Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Economy

Ottawa’s new ‘climate disclosures’ another investment killer

Published

5 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

The Trudeau government has demonstrated consistently that its policies—including higher capital gains taxes and a hostile regulatory environment—are entirely at odds with what investors want to see. Corporate head offices are fleeing Canada and business investment has declined  significantly since the Trudeau Liberals came to power.

According to the Trudeau government’s emissions reduction plan, “putting a price on pollution is widely recognized as the most efficient means to reduce greenhouse gas emissions.” Fair enough, but a reasonable person might wonder why the same politicians who insist a price mechanism (i.e. carbon tax) is the most efficient policy recently announced relatively inefficient measures such “sustainable investment guidelines” and “mandatory climate disclosures” for large private companies.

The government claims that imposing mandatory climate disclosures will “attract more private capital into Canada’s largest corporations and ensure Canadian businesses can continue to effectively compete as the world races towards net-zero.” That is nonsense. How would politicians Ottawa know better than business owners about how their businesses should attract capital? If making climate disclosures were a good way to help businesses attract capital, the businesses that want to attract capital would make such disclosures voluntarily. There would be no need for a government mandate.

The government has not yet launched the regulatory process for the climate disclosures, so we don’t know exactly how onerous it will be, but one thing is for sure—the disclosures will be expensive and unnecessary, imposing useless costs onto businesses and investors without any measurable benefit, further discouraging investment in Canada. Again, if the disclosures were useful and worthwhile to investors, businesses seeking to attract investment would make them voluntarily.

Even the government’s own announcement casts doubt that increasing business investment is the likely outcome of mandatory climate disclosures. While the government says it’s “sending a clear signal to corporate boards and shareholders, at home and around the world, that Canada is their trusted partner for putting private capital to work in the race to net-zero,” most investors are not looking to put private capital to work to combat climate change. Most investors want to put their capital to work to earn a good financial return, after adjusting for the risk of the investment.

This latest announcement should come as no surprise. The Trudeau government has demonstrated consistently that its policies—including higher capital gains taxes and a hostile regulatory environment—are entirely at odds with what investors want to see. Corporate head offices are fleeing Canada and business investment has declined significantly since the Trudeau Liberals came to power. Capital per worker in Canada is declining due to weak business investment since 2015, and new capital per-Canadian worker in 2024 is barely half of what it is in the United States.

It’s also fair to ask, in the face of these onerous polices—where are the environmental benefits? The government says its climate disclosures are needed for Canada to progress to net-zero emissions and “uphold the Paris climate target of limiting global warming to 1.5°C above pre-industrial levels,” but its net-zero targets are neither feasible nor realistic and the economics literature does not support the 1.5 degrees target.

Finally, when announcing the new climate disclosures, Trudeau Environment Minister Steven Guilbeault said they are an important stepping stone to a cleaner economy, which is a “major economic opportunity.” Yet even the Canada Energy Regulator (a federal agency) projects net-zero policies would reduce real GDP per capita, increase inflation of consumer prices and reduce residential space (in other words, reduce living standards).

A major economic opportunity that will increase business investment? Surely not—mandatory climate disclosures will only further reduce our standard of living and impose useless costs onto business and investors, with the sure effect of reducing investment.

David Clinton

The Hidden and Tragic Costs of Housing and Immigration Policies

Published on

The Audit

 

 David Clinton

We’ve discussed the housing crisis before. That would include the destabilizing combination of housing availability – in particular a weak supply of new construction – and the immigration-driven population growth.

Parsing all the data can be fun, but we shouldn’t forget the human costs of the crisis. There’s the significant financial strain caused by rising ownership and rental costs, the stress so many experience when desperately searching for somewhere decent to live, and the pressure on businesses struggling to pay workers enough to survive in madly expensive cities.

If Canada doesn’t have the resources to house Canadians, should there be fewer of us?

Well we’ve also discussed the real problems caused by low fertility rates. As they’ve already discovered in low-immigration countries like Japan and South Korea, there’s the issue of who will care for the growing numbers of childless elderly. And who – as working-age populations sharply decline – will sign up for the jobs that are necessary to keep things running.

How much are the insights you discover in The Audit worth to you?

Consider becoming a paid subscriber.

The odds are that we’re only a decade or so behind Japan. Remember how a population’s replacement-level fertility rate is around 2.1 percent? Here’s how Canadian “fertility rates per female” have dropped since 1991:

Output image

Put differently, Canada’s crude birth rate per 1,000 population dropped from 14.4 in 1991, to 8.8 in 2023.

As a nation, we face very difficult constraints.

But there’s another cost to our problems that’s both powerful and personal, and it exists at a place that overlaps both crises. A recent analysis by the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) frames it in terms of suppressed household formation.

Household formation happens when two more more people choose to share a home. As I’ve written previously, there are enormous economic benefits to such arrangements, and the more permanent and stable the better. There’s also plenty of evidence that children raised within stable families have statistically improved economic, educational, and social outcomes.

But if households can’t form, there won’t be a lot of children.

In fact, the PBO projects that population and housing availability numbers point to the suppression of nearly a half a million households in 2030. And that’s incorporating the government’s optimistic assumptions about their new Immigration Levels Plan (ILP) to reduce targets for both permanent and  temporary residents. It also assumes that all 2.8 million non-permanent residents will leave the country when their visas expire. Things will be much worse if either of those assumptions doesn’t work out according to plan.

Think about a half a million suppressed households. That number represents the dreams and life’s goals of at least a million people. Hundreds of thousands of 30-somethings still living in their parents basements. Hundreds of thousands of stable, successful, and socially integrated families that will never exist.

And all that will be largely (although not exclusively) the result of dumb-as-dirt political decisions.

Who says policy doesn’t matter?

How much are the insights you discover in The Audit worth to you?

Consider becoming a paid subscriber.

For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

Continue Reading

Business

Federal government out of touch with economic reality in Canada

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

In light of recent comments from federal Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland about the supposed “vibecession” infecting the brains of Canadians, it’s time to set the record straight. It’s not just that people don’t feel good about the economy, the economic wellbeing of Canadians has been declining for years.

Firstly, it’s true that the overall economy is growing and inflation has been brought back down to the Bank of Canada’s 2 per cent target. While these are positive signs—especially considering the alternative of a shrinking overall economy and rising inflation—they do not necessarily mean that Canadians are better off.

Gross domestic product (GDP)—the value of all goods and services produced in the economy—is the most widely used measure of overall economic prosperity. But measuring it in “aggregate” doesn’t tell us about the individual living standards of Canadians. To gauge how individual Canadians are actually doing, we measure GDP per person (and adjust for inflation). And on this measure, the data tell a different story.

From the middle of 2019 to the end of 2023, Canada experienced one of the worst declines in inflation-adjusted GDP per person of the last 40 years. According to new data from Statistics Canada, this decline in living standards has continued for most of 2024, and as of September 2024, GDP per person ($58,601) was 2.2 per cent lower than in June 2019 ($59,905). Simply put, Canadians have suffered a marked decline in living standards over five years.

And while GDP per person is a broad measure of individual prosperity, other measures tell a similar story.

According to a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, median earnings (i.e. wages and salaries) of workers were lower in every Canadian province than in every U.S. state in 2022 (the latest year of available data). In other words, workers in Canada’s highest-earning province (Alberta) earned less than workers in the lower-earning U.S. states such as Louisiana and Mississippi.

Moreover, Canada’s private-sector employment has stagnated. From 2019 to 2023 (the latest year of available data), employment in the private sector (including self-employment) grew by 3.6 per cent compared to 13.0 per cent in the government sector. And that’s a problem. The private sector pays for the government sector, primarily through taxes. While a growing private sector helps drive wealth-creation in the economy, a growing government sector extracts that wealth and redistributes it elsewhere or even inhibits that wealth-creation in the first place.

Despite data showing that private-sector employment and living standards have stagnated and/or declined for years, the Trudeau government insists that everything is fine and Canadians just “feel” worse off. Clearly, this government is out of touch with economic reality.

Jake Fuss

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute
Continue Reading

Trending

X