Fraser Institute
Federal government should reject Bloc plan—and raise OAS age of eligibility
From the Fraser Institute
By Ben Eisen
Recently, the House of Commons passed a private member’s bill by the Bloc Quebecois to increase Old Age Security (OAS) payments for younger seniors (aged 65-74) by 10 per cent. OAS provides cash benefits for most seniors in Canada, except seniors with very high incomes.
The bill, however, requires the support of Trudeau’s cabinet, which has so far refused to grant a “royal recommendation” that would allow the bill to become law. And that’s the right call. In fact, the government should go further and raise the age of eligibility for OAS.
Here’s why.
Governments should always be cautious with taxpayer money and strive to direct financial assistance to those actually in need. It’s hard to think of a worse strategy to achieve this goal than increasing OAS benefits for seniors who are a relatively high-income demographic. In fact, the share of seniors living in “low-income” is only about half of that for the working-age population. It may be a good idea to increase targeted assistance for the small number of seniors that struggle financially, but spraying almost the entire demographic with a firehose of scarce taxpayer funds is difficult to justify on equity grounds.
The idea also flies in the face of the Trudeau government’s promise in its last budget to work for “generational fairness” and help make the economy work better for younger Canadians who face a housing crisis and low youth employment rates among other economic challenges.
Why? Because any increase to OAS benefits would be deficit-financed (that is, the government would need to borrow the money) and the cost would fall on the shoulders of working-age Canadians who must pay the interest on the resulting debt. In other words, boosting the OAS would be a massive income transfer from younger Canadians to older Canadians.
Again, instead of boosting benefits for younger seniors—like the Bloc has proposed, with support from Conservatives and the NDP—the federal government should go in exactly the opposite direction and increase the age of eligibility for OAS.
Simply put, people are living longer than when the program was first designed. And not just here at home but around the world, which is why there’s a clear international trend in increasing the age of eligibility for old-age benefit programs. According to our analysis in 2022, among 22 high-income OECD countries, 16 had either already increased the age of eligibility for public retirement programs above the age of 65 or were in the process of doing so. Several countries have also indexed the age of eligibility to life expectancy, to help prevent costs from spiralling out of control.
Canada was once on track to participate in this sensible international trend when the Harper government announced a plan to raise the OAS eligibility age from 65 to 67 (while giving ample lead time before the change to not disrupt the financial planning of Canadians nearing retirement). The Trudeau government reversed this decision (at great financial cost) in 2016 almost immediately after taking office. But now, the government would be well-advised to revisit the plan and raise the age of eligibility to 67, for the same reasons it’s reluctant to approve the Bloc’s motion and increase payments to younger seniors.
Ensuring income security for older Canadians is an important policy goal. But it’s equally important to achieving this goal in a way that does not unfairly burden working-age Canadians and directs money where it’s needed most.
Author:
Business
New federal government plans to run larger deficits and borrow more money than predecessor’s plan
Fr0m the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro
The only difference, despite all the rhetoric regarding change and Prime Minister Carney’s criticism of the Trudeau government’s fiscal approach, is that the Carney government plans to run larger deficits and borrow more money.
As part of his successful election campaign, Prime Minister Mark Carney promised a “very different approach” to fiscal policy than that of the Trudeau government. But when you peel back the rhetoric and look at his plan for deficits and debt, things begin to look eerily similar—if not worse.
The Carney government’s “responsible” new approach is centered around the idea of “spending less” in order to “invest more.” The government plans to separate spending into two budgets: the operating budget (which appears to include bureaucrat salaries, cash transfers and benefits) and the capital budget (which includes any spending that “builds an asset”). The government plans to balance the operating budget by 2028/29 (meaning operating spending will be fully covered by revenues) while funding the capital budget through borrowing.
Aside from the fact that this clearly complicates federal finances, this “very different” approach to spending actually represents more of the same by continuing to pursue endless borrowing and a larger role for the government in the economy.
The chart below compares projected annual federal budget balances for the next four years, from both the 2024 Fall Economic Statement (FES)—the Trudeau government’s last fiscal update—and the 2025 Liberal Party platform. Importantly, deficits from the 2025 platform show the overall budget balance including both operating and capital spending.
Let’s start with the similarities.
In its final fiscal update last fall, the Trudeau government planned to borrow tens of billions of dollars each year to fund annual spending, with no end in sight. Based on its election platform, the Carney government also plans to run multi-billion-dollar deficits each year with no plan to balance the overall budget. The only difference, despite all the rhetoric regarding change and Prime Minister Carney’s criticism of the Trudeau government’s fiscal approach, is that the Carney government plans to run larger deficits and borrow more money.
In the current fiscal year (2025/26) the Trudeau government had planned to run a $42.2 billion deficit. The Carney government now plans to increase that deficit to $62.3 billion. Trudeau’s most recent fiscal plan forecasted annual deficits from 2025/26 to 2028/29 representing a cumulative $131.4 billion in federal government borrowing. Over that same period, the Carney government now plans to borrow a cumulative $224.8 billion.
The Carney government’s fiscal plan does include a number of tax changes that are expected to lower revenues in years to come—including (but not limited to) a personal income tax cut, the elimination of the GST for some first-time homebuyers, and the cancelling of the planned capital gains tax hike. But even if you exclude these factors from the overall budget, the Carney government still plans to borrow $52.9 billion more than the Trudeau government had planned over the next four years.
By continuing (if not worsening) this same approach of endless borrowing and rising debt, the Carney government will impose real costs on Canadians. Indeed, 16-year-olds can already expect to pay an additional $29,663 in personal income taxes over their lifetime as a result of debt accumulation under the previous federal government, before accounting for the promised increases.
One of the key promises made by Prime Minister Carney is that his government will take a different approach to fiscal policy than his predecessor. While we won’t know for certain until the new government releases its first budget, it appears this approach will continue the same costly habits of endless borrowing and rising debt.
Jake Fuss
Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute
Grady Munro
Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute
From the Fraser Institute
During his victory speech Monday night, Prime Minister Mark Carney repeated one of his favourite campaign slogans and vowed to make Canada a “clean energy superpower.” So, Canadians can expect Ottawa to “invest” more taxpayer money in “clean energy” projects including electric vehicles (EVs), the revolutionary transportation technology that’s been ready to replace internal combustion since 1901 yet still requires government subsidies.
It’s a good time for a little historical review. In 2012 south of the border, the Obama administration poured massive subsidies into companies peddling green tech, only to see a vast swath go belly up including Solyndra, would-be maker of advanced solar panels, which failed so spectacularly CNN called the company the “poster child for well-meaning government policy gone bad.”
One might think that such a spectacular failure might have served as a cautionary tale for today’s politicians. But one would be wrong. Even as the EV transition slammed into stiff headwinds, the Trudeau government and Ontario’s Ford government poured $5 billion in subsidies into Honda to build an EV battery plant and manufacture EVs in Ontario. That “investment” came on top of a long list of other “investments” including $15 billion for Stellantis and LG Energy Solution; $13 billion for Volkswagen (or $16.3 billion, per the Parliamentary Budget Officer), a combined $4.24 billion (federal/Quebec split) to Northvolt, a Swedish battery maker, and a combined $644 million (federal/Quebec split) to Ford Motor Company to build a cathode manufacturing plant in Quebec.
How’s all that working out? Not great.
“Projects announced for Canada’s EV supply chain are in various states of operation, and many remain years away from production,” notes automotive/natural resource reporter Gabriel Friedman, writing in the Financial Post. “Of the four multibillion-dollar battery cell manufacturing plants announced for Canada, only one—a joint venture known as NextStar Energy Inc. between South Korea’s LG Energy Solution Ltd. and European automaker Stellantis NV—progressed into even the construction phase.”
In 2023, Volkswagen said it would invest $7 billion by 2030 to build a battery cell manufacturing complex in St. Thomas, Ontario. However, Friedman notes “construction of the VW plant is not scheduled to begin until this spring [2025] and initial cell production will not begin for years.” Or ever, if Donald Trump’s pledge to end U.S. government support for a broad EV transition comes to pass.
In the meantime, other elements of Canada’s “clean tech” future are also in doubt. In December 2024, Saint-Jérome, Que.-based Lion Electric Co., which had received $100 million in provincial and government support to assemble batteries in Canada for electric school buses and trucks, said it would file for bankruptcy in the United States and creditor protection in Canada. And Ford Motor Company last summer scrapped its planned EV assembly plant in Oakville, Ontario—after $640 million in federal and provincial support.
And of course, there’s Canada’s own poster-child-of-clean-tech-subsidy failure, Northvolt. According to the CBC, the Swedish battery manufacturer, with plans to build a $7 billion factory in Quebec, has declared bankruptcy in Sweden, though Northvolt claims that its North American operations are “solvent.” That’s cold comfort to some Quebec policymakers: “We’re going to be losing hundreds of millions of dollars in a bet that our government in Quebec made on a poorly negotiated investment,” said Parti Québécois MNA Pascal Paradis.
Elections often bring about change. If the Carney government wants to change course and avoid more clean-tech calamities, it should pull the plug on the EV revolution and avoid any more electro-boondoggles.
Kenneth P. Green
Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute
In Defeat, Joe Tay’s Campaign Becomes a Flashpoint for Suspected Voter Intimidation in Canada
Carney’s budget is worse than Trudeau’s
Governments in Alberta should spur homebuilding amid population explosion
History in the making? Trump, Zelensky hold meeting about Ukraine war in Vatican ahead of Francis’ funeral
Columnist warns Carney Liberals will consider a home equity tax on primary residences
Nine Dead After SUV Plows Into Vancouver Festival Crowd, Raising Election-Eve Concerns Over Public Safety
Mark Carney: Our Number-One Alberta Separatist
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta’s future in Canada depends on Carney’s greatest fear: Trump or Climate Change
-
Agriculture2 days agoLiberal win puts Canada’s farmers and food supply at risk
-
Alberta2 days agoIt’s On! Alberta Challenging Liberals Unconstitutional and Destructive Net-Zero Legislation
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoThe Liberals torched their own agenda just to cling to power
-
International2 days agoNigeria, 3 other African countries are deadliest for Christians: report
-
Crime14 hours agoCanada Blocked DEA Request to Investigate Massive Toronto Carfentanil Seizure for Terror Links
-
Business1 day agoTrump says he expects ‘great relationship’ with Carney, who ‘hated’ him less than Poilievre
-
Business1 day agoCanada urgently needs a watchdog for government waste