Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Federal government should stay in its lane

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Jake Fuss

There’s been more talk this year than normal about the need for governments, particularly Ottawa, to “stay in their own lane.” But what does this actually mean when it comes to the practical taxing, spending and regulating done by provincial and federal governments?

The rules of the road, so to speak, are laid out in sections 91 and 92 of the Canadian Constitution. As noted economist Jack Mintz recently explained, the federal government was allocated responsibility for areas of national priority such as defence and foreign relations, criminal law, and national industries such as transportation, communication and financial institutions. The provinces, on the other hand, were allotted responsibilities deemed to be closer to the people such as health care, education, social services and municipalities.

Simply put, the principle of staying in one’s lane means the federal and provincial governments respect one another’s areas of responsibility and work collaboratively when there are joint interests and/or overlapping responsibilities such as environmental issues.

The experience of the mid-1990s through to roughly 2015 shows the tangible benefits of having each level of government focus on their areas of responsibility. Recall that the Liberal Chrétien government fundamentally removed itself from several areas of provincial jurisdiction, particularly welfare and social services, in its historic 1995 budget.

But the election of the Trudeau government in 2015 represented a marked change in approach. The tax and spending policies of the Trudeau government, which broke a 20-year consensus, favoured ever-increasing spending, higher taxes and much higher levels of borrowing. Federal spending (excluding interest payments on debt) has increased from $273.6 billion in 2015-16 when Trudeau first took office to an expected $483.6 billion this year, an increase of 76.7 per cent.

Federal taxes on most Canadians, including the middle class, have also increased despite the Trudeau government promising lower taxes. And despite the tax increases, borrowing has also increased. Consequently, the national debt has ballooned from $1.1 trillion when Trudeau took office to an estimated $2.1 trillion this year.

Despite these massive spending increases, there are serious questions about core areas of federal responsibility. Consider, for example, the major problems with Canada’s defence spending.

Canada has been called out by both NATO officials and our counterparts within NATO for failing to meet our commitments. As a NATO country, Canada is committed to spend 2 per cent of the value of our economy (GDP) annually on defence. The latest estimate is that Canada will spend 1.4 per cent of GDP on defence and we’re the only country without a plan to reach the target by 2030. The Parliamentary Budget Officer recently estimated that to reach our NATO commitment, defence spending would have to increase by $21.3 billion in 2029-30, which given the state of federal finances would entail much higher borrowing and/or higher taxes.

So, while the Trudeau government has increased federal spending markedly, it has not spent those funds on core areas of federal responsibility. Instead, Trudeau’s Ottawa has increasingly involved itself in provincial areas of responsibility. Consider three new national initiatives that are all squarely provincial areas of responsibility: pharmacare, $10-a-day daycare and dental care.

And the amounts involved in these programs are not incidental. In Budget 2021, the Trudeau government announced $27.2 billion over five years for the new $10-a-day daycare initiative, Budget 2023 committed $13.0 billion for the dental benefit over five years, and Budget 2024 included a first step towards national pharmacare with spending of $1.5 billion over five years to cover most contraceptives and some diabetes medications.

So, while the Trudeau government has deprioritized core areas of federal responsibility such as defence, it has increasingly intruded on areas of provincial responsibility.

Canada works best when provincial and federal governments recognize and adhere to their roles within Confederation as was more the norm for more than two decades. The Trudeau government’s intrusion into provincial jurisdiction has increased tensions with the provinces, likely created unsustainable new programs that will ultimately put enormous financial pressure on the provinces, and led to a less well-functioning federal government. Staying in one’s lane makes sense for both driving and political governance.

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

Business

Global elites insisting on digital currency to phase out cash

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By David James

The aim is to have the digital euro fully in place by 2030 in order to move Europe fully into the United Nations’ post-capitalist system described in Agenda 2030.

It always pays to scrutinize closely the comments of financial elites because they are rarely honest about their intentions. An instance is the comments of Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank (ECB) who said there will be a vote next month in the European Union parliament on the next step toward creating a digital euro, which would be a central bank digital currency (CBDC).

A central bank digital currency is money issued by the central bank in digital form as opposed to digital credit issued by banks, which is the dominant form of money in Western societies. She claims that it will mean more freedom for Europeans and that there is nothing to fear.

Lagarde anticipates launching the digital euro in about 18 months. The aim is to have it fully in place by 2030 in order to move Europe fully into the United Nations’ post-capitalist system that is described in Agenda 2030.

Lagarde’s blandishments about what the digital euro represents do not survive close examination. She acknowledged that the main concern of the population is the privacy implications, claiming the ECB is looking at a technology that will offer protections. The private banks, she said, will apply the “rules of scrutiny” that already have access to the transactions. “We are not interested in the data. The private banks are interested in the data.”

Lagarde also said that the “people have dictated” the transition to a digital euro. This looks dubious. Neither the EU Commission nor the ECB is democratically elected. And if the main concern people have with a CBDC is privacy, then why would people prefer it over cash, which is immune to scrutiny? It is not as if a digital euro would satisfy an unmet need. Digital money – credit and online transactions – is already freely available in the banking system.

The ECB is also speaking out of both sides of its mouth, saying on one hand that the digital euro will only complement cash and on the other that cash will be eliminated.

Lagarde made it clear that the aim is to phase out cash completely. Agenda 2030, she claims, “can only be enforced in a cashless economy.” Why? What is it about cash that makes environmental policies impossible to implement? The answer is surely that a digital euro is needed to control people’s behavior, forcing them to comply with environmental rules.

Previous comments by central bankers suggest there is good reason for Europeans to be extremely suspicious. In 2021, the general manager of the Bank for International Settlements, Agustín Carstens, said: “We don’t know who’s using a $100 bill today and we don’t know who’s using a 1,000-peso bill today. The key difference with the CBDC is the central bank will have absolute control on the rules and regulations that will determine the use of that expression of central bank liability, and also we will have the technology to enforce that.”

The pretext for the financial power play is climate change and the push toward net zero. A European CBDC is not, as implied by Lagarde, the creation of a new digital monetary mechanism. As economist Richard Werner points out, that already exists – credit and debit cards, for example. The significance of a digital euro is that it threatens the banking system.

That problem does not seem to concern the ECB, however. Indeed, fundamentally altering the banking system may be what they are aiming for. Lagarde said “climate compliance” will become a core element of bank supervision, not a separate initiative, “because climate change presents significant, material financial risks to banks and the entire financial system.”

The ECB’s supervision will mandate that banks integrate the management of climate-related and environmental risks into their existing risk management processes, particularly through new prudential transition planning requirements under what is called CRD VI. European banking, it seems, will no longer be defined by profitability and fiscal soundness but also by the politics of climate change.

The slipperiness of the ECB‘s arguments point to a much darker ambition. Werner says when CBDCs are connected to digital IDs “we are talking about the most totalitarian control system in human history … it gives you as a controller complete visibility on what everyone is doing, every transaction.

“The monitoring is only one aspect. These CBDCs are programmable and you can use big data algorithms, which they sell to us as artificial intelligence, in order to have rules about who can buy what and for what purpose, at what time and at what place – and therefore control all your movement. In the history of dictatorships, there never has been such a powerful control tool.”

There is a flaw, though, in the ECB’s push to change Europe’s financial architecture that may prove fatal to its ambitions. The EU and ECB do not have genuine central control. When the euro was established in 1998, the only way Germany was able to join was on the condition there was no consolidation of the government debt. So, although the ECB notionally sets interest rates for the zone, government debt is held at the national level and each country’s interest rate differs.

The ECB is thus a central bank in name only, unlike the U.S. Federal Reserve, or for that matter most country’s central banks, that oversee their national government debt. A European nation can choose to exit the EU, and each has to have its own monetary policy in spite of the ECB setting a uniform rate.

The push to create a digital euro is most likely an attempt to deal with these contradictions, but at best it will be a makeshift solution and it will take very little for it to fall apart. Disintegration of the European Union, and the common currency, is not out of the question.

Meanwhile, the U.S. is going in the opposite direction. In July, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Anti-CBDC Surveillance State Act, which prevents the Federal Reserve from issuing a retail CBDC directly to individuals.

European debt is becoming increasingly parlous, especially in France where there have even been suggestions that there might need to be assistance from the International Monetary Fund. Italy’s debt, which is 138 percent of GDP, is also problematic. Lagarde is hoping for a rollout of the digital euro in 2027 and completion in 2030. But the Euro zone, and the ECB that oversees it, may not last that long.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Break the Fences, Keep the Frontier

Published on

Marco Navarro-Génie's avatar Marco Navarro-Génie

Note: This post was written from notes prepared for a panel at the Canada Strong and Free Conference in Calgary on Sept 6. I am grateful for the invitation and the opportunity to explore solutions to recognized interprovincial barriers and push further beyond.

Haultain’s Substack is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support our work, please consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Try it out.


Alberta is the number one destination for Canadians seeking a better life. In the last 5 years, 1 of 3 Canadians moving out of their provinces seeking a better life have come to Alberta. People come to Alberta to escape stagnant wages, unaffordable housing, and the bureaucratic chokeholds of central Canada. They come for work, for opportunity, and for the chance to get ahead. Alberta doesn’t just have oil and gas; it has policies and an entrepreneurial culture that reward hard work. (Every province, except for PEI, has hydrocarbon resources, but most chose not to exploit them). That’s why the province often draws more people than it loses.

But Alberta cannot assume it will always stay ahead. Prosperity, like liberty, is not automatic, and it can vanish if Albertans get complacent. To remain the country’s economic frontier, Alberta must keep moving. That means tearing down the barriers to trade and commerce we still have and fighting the new ones Ottawa and other provinces are busy inventing.

The costs of standing still are enormous. Economists estimate internal trade barriers drain Canada of up to $130 billion a year, as much as seven percent of GDP, a fraction of what the Trump tariffs would inflict. For Alberta alone, even a ten percent reduction in interprovincial barriers would be worth $7.3 billion annually. And when Quebec blocked the Energy East pipeline, Alberta lost the chance to ship crude worth as much as $15 billion a year — roughly one-fifth of its economy. That isn’t theory; that is lost paycheques, foregone tax revenue, and hospitals and schools that never got funded.

Alberta has worked to make itself freer than most provinces. Liquor was privatized decades ago—Ditto for property registries. The New West Partnership has opened labour mobility and procurement between Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and B.C. Alberta imposes no cultural or linguistic tests on newcomers. No PST. These are the reasons people come here — because it’s easier to find work, to start a business, to access pristine natural environments, to raise your children, and to get on with your life. Less bureaucracy and fewer people telling you what to do and how to live.

But there are still cracks in the foundation. Alberta’s liquor market is open on the retail side, but still congested at the warehouse level due to the AGLC monopoly. Professional guilds in law, teaching, and health care slow down credential recognition. Public procurement often tilts local in ways that make no sense. And like every province, Alberta still bows to Ottawa’s telecommunications rules, the banking oligopoly, the dairy and poultry cartels (supply management), even though it benefits Quebec farmers and hurts Alberta’s. These barriers cost real money and serve no useful purpose.

If those are the old barriers, new ones are emerging. The most notorious new barrier isn’t new at all. This is the recently resurrected protectionist reflex in the RoC. For a century and a half, Canadians have built a culture that is contrary to the dream of their founding fathers to have open trade within the country. Canadians like to mock Donald Trump’s tariffs, but their instincts are no different. When Trump tariffed Canadian steel, Ottawa’s immediate answer was “We’ll buy Canadian” as retaliation. The elbows-up, “buy local” campaigns are no different from the commercial nationalism Trump is using. And the “buy local” impetus precedes Trump. They prop up the cartels and marketing boards, the oligopolistic giants in telecoms, banking, groceries, and construction. Such reflexes are not based on free market ideas.

What makes this 21st-century mercantilism sting even more is the lack of any real appetite in Ottawa to defend free trade. When Mark Carney announced he would “help” canola farmers, it was a double insult. First, it signalled that in the Prime Minister’s Office, there is no courage to fight for open markets abroad — subsidies at home are easier than complicated negotiations. Second, those subsidies are no gift: they are paid for by the very farmers they are supposed to help, through taxes collected in Saskatchewan and Alberta, among others, laundered through Ottawa’s bureaucracy, and handed back with a smile. This is Canada’s oligopoly culture in miniature: no defence of free markets, more subsidies to placate, and more Ottawa bureaucrats to process the paperwork. All of these come at a price. Ottawa money is never free money.

And the irony deepens. Carney himself promised that interprovincial barriers would be gone by July 1, 2025. He did not deliver. And his latest announcement of a new “process” to expedite infrastructure risks does precisely the opposite — adding new layers of federal meddling, vetoes and Ottawa bureaucrats into what should be provincial decisions.


Haultain Research is a reader-supported publication.

If you enjoy our work and would like to support us and see more of it, please share our posts

and consider becoming a paid subscriber.


The enforcement of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, along with the surrounding culture, is a recent development. What began as workplace training has evolved into a mechanism for bureaucrats and gatekeepers to extend their authority. In some regions, such as Ontario, DEI mandates have been codified into law, forcing individuals to think and act in ways that are not of their own choosing.

This kind of identitarian enforcement saps productivity, creates “bullsh*t jobs” focused on compliance, and categorizes people instead of promoting unity among them. Most concerning is the way it restricts mobility for workers who don’t fit ideological criteria, punishing those who refuse to conform. This system creates opportunities only for a select, tiny class of individuals.

Alberta has a distinct advantage in this context, as it has not fully embraced the DEI agenda—apart from federal agencies and affiliated organizations, sadly including our own ATB. However, it must remain vigilant against the encroaching imposition of these practices.

The third significant challenge we face on the horizon is “debanking.” In 2022, we witnessed how swiftly Ottawa could order banks to freeze accounts, and how readily banks complied. Since then, federal regulators have been extending their influence under the guise of anti-money laundering regulations. The reality is straightforward: industries or individuals that federal governments deem undesirable can be cut off from financial services. For Alberta, with its energy sector labelled as a threat to the planet, this poses a considerable risk. Entire industries—or even individuals who consume “too much” energy—could soon find themselves excluded from the marketplace by radicals in the PMO.

David Suzuki once called for criminally charging folks he considered environmental offenders, and the NDP has expressed a preference for criminalizing support for the oil and gas sector (The NDP, ostensible fond of books in schools and free speech, also wants to criminalize asking questions about non-existent mass graves and the fictional narrative of genocide in Canada). A free economy loses its meaning if citizens can be excluded from it through government decrees. Alberta must protect its residents by establishing ATB as a fortress for banking, addressing any divisive tendencies, and enshrining access to banking as a civil right. Alberta needs to protect its citizens when those federally chartered banks act as enforcers for Ottawa.

So what does moving forward look like? Alberta has a strong culture of enterprise, but it cannot rest on its laurels. Unless it works to keep ahead, others will eventually catch up. Alberta must double down on being the most desirable place in Canada to live and work. That means bold and greater transformational reforms.

Breaking the cartel-like influence of professional regulators—such as teachers, lawyers, doctors, and nurses—who have transformed their organizations into barriers is crucial. These groups often prosecute their members to enforce ideological beliefs that most Albertans do not support.

Additionally, we need to ensure that access to banking is protected in provincial law, regulating credit unions so that no Albertan can be denied banking services for political reasons. We should also consider breaking up large municipalities to encourage smaller communities to compete for residents and businesses.

Ending the equalization payments and replacing them with a Goods and Services Tax (GST) transfer to Ottawa is necessary to ensure that Alberta’s wealth benefits Albertans directly. Healthcare delivery must be reformed so that patients receive timely services and genuine choices.

Furthermore, we should deregulate trucking and housing construction to make life more affordable for families. Finally, we must tackle public service unions that operate like political monopolies, using examples from small towns like Coaldale to demonstrate how reform can begin at the grassroots level.

Canada advocates for free trade but often behaves like a medieval guild. Alberta has demonstrated that a more liberated approach is viable, but the province must continue to leverage its advantages. This involves resisting cartels, challenging the banks, dismantling outdated barriers, and preventing the emergence of new ones before they become too imposing.

Alberta has always been a frontier — a place where people come to build, take risks, and prosper. Frontiers are not maintained by standing still; they thrive by moving forward. If Alberta continues to push ahead, it can remain the engine of prosperity and the most desirable place to live and work. However, if it becomes complacent, it risks falling behind, becoming weaker, and Ottawa will be more than willing to take advantage of that.

The choice is simple: Alberta can either be fenced in by cartels and bureaucrats, or it can break the fences and keep the frontier open. That is the task, and it is one worthy of Alberta’s spirit.

Share Haultain Research

For the full experience, and to help us bring you more quality research and commentary, please upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Trending

X