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:
From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Alex Whalen
According to a 2021 study published by the Fraser Institute, 38.4 per cent of those who paid capital gains taxes in Canada earned less than $100,000 per year, and 18.3 per cent earned less than $50,000. Yet in his video, Prime Minister Trudeau claims that his capital gains tax hike will affect only the richest “0.13 per cent of Canadians”
This week, Prime Minister Trudeau released a video about his government’s decision to increase capital gains taxes. Unfortunately, he made several misleading claims while failing to acknowledge the harmful effects this tax increase will have on a broad swath of Canadians.
Right now, individuals and businesses who sell capital assets pay taxes on 50 per cent of the gain (based on their full marginal rate). Beginning on June 25, however, the Trudeau government will increase that share to 66.7 per cent for capital gains above $250,000. People with gains above that amount will again pay their full marginal rate, but now on two-thirds of the gain.
In the video, which you can view online, the prime minister claims that this tax increase will affect only the “very richest” people in Canada and will generate significant new revenue—$20 billion, according to him—to pay for social programs. But economic research and data on capital gains taxes reveal a different picture.
For starters, it simply isn’t true that capital gains taxes only affect the wealthy. Many Canadians who incur capital gains taxes, such as small business owners, may only do so once in their lifetimes.
For example, a plumber who makes $90,000 annually may choose to sell his business for $500,000 at retirement. In that year, the plumber’s income is exaggerated because it includes the capital gain rather than only his normal income. In fact, according to a 2021 study published by the Fraser Institute, 38.4 per cent of those who paid capital gains taxes in Canada earned less than $100,000 per year, and 18.3 per cent earned less than $50,000. Yet in his video, Prime Minister Trudeau claims that his capital gains tax hike will affect only the richest “0.13 per cent of Canadians” with an “average income of $1.4 million a year.”
But this is a misleading statement. Why? Because it creates a distorted view of who will pay these capital gains taxes. Many Canadians with modest annual incomes own businesses, second homes or stocks and could end up paying these higher taxes following a onetime sale where the appreciation of their asset equals at least $250,000.
Moreover, economic research finds that capital taxes remain among the most economically damaging forms of taxation precisely because they reduce the incentive to innovate and invest. By increasing them the government will deter investment in Canada and chase away capital at a time when we badly need it. Business investment, which is crucial to boost living standards and incomes for Canadians, is collapsing in Canada. This tax hike will make a bad economic situation worse.
Finally, as noted, in the video the prime minister claims that this tax increase will generate “almost $20 billion in new revenue.” But investors do not incur capital gains taxes until they sell an asset and realize a gain. A higher capital gains tax rate gives them an incentive to hold onto their investments, perhaps until the rate is reduced after a change in government. According to economists, this “lock-in” effect can stifle economic activity. The Trudeau government likely bases its “$20 billion” number on an assumption that investors will sell their assets sooner rather than later—perhaps before June 25, to take advantage of the old inclusion rate before it disappears (although because the government has not revealed exactly how the new rate will apply that seems less likely). Of course, if revenue from the tax hike does turn out to be less than anticipated, the government will incur larger budget deficits than planned and plunge us further into debt.
Contrary to Prime Minister Trudeau’s claims, raising capital gains taxes will not improve fairness. It’s bad for investment, the economy and the living standards of Canadians.
Authors:
From the Fraser Institute
Here’s the shocker: Meng shows that for 15 out of the 16 uses, plastic products incur fewer GHG emissions than their alternatives…
For example, when you swap plastic grocery bags for paper, you get 80 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substituting plastic furniture for wood—50 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substitute plastic-based carpeting with wool—80 per cent higher GHG emissions.
It’s been known for years that efforts to ban plastic products—and encourage people to use alternatives such as paper, metal or glass—can backfire. By banning plastic waste and plastic products, governments lead consumers to switch to substitutes, but those substitutes, mainly bulkier and heavier paper-based products, mean more waste to manage.
Now a new study by Fanran Meng of the University of Sheffield drives the point home—plastic substitutes are not inherently better for the environment. Meng uses comprehensive life-cycle analysis to understand how plastic substitutes increase or decrease greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions by assessing the GHG emissions of 16 uses of plastics in five major plastic-using sectors: packaging, building and construction, automotive, textiles and consumer durables. These plastics, according to Meng, account for about 90 per cent of global plastic volume.
Here’s the shocker: Meng shows that for 15 out of the 16 uses, plastic products incur fewer GHG emissions than their alternatives. Read that again. When considering 90 per cent of global plastic use, alternatives to plastic lead to greater GHG emissions than the plastic products they displace. For example, when you swap plastic grocery bags for paper, you get 80 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substituting plastic furniture for wood—50 per cent higher GHG emissions. Substitute plastic-based carpeting with wool—80 per cent higher GHG emissions.
A few substitutions were GHG neutral, such as swapping plastic drinking cups and milk containers with paper alternatives. But overall, in the 13 uses where a plastic product has lower emissions than its non-plastic alternatives, the GHG emission impact is between 10 per cent and 90 per cent lower than the next-best alternatives.
Meng concludes that “Across most applications, simply switching from plastics to currently available non-plastic alternatives is not a viable solution for reducing GHG emissions. Therefore, care should be taken when formulating policies or interventions to reduce plastic demand that they result in the removal of the plastics from use rather than a switch to an alternative material” adding that “applying material substitution strategies to plastics never really makes sense.” Instead, Meng suggests that policies encouraging re-use of plastic products would more effectively reduce GHG emissions associated with plastics, which, globally, are responsible for 4.5 per cent of global emissions.
The Meng study should drive the last nail into the coffin of the war on plastics. This study shows that encouraging substitutes for plastic—a key element of the Trudeau government’s climate plan—will lead to higher GHG emissions than sticking with plastics, making it more difficult to achieve the government’s goal of making Canada a “net-zero” emitter of GHG by 2050.
Clearly, the Trudeau government should end its misguided campaign against plastic products, “single use” or otherwise. According to the evidence, plastic bans and substitution policies not only deprive Canadians of products they value (and in many cases, products that protect human health), they are bad for the environment and bad for the climate. The government should encourage Canadians to reuse their plastic products rather than replace them.
Author:
The Scientists Who Came in From the Cold: Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory Scandal, Part I
30 million contraband cigarettes valued at $25 million dollars seized in Alberta
RCMP recruitment failure has Alberta advocacy group calling for Provincial Police Service
NIH Quietly Altered Definition For Gain-Of-Function Research On Its Website, Former Fauci Aide Confirms
Fortis et Liber: Alberta’s Future in the Canadian Federation
Pharmacist-led clinics improve access to health care: Lessons from Alberta
Jim Jordan Exposes Biden’s Censorship-Industrial Complex
-
Economy2 days ago
Prime minister’s misleading capital gains video misses the point
-
COVID-192 days agoTucker Carlson and NFL star Aaron Rodgers discuss Bill Gates, COVID-19, US Deep State
-
COVID-192 days agoTop Fauci Aide Allegedly Learned To Make ‘Smoking Gun’ Emails ‘Disappear,’ Testimony Reveals
-
COVID-191 day agoThe Vials and the Damage Done: Canada’s National Microbiology Laboratory Scandal, Part II
-
Censorship Industrial Complex9 hours agoAustralia passes digital ID bill, raising fears of government surveillance without accountability
-
International9 hours agoIran’s President Ebrahim Raisi, who oversaw mass executions, dies in helicopter crash
-
Opinion8 hours agoUK set to ban sex ed for young children amid parental backlash against LGBT indoctrination
-
Brownstone Institute21 hours agoEnough With These Dangerous Calculations