt interest payments, rather than programs and services or tax relief for Canadians.

When a government spends more than it raises in revenue and runs a budget deficit, it accumulates debt. As of 2024/25, the federal and provincial governments will have accumulated a total projected $2.3 trillion in combined net debt (total debt minus financial assets).

Of course, like households, governments must pay interest on their debt. According to our recent study, the provinces and federal government expect to spend a combined $92.5 billion on debt interest payments in 2024/25.

And like any government spending, taxpayers fund these debt interest payments. The difference is that instead of funding important programs, such as health care, these taxpayer dollars will finance government debt. This is the cost of deficit spending.

How much do Canadians pay each year in government debt interest costs? On a per-person basis, combined provincial and federal debt interest costs in 2024/25 are expected to range from $1,937 in Alberta to $3,432 in Newfoundland and Labrador. These figures represent provincial debt interest costs, plus the federal portion allocated to each province based on a five-year average (2020-2024) of their share of Canada’s population.

For perspective, it’s helpful to compare debt interest payments to other budget items. For instance, the federal government estimates that in 2024/25 it will spend more on debt interest costs ($53.8 billion) than on child-care benefits ($35.1 billion) or the Canada Health Transfer ($52.1 billion), which supports provincial health-care systems.

Provincial governments too spend more money on interest payments than on large programs. For example, in 2024/25, Ontario expects to spend more on debt interest payments ($15.2 billion) than on post-secondary education ($14.2 billion). That same year, British Columbia expects to spend more on debt interest payments ($4.4 billion) than on child welfare ($4.3 billion).

Unlike other forms of spending, governments cannot simply decide to spend less on debt interest payments in a given year. To lower their debt interest payments, governments must rein in spending and eliminate deficits so they can start to pay down debt.

Unfortunately, most governments in Canada are doing the opposite. All but one province (Saskatchewan) plans to run a deficit in 2025/26 while the federal deficit could exceed $90 billion.

To stop racking up debt, governments must balance their budgets. By spending less today, governments can ensure that a larger share of tax dollars go towards programs or tax relief to benefit Canadians rather than simply financing government debt.

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Tegan Hill

Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

William Dunstan

Business

“We have a deal”: Trump, Xi strike breakthrough on trade and fentanyl

Published on October 30, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

President Trump declared “we have a deal” Thursday after meeting with Chinese President Xi Jinping in South Korea, describing their nearly two-hour summit as “a 12 out of 10.” Speaking aboard Air Force One, Trump told reporters the two leaders reached a sweeping agreement to stabilize trade relations and address the deadly fentanyl crisis. “We have a deal. Now, every year we will renegotiate the deal,” Trump said. “But I think the deal will go on for a long time.”

According to Trump, Xi agreed to suspend for one year China’s export restrictions on products made with rare-earth and critical minerals — materials essential to the production of semiconductors, batteries, and high-tech magnets. “There’s no roadblock at all on rare earth,” he said. “It’s a one-year deal that I think will be very routinely extended.” In exchange, Trump said the U.S. would lower the average tariff rate on Chinese imports from 57.6% to 47.6%. Trump emphasized that Xi also committed to intensifying China’s crackdown on fentanyl exports, which have been a major driver of overdose deaths in the United States. “We agreed he’s going to work very hard to stop the flow,” Trump said. “I think you’re going to see a big difference.”

Beijing also pledged to resume “tremendous” purchases of American soybeans, reversing its earlier retaliatory halt. In a Truth Social post later Thursday, Trump said China had additionally agreed to begin purchasing U.S. oil and gas, noting that “a very large-scale transaction may take place concerning the purchase of oil and gas from the Great State of Alaska.” The president confirmed that Taiwan was not discussed during the meeting but said both sides talked about working together to bring an end to the war in Ukraine. “We didn’t really discuss the Russian oil,” he added. “We discussed working together to see if we can get that war finished.”

The meeting, held at a South Korean air base, marked the first in-person exchange between Trump and Xi since his return to the White House. The two leaders greeted each other warmly, with Xi telling Trump, “Great pleasure to see you again.” Xi praised Trump’s leadership, saying, “China’s development goes hand in hand with your vision to make America great again,” and added that the two nations “are fully able to help each other succeed and prosper together.” Much of Thursday’s agreement builds upon a framework negotiated earlier this month in Kuala Lumpur between U.S. and Chinese trade teams.

Trump said he plans to visit China in April, calling the meeting “amazing” and “an outstanding group of decisions.” He did not say whether the pending TikTok deal was discussed. The renewed cooperation on fentanyl follows years of tension over China’s role in the U.S. opioid crisis. The CDC reports the drug has killed nearly 330,000 Americans in the past five years — roughly one in every 1,000 people. Trump has long pressed Beijing to stop the export of precursor chemicals used to make fentanyl, arguing the problem is both moral and economic. “They make $100 million selling fentanyl into our country,” Trump said last week. “They lose $100 billion with the 20% tariff. It’s not a good business proposition.”

Trump left Thursday’s summit expressing confidence that the new arrangement marked a major step forward. “On the scale of 0 to 10, with 10 being the best, I would say the meeting was a 12,” he said. “It was an amazing meeting — and I think this deal will go on for a long time.”