Federal government poised to pile on more spending and debt

Next week, the Trudeau government will release its fall fiscal update, which, considering the sorry state of federal finances, should demonstrate a newfound approach to spending and borrowing. But don’t hold your breath.

Although the Trudeau government describes itself as “fiscally responsible,” in reality it has a track record of unrestrained spending and large budget deficits. And it’s overseen the five highest years (2018 to 2022) of per-person program spending (adjusted for inflation) in Canadian history. Even excluding COVID-related spending, 2020 and 2021 remain the two highest years of per-person spending on record.

The Trudeau government has also run deficits every year since it took office in 2015—according to forecasts, this year’s deficit will eclipse $40 billion even though COVID is in the rearview mirror. Consequently, federal debt will have increased nearly $900 billion since 2014/15, up to $1.9 trillion for 2023/24.

While the prime minister and Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland often downplay the level of debt accumulation by noting that Canada has the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio among the G7 countries (Germany, Italy, Japan, France, the United Kingdom and the United States), this is misleading.

Net debt is calculated as total (gross) debt minus all financial assets, with the implicit assumption that those assets could be used to offset debt. However, the Canada and Quebec Pension Plans (CPP and QPP) are included in the financial assets used to calculate net debt in Canada. But because CPP/QPP assets are needed for existing and future retirees, in reality they can’t be used to offset government debt.

Therefore, a better measure is gross debt, which measures all liabilities that require future payment of interest and/or principal by the debtor to the creditor. Compared to 29 other advanced economies, including the G7 countries, Canada’s gross debt as a share of the economy ranks 20th—meaning Canada is among the most indebted countries.

Clearly, the Trudeau government has been anything but fiscally responsible. And the current levels of spending and borrowing impose real costs on Canadians.

For example, since 2014/15 federal government debt interest costs have nearly doubled—reaching an estimated $43.9 billion, or 9.6 per cent of total revenues, for 2023/24. This means roughly one in every 10 dollars Ottawa collects from Canadian taxpayers this year will go towards debt interest costs, rather than government services or tax relief.

In light of these fiscal realities, if the Trudeau government wants to move anywhere close to a balanced budget in the foreseeable future, it must take meaningful steps in the upcoming fall fiscal update to restrain spending growth.

Unfortunately, this is unlikely to happen.

In a recent report, the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) estimated that, due to spending increases, the federal government will run a deficit of $46.5 billion for 2023/24—$6.4 billion more than the government’s budget projections in March.

The government will also likely include new spending in the upcoming fiscal update meant to address housing and affordability. And will likely soon table legislation on national pharmacare, which the PBO estimates will cost $11.2 billion in 2024/25 alone.

Finally, not only does this unprecedented level of spending rack up mountains of debt, according to Bank of Canada Governor Tiff Macklem, “government spending is starting to get in the way of getting inflation back to target.” In other words, more spending by the federal government to address affordability concerns could actually worsen the problem by keeping inflation (and interest rates) higher than would otherwise be the case, eroding the purchasing power of Canadians.

While Ottawa’s fiscal situation demands a fiscally responsible fall fiscal update, it’s likely we’ll see much of the same next week from the Trudeau government—more spending and more borrowing.

Authors:

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Junior Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Up Next

Strike Two for Guilbeault – Federal Court Overturns Plastics Ban

Don't Miss

Australian senator compares Trudeau’s treatment of Freedom Convoy protesters to Communist China

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

Elon Musk at Trump rally: ‘This is the most important election of our lifetime’

COVID-19 / 1 hour ago

COVID vaccine science catching up with ‘conspiracy theorists’

Brownstone Institute / 2 hours ago

The FOIA Lady Pleads the Fifth

Business

‘Serious Problem’: America’s Cutting Edge Weaponry Is Dependent On Chinese Tech, Experts Warn

Published on October 5, 2024

Todayville

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Jake Smith

American defense startups are far too reliant on Chinese parts — and that poses a serious risk of exploitation by Beijing, experts told the Daily Caller News Foundation.

Business is booming as hundreds of defense startups have joined the growing U.S. military-industrial complex since 2021, according to The Wall Street Journal. But defense contractors are heavily dependent on China for parts for weapons systems, including motors, chips and rare earth minerals, which poses potential avenues for Beijing to exploit or hamper American technologies, experts told the DCNF.

“This is a serious problem for two reasons,” John Lee, senior defense expert at the Hudson Institute, told the DCNF. “First, as we saw during the pandemic, over-reliance on Chinese supply chains for components and inputs leaves countries and economies vulnerable to politically or policy-motivated restrictions being imposed by Beijing.”

“Second, components can have elements inserted into them without the knowledge of the end user. This could be spying equipment, channels for China to disable or damage the component from a distance, or even materials that can weaponize the component,” Lee said.

New defense contractors particularly rely on these parts because they don’t enjoy the same cash reserve that the industry giants do, and China makes and sells the parts for a cheaper price.

But these startups don’t want to be so reliant on China, given that the country is actively trying to undermine the U.S. and would likely be an adversary in a global war scenario, industry executives told the WSJ.

Decoupling from China-based entities proves difficult and expensive, defense startups told the WSJ, though it’s the only option in the long term.

“There’s a lot of lip-flapping about national security resilience manufacturing. But there’s no money for us to do this,” Scott Cololismo, CEO of defense startup LAND Energy, told the WSJ. LAND has some funding grants from the Pentagon, but needs more support to thrive, Colosimo explained.

The rare-earth minerals that China provides U.S. defense contractors — including neodymium, yttrium and samarium — are of particular value, given that they are essential for most high-tech military equipment, including laser and missile systems, jet engines, communications devices and even nuclear propulsion systems.

“Critical minerals are the building blocks for many of the most sensitive products in our defense industry,” Adam Savit, director of the China Policy Initiative at the America First Policy Initiative, told the DCNF. “China can abuse its dominant position in other critical mineral supply chains at any time.”

“The only long-term solution to this is to enact comprehensive permitting reform to approve domestic mining projects, and work with allied nations to develop new production when the U.S. lacks the relevant natural resources,” Savit said.

Savit’s warning that China can upset the supply chain of rare earth minerals also invokes a broader problem — China can cut the supply line for any of the parts needed by U.S. defense contractors, for any time or reason it chooses.

“If your supply chain runs dry, you have nothing to sell,” Ryan Beall, founder of drone manufacturer TILT Autonomy, told the WSJ.

‘It’s Alarming’: US-Funded Research Led To Over 1,000 Patents For China-Based Entitieshttps://t.co/tpr0NSD79X

— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) August 30, 2024

Lee warned that the problem exposes the U.S. and West’s gaps in domestic supply chain capabilities for their respective defense industrial bases, which creates a vacuum that other actors like China find ways to exploit.

China supplies over 90% of the magnets used in motors for ships, missiles, satellites and drones, according to the WSJ. Republican Reps. Elise Stefanik and Rob Wittman sent a letter to an Air Force official last week and called the reliance on China “a serious national security threat,” pointing to an example in a report last year that found the Air Force increased its dependence on China for parts by 69%.

The idea to stop relying on China for resources became more popular after the COVID-19 pandemic, which created massive supply chain shortages in various sectors, including healthcare products. But in the defense capacity, it will take years to produce parts domestically, according to the WSJ.

“There has been a hollowing out of manufacturing and industrial capabilities in the West which provides China with an enormous advantage,” Lee told the DCNF. “In the event of a crisis against a country such as China, this will become very dangerous for the U.S. and its allies.”

Unable to wait for domestic capabilities to improve and increasingly wary of buying from China, new defense contractors are turning to other alternatives for parts, according to the WSJ. Sourcing components from Mexico and Southeast Asia, utilizing 3-D printing and buying parts in bulk have been some of the creative ways contractors are solving the problem.

Industry experts also expect that the U.S. government is likely to restrict some Chinese parts used by contractors in a bid to move toward domestic capabilities, according to the WSJ. Some restrictions on items used to produce cameras and radios already exist.

“If the government wants a U.S. supply chain, that’s fine, but they need to be clear about their requirements, and they need to pay for it,” Beall told the WSJ.

Featured Image: U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Aaron Lau

Business

Median wages and salaries lower in every Canadian province than in every U.S. state

Published on October 5, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

There’s a growing consensus among economists that the federal government and several provincial governments over the past decade have not enacted enough policies that encourage economic growth. Consequently, Canadians are getting poorer relative to residents of other countries including the United States. In particular, their ability to purchase essential goods and services such as housing and food—in other words, their standard of living—is declining relative to our neighbours to the south.

In fact, according to our new study, among the 10 provinces and 50 U.S. states, median employment earnings—that is, wages and salaries— in 2022 (the latest year of available data) were lowest in the four Atlantic provinces, followed by Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. So, the median employment earnings of workers were lower in every Canadian province than in every U.S. state.

Were Canadian provinces always in the basement? Pretty much. In 2010, while only 12 U.S. states reported higher median employment earnings than Alberta, the other nine Canadian provinces ranked among the bottom 10 places. However, the important point is that from 2010 to 2022, Canadian provinces have fallen even further behind as many low-ranking U.S. states substantially improved.

In 2010, the per-worker earnings gap (in 2017 Canadian dollars) between Louisiana, a middle-ranking state, and the nine lowest-ranked Canadian provinces varied from $4,650 (in Saskatchewan) to $15,661 (Prince Edward Island). By 2022, a typical mid-ranking state such as Tennessee was out-earning all provinces by a range of $6,770 (in Alberta) to $16,955 (P.E.I.). In other words, by 2022, not only were workers in all U.S. states out-earning workers in all Canadian provinces, the gap had grown.

Another example—Alberta and Texas are the two largest oil-producing jurisdictions in their respective countries, yet Albertans, who out-earned Texans in 2010, saw their lead of $3,423 per worker become a deficit of $5,254 by 2022.

It’s a similar story for B.C. and Washington, which are geographically proximate and have similar-sized populations. While B.C. experienced strong growth in median employment earnings per worker over this period, it still lost ground relative to Washington—the gap grew from $10,879 in 2010 to $11,311 by 2022.

The change between Ontario and Michigan is even more striking. Again, they are geographic neighbours, have similar-sized populations and share a large auto sector, with Michigan’s lead over Ontario growing from $2,955 per worker in 2010 to $8,661 by 2022. The trends are similar when comparing Saskatchewan to North Dakota or the Atlantic provinces to the New England states; the gaps have only grown larger.

So, why should Canadians care?

Of course, everybody wants to make more money, so Canadians should want to know why workers in Mississippi and Louisiana make more than workers here at home. But there’s also a broader problem—people and capital can move relatively freely across the Canada-U.S. border, meaning this growing divergence in employment earnings has significant ramifications for the Canadian economy.

It could spur the ongoing migration of highly productive individuals, including high-skilled immigrants, who choose to move south. And encourage domestic and foreign firms to invest in the U.S. rather than in Canada. If these trends continue, they will exacerbate the earnings gaps between the two countries and potentially make Canada an economic backwater relative to the U.S. There’s also a significant risk these trends could worsen if the next U.S. administration increases tariffs on Canadian exports to the U.S., effectively abrogating the North American free trade agreement.

Clearly, to mitigate this risk and reverse the ongoing divergence in employment earnings—which largely determine living standards—between Canada and the U.S., the federal and provincial governments should implement bold and sweeping growth-oriented policies to make the Canadian economy more competitive. When Canada is more attractive to business investment, high-skilled workers and entrepreneurs, all workers will reap the rewards.