Business
Federal government should change course in upcoming budget to revitalize economy
From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro
From 2020 to 2030, Canada is projected to record the slowest rate of per-person GDP growth among 38 developed countries in the OECD. Simply put, Canada’s economy is stalling relative to its own past performance and other comparable countries around the world.
The Trudeau government will table its next budget on April 16, and it must address Canada’s stagnant economy. While the economy won’t turn around overnight, the government should recognize that its current policy approach isn’t working.
According to a recent Leger poll, nearly two-thirds of Canadians have a “poor” or “very poor” view of Canada’s economy. And it’s no wonder they feel this way. Canada is experiencing an economic growth crisis. From 2013 to 2022, inflation-adjusted per-person GDP (a broad measure of living standards) grew at its slowest pace since the Great Depression in the 1930s. Since the Trudeau government took office in 2015, per-person GDP (inflation-adjusted) in Canada has grown by only 1.9 per cent—nearly one-eighth the growth rate in the United States over that same period.
Moreover, from 2020 to 2030, Canada is projected to record the slowest rate of per-person GDP growth among 38 developed countries in the OECD. Simply put, Canada’s economy is stalling relative to its own past performance and other comparable countries around the world.
Why?
While there are many reasons for this slump in economic activity, consider the collapse of business investment in Canada. From 2014 to 2021, business investment per worker (excluding residential construction) fell from C$18,363 to C$14,687. In contrast, during that same period, business investment per worker in the United States grew from C$23,333 to C$26,751. In other words, Canada experienced the equivalent of a $43.7 billion decline in annual business investment while the U.S. enjoyed a C$585.1 billion increase (all figures adjusted for inflation).
Business investment is crucial for economic growth (and subsequent increased living standards) because it provides the resources needed to equip workers with tools and technology, for businesses to expand operations and become more productive, and for new businesses to enter the market. This in turn fuels innovation and productivity, which are key determinants of living standards.
Which brings us back to the Trudeau government. The collapse of business investment in Canada has been due in part to recent federal policy including Bill C-69, which introduced new and costly assessment criteria for energy projects, Bill C-48, which restricts tanker traffic off British Columbia’s north coast, and the forthcoming emissions cap on oil and gas, which will increase the cost of doing business in Canada.
Clearly, Ottawa has thrown up stiff regulatory barriers that deter investment in Canada’s energy and mining sectors. According to a 2023 survey of oil and gas executives, more than two-thirds of respondents viewed Canada’s regulatory environment as a deterrent to investment. And on the fiscal front, a string of deficits and massive debt accumulation create uncertainty around future tax increases, which gives investors another reason to take their money elsewhere.
Finally, the Trudeau government also believes that government should play an active role in the economy by handing out corporate welfare and subsidies to favoured industries and firms (i.e. electric vehicle battery industry). But when government tries to pick winners and losers in the market, it may actually inhibit rather than help the economy. Instead, the government should leave decisions in the free market to the investors, businessowners and entrepreneurs who have firsthand knowledge of their industries and businesses.
The Trudeau government has done little to promote economic growth and raise living standards for Canadians. While it will take time to turn things around, in its upcoming budget the government should finally change course and help revitalize the Canadian economy.
Authors:
From the Daily Caller News Foundation
By WILL KESSLER
Converting America’s medium- and heavy-duty trucks to electric vehicles (EV) in accordance with goals from the Biden administration would add massive costs to commercial trucking, according to a new analysis released Wednesday.
The cost to switch over to light-duty EVs like a transit van would equate to a 5% increase in costs per year while switching over medium- and heavy-duty trucks would add up to 114% in costs per year to already struggling businesses, according to a report from transportation and logistics company Ryder Systems. The Biden administration, in an effort to facilitate a transition to EVs, finalized new emission standards in March that would require a huge number of heavy-duty vehicles to be electric or zero-emission by 2032 and has created a plan to roll out charging infrastructure across the country.
“There are specific applications where EV adoption makes sense today, but the use cases are still limited,” Karen Jones, executive vice president at Ryder, said in an accompanying press release. “Yet we’re facing regulations aimed at accelerating broader EV adoption when the technology and infrastructure are still developing. Until the gap in TCT for heavier-duty vehicles is narrowed or closed, we cannot expect many companies to make the transition, and, if required to convert in today’s market, we face more supply chain disruptions, transportation cost increases, and additional inflationary pressure.”
Due to the increase in costs for businesses, the potential inflationary impact on the entire economy per year is between 0.5% and 1%, according to the report. Inflation is already elevated, measuring 3.5% year-over-year in March, far from the Federal Reserve’s 2% target.
Increased expense projections differ by state, with class 8 heavy-duty trucks costing 94% more per year in California compared to traditional trucks, due largely to a 501% increase in equipment costs, while cost savings on fuel only amounted to 52%. In Georgia, costs would be 114% higher due to higher equipment costs, labor costs, a smaller payload capacity and more.
The EPA also recently finalized rules mandating that 67% of all light-duty vehicles sold after 2032 be electric or hybrid. Around $1 billion from the Inflation Reduction Act has already been designated to be used by subnational governments in the U.S. to replace some heavy-duty vehicles with EVs, like delivery trucks or school buses.
The Biden administration has also had trouble expanding EV charging infrastructure across the country, despite allotting $7.5 billion for chargers in 2021. Current charging infrastructure frequently has issues operating properly, adding to fears of “range anxiety,” where EV owners worry they will become stranded without a charger.
From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss
For decades, Canada and other countries in the G7 have been known as the economic powerhouses of the world. They generally have had the biggest economies and the most prosperous countries. But in recent years, poor government policy across the G7 has contributed to slowing economic growth and near-stagnant living standards.
Simply put, the Group of Seven countries—Canada, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the United Kingdom and the United States—have become complacent. Rather than build off past economic success by employing small governments that are limited and efficient, these countries have largely pursued policies that increase or maintain high taxes on families and businesses, increase regulation and grow government spending.
Canada is a prime example. As multiple levels of government have turned on the spending taps to expand programs or implement new ones, the size of total government has surged ever higher. Unsurprisingly, Canada’s general government spending as a share of GDP has risen from 39.3 per cent in 2007 to 42.2 per cent in 2022.
At the same time, federal and provincial governments have increased taxes on professionals, businessowners and entrepreneurs to the point where the country’s top combined marginal tax rate is now the fifth-highest among OECD countries. New regulations such as Bill C-69, which instituted a complex and burdensome assessment process for major infrastructure projects and Bill C-48, which prohibits producers from shipping oil or natural gas from British Columbia’s northern coast, have also made it difficult to conduct business.
The results of poor government policy in Canada and other G7 countries have not been pretty.
Productivity, which is typically defined as economic output per hour of work, is a crucial determinant of overall economic growth and living standards in a country. Over the most recent 10-year period of available data (2013 to 2022), productivity growth has been meagre at best. Annual productivity growth equaled 0.9 per cent for the G7 on average over this period, which means the average rate of growth during the two previous decades (1.6 per cent) has essentially been chopped in half. For some countries such as Canada, productivity has grown even slower than the paltry G7 average.
Since productivity has grown at a snail’s pace, citizens are now experiencing stalled improvement in living standards. Gross domestic product (GDP) per person, a common indicator of living standards, grew annually (inflation-adjusted) by an anemic 0.7 per cent in Canada from 2013 to 2022 and only slightly better across the G7 at 1.3 per cent. This should raise alarm bells for policymakers.
A skeptic might suggest this is merely a global phenomenon. But other countries have fared much better. Two European countries, Ireland and Estonia, have seen a far more significant improvement than G7 countries in both productivity and per-person GDP.
From 2013 to 2022, Estonia’s annual productivity has grown more than twice as fast (1.9 per cent) as the G7 countries (0.9 per cent). Productivity in Ireland has grown at a rapid annual pace of 5.9 per cent, more than six times faster than the G7.
A similar story occurs when examining improvements in living standards. Estonians enjoyed average per-person GDP growth of 2.8 per cent from 2013 to 2022—more than double the G7. Meanwhile, Ireland’s per-person GDP has surged by 7.9 per cent annually over the 10-year period. To put this in perspective, living standards for the Irish grew 10 times faster than for Canadians.
But this should come as no surprise. Governments in Ireland and Estonia are smaller than the G7 average and impose lower taxes on individuals and businesses. In 2019, general government spending as a percentage of GDP averaged 44.0 per cent for G7 countries. Spending for governments in both Estonia and Ireland were well below this benchmark.
Moreover, the business tax rate averaged 27.2 per cent for G7 countries in 2023 compared to lower rates in Ireland (12.5 per cent) and Estonia (20.0 per cent). For personal income taxes, Estonia’s top marginal tax rate (20.0 per cent) is significantly below the G7 average of 49.7 per cent. Ireland’s top marginal tax rate is below the G7 average as well.
Economic progress has largely stalled for Canada and other G7 countries. The status quo of government policy is simply untenable.
Author:
The Predictable Wastes of Covid Relief
Book Burning Goes Digital
Canadian Christian chiropractor fights ‘illegal’ $65,000 fine for refusing to wear mask
The Swamp Survived: Why Trump Failed to “Drain the Swamp”
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
The Predictable Wastes of Covid Relief
-
Brownstone Institute1 day ago
Book Burning Goes Digital
-
John Stossel12 hours ago
The Swamp Survived: Why Trump Failed to “Drain the Swamp”
-
Alberta21 hours ago
Canadian Christian chiropractor fights ‘illegal’ $65,000 fine for refusing to wear mask
-
Media20 hours agoCBC tries to hide senior executive bonuses
-
conflict1 day agoOver 200 Days Into War, Family Of American Hostage in Gaza Strives For Deal To Bring Son Home
-
Energy13 hours agoU.S. EPA Unveils Carbon Dioxide Regulations That Could End Coal and Natural Gas Power Generation
-
Automotive10 hours ago
New Analysis Shows Just How Bad Electric Trucks Are For Business