Business
Growing the government won’t help Canada’s economy
From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro and Alex Whalen
Empirical research suggests that economic growth is maximized when the size of government falls between 24 and 32 per cent of GDP. In other words, when governments spend in excess of this range, the economy will not grow as much as it would if government operated within that threshold
Canada is suffering from an economic growth crisis, and governments across the country should reassess their policies. Governments (particularly the federal government) have recently taken a more active role in the economy through increased spending and bureaucracy. However, policymakers must take a step back and recognize that growing government doesn’t lead to growth in the economy.
Canada’s economy has been stagnant for the last decade. From 2013 to 2022, per-person GDP (a broad measure of living standards) grew at its slowest pace since the 1930s, after accounting for inflation. And more recent data shows that in the fourth quarter of 2023, per-person GDP (inflation-adjusted) stood at $58,111—which is $51 per person lower than it was at the end of 2014. Simply put, Canadians have experienced a decade of dismal growth, and are now actually worse off than they were a decade ago.
During this time, many governments in Canada have adopted an approach of greater involvement in the economy and significantly higher spending. Take the federal government, for example.
Since 2014/15, the government has increased annual program spending (total spending minus debt interest) by roughly 75 per cent, from $256.3 billion to $448.2 billion in 2022/23. Moreover, the Trudeau government has recorded the five-highest years of federal spending in Canadian history, after accounting for population growth and inflation. Much of this spending has gone towards expanding Ottawa’s role in the economy through increased transfers, business subsidies or new programs such as $10-a-day daycare and national dental care.
Provincial governments in Quebec, Nova Scotia and British Columbia (to name a few) have also recently reached historical highs in per-person program spending (even after excluding COVID-related spending). Simply put, governments across the country have been increasing spending and becoming more involved in the economy.
One way to measure the size of government, that allows for the comparison of jurisdictions over time, is known as total consolidated government spending as a share of GDP. This measure includes all spending at the local, provincial and federal levels in a jurisdiction and compares that level to the size of the economy.
According to a recent study, in 2022 (the latest year of available data) the size of government in Canada was 40.5 per cent of GDP compared to 38.2 per cent in 2014.
Among the provinces, total government spending ranged from 26.8 per cent of GDP in Alberta to 63.0 per cent of GDP in Nova Scotia. Compared to 2014, the size of government grew in eight of 10 provinces—only Prince Edward Island and B.C. experienced declines in government spending as a share of the economy. It’s also important to note that this is simply government spending. The true size of government, when accounting for things like regulation, is even larger.
Growing government matters because it influences economic growth. When the size of government is below a certain level, it lacks the resources to deliver services such as policing, courts or national defence—which are essential to a functioning economy. On the other hand, when government is too big it engages in activities best left to the free market and effectively crowds-out private-sector activity that contributes to economic growth. Therefore, when a government is too small or too big, economic growth (and consequently living standards) suffer.
Empirical research suggests that economic growth is maximized when the size of government falls between 24 and 32 per cent of GDP. In other words, when governments spend in excess of this range, the economy will not grow as much as it would if government operated within that threshold—all else equal. Based on the numbers presented above, it’s clear the vast majority of governments in Canada are too big. For nine of 10 provinces and the federal government, their spending exceeded 32 per cent of GDP in 2022.
As Canadians look for solutions to address a stagnating economy and falling living standards, governments should recognize that taking a more active role in the economy won’t solve the problem—and will likely make it worse.
Authors:
From LifeSiteNews
RBC’s dropping of its ‘net zero’ finance targets came just one day after the Liberal Party under Mark Carney was re-elected in Canada.
Just one day after the re-election of the Liberal Party under Mark Carney, the Royal Bank of Canada joined the growing list of top banks withdrawing from a United Nations-backed “net zero” alliance that supports the eventual elimination of the nation’s oil and gas industry in the name of “climate change.”
The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) on Tuesday quietly dumped its UN-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) sustainable finance targets, which called for banks to come in line with the push for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The NZBA is a subgroup of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), which Carney was co-chair of until recently.
RBC’s departure comes despite the fact that it was one of the NZBA’s founding members.
RBC joins Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD), Bank of Montreal (BMO), National Bank of Canada, and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) who earlier in the year said they were withdrawing from the NZBA.
The bank announced the move away from a green agenda in its 2024 sustainability report, noting it would no longer look to pursue a $500 billion sustainable finance goal. It cited changes to Canada’s federal Competition Act as the reason.
The changes to the act, known as the “greenwashing law,” now mandate that companies provide proof of their environmental claims.
“We have reviewed our methodology and have concluded that it may not have appropriately measured certain of our sustainable finance activities,” noted RBC in its report.
RBC also noted it would not make public any of its metrics regarding its energy supply ratio.
Monday’s election saw Liberal leader Carney beat out Conservative rival Poilievre, who also lost his seat. The Conservatives managed to pick up over 20 new seats, however, and Poilievre has vowed to stay on as party leader, for now.
Carney worked as the former governor of the Bank of Canada and Bank of England and spent many years promoting green financial agendas.
The GFANZ was formed in 2021 while Carney was its co-chair. He resigned from his role in the alliance right before he announced he would run for Liberal leadership to replace former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.
Large U.S. banks such as Morgan Stanley, JPMorgan Chase & Co, Wells Fargo and Bank of America have all withdrawn from the group as well.
Since taking office in 2015, the Liberal government, first under Trudeau and now under Carney, has continued to push a radical environmental agenda in line with those promoted by the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” and the United Nations’ “Sustainable Development Goals.” Part of this push includes the promotion of so called net-zero energy by as early as 2035.
From the Montreal Economic Institute
The federal government’s growing regulatory burden on businesses is holding Canada back and must be urgently reviewed, argues a new publication from the MEI released this morning.
“Regulation creep is a real thing, and Ottawa has been fuelling it for decades,” says Krystle Wittevrongel, director of research at the MEI and coauthor of the Viewpoint. “Regulations are passed but rarely reviewed, making it burdensome to run a business, or even too costly to get started.”
Between 2006 and 2021, the number of federal regulatory requirements in Canada rose by 37 per cent, from 234,200 to 320,900. This is estimated to have reduced real GDP growth by 1.7 percentage points, employment growth by 1.3 percentage points, and labour productivity by 0.4 percentage points, according to recent Statistics Canada data.
Small businesses are disproportionately impacted by the proliferation of new regulations.
In 2024, firms with fewer than five employees pay over $10,200 per employee in regulatory and red tape compliance costs, compared to roughly $1,400 per employee for businesses with 100 or more employees, according to data from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
Overall, Canadian businesses spend 768 million hours a year on compliance, which is equivalent to almost 394,000 full-time jobs. The costs to the economy in 2024 alone were over $51.5 billion.
It is hardly surprising in this context that entrepreneurship in Canada is on the decline. In the year 2000, 3 out of every 1,000 Canadians started a business. By 2022, that rate had fallen to just 1.3, representing a nearly 57 per cent drop since 2000.
The impact of regulation in particular is real: had Ottawa maintained the number of regulations at 2006 levels, Canada would have seen about 10 per cent more business start-ups in 2021, according to Statistics Canada.
The MEI researcher proposes a practical way to reevaluate the necessity of these regulations, applying a model based on the Chrétien government’s 1995 Program Review.
In the 1990s, the federal government launched a review process aimed at reducing federal spending. Over the course of two years, it successfully eliminated $12 billion in federal spending, a reduction of 9.7 per cent, and restored fiscal balance.
A similar approach applied to regulations could help identify rules that are outdated, duplicative, or unjustified.
The publication outlines six key questions to evaluate existing or proposed regulations:
- What is the purpose of the regulation?
- Does it serve the public interest?
- What is the role of the federal government and is its intervention necessary?
- What is the expected economic cost of the regulation?
- Is there a less costly or intrusive way to solve the problem the regulation seeks to address?
- Is there a net benefit?
According to OECD projections, Canada is expected to experience the lowest GDP per capita growth among advanced economies through 2060.
“Canada has just lived through a decade marked by weak growth, stagnant wages, and declining prosperity,” says Ms. Wittevrongel. “If policymakers are serious about reversing this trend, they must start by asking whether existing regulations are doing more harm than good.”
The MEI Viewpoint is available here.
* * *
The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.
Premier Danielle Smith responds to election of Liberal government
Top Used Ford SUVs for Families and Adventurers
Net Zero by 2050: There is no realistic path to affordable and reliable electricity
In Defeat, Joe Tay’s Campaign Becomes a Flashpoint for Suspected Voter Intimidation in Canada
-
Agriculture2 days agoLiberal win puts Canada’s farmers and food supply at risk
-
Alberta2 days agoAlberta’s future in Canada depends on Carney’s greatest fear: Trump or Climate Change
-
Alberta2 days agoIt’s On! Alberta Challenging Liberals Unconstitutional and Destructive Net-Zero Legislation
-
International2 days agoNigeria, 3 other African countries are deadliest for Christians: report
-
Business1 day agoCanada urgently needs a watchdog for government waste
-
Business1 day agoTrump says he expects ‘great relationship’ with Carney, who ‘hated’ him less than Poilievre
-
2025 Federal Election1 day agoThe Liberals torched their own agenda just to cling to power
-
2025 Federal Election19 hours agoThe Last Of Us: Canada’s Chaos Election