Fraser Institute
Latest federal budget will continue trend of negative outcomes for Canadians

From the Fraser Institute
By Matthew Lau
From the third quarter of 2015 to the fourth quarter of 2023, growth in real GDP per-person (a common indicator of living standards) was less than 1 per cent cumulatively versus more than 15 per cent in the United States. This despite—or more accurately, because of—massive government spending including on corporate subsidies
Reading the federal budget, which the Trudeau government tabled last week, is not an activity likely to improve the equanimity of Canadians suffering from over-taxation and anxious about stagnating living standards. The fact is, the budget sets Canadians even further behind with increased costs and higher taxes, which are sure to reduce productivity and investment further.
In terms of taxes, the main headline is the increase to the capital gains tax to a two-thirds inclusion rate for amounts over $250,000 per year. With Canada’s business investment numbers already dismal, the capital gains tax hike makes things worse by discouraging entrepreneurship and distorting economic decisions to favour present day consumption instead of saving and investment. Indeed, because people know the money they earned today will be taxed more heavily when they invest it tomorrow, the capital gains tax hike reduces incentives to work and earn today.
When it comes to costs, the “total expenses” line in the fiscal tables is most instructive. In last year’s budget, the Trudeau government said it would spend $496.9 billion in 2023-24 and $513.5 billion in 2024-25, rising to $556.9 billion by 2027-28 for a total of $2.6 trillion over five years. But according to this year’s budget, its $505.1 billion for 2023-24, $537.6 billion in 2024-25 and $588.2 billion by 2027-28, for a total of $2.8 trillion over the same five-year period, with both higher program spending and greater borrowing costs contributing to the increase.
In other words, the Trudeau government overspent its budget last year by an estimated $8.2 billion, has increased its spending for this year by $24.1 billion, and will now overspend last year’s fiscal plan by a total of $120.8 billion over five years. And that’s assuming the Liberals stick to the spending plan they just tabled. The Trudeau government has a track record of blowing past its original spending targets, often by astonishing margins, a trend continued in its latest budget. So taxpayers might reasonably expect even the significantly increased costs presented in this latest budget are an understatement.
Canadians might find the exorbitant costs of federal spending easier to accept if they saw some benefits commensurate to the spending, but they have not. From the third quarter of 2015 to the fourth quarter of 2023, growth in real GDP per-person (a common indicator of living standards) was less than 1 per cent cumulatively versus more than 15 per cent in the United States. This despite—or more accurately, because of—massive government spending including on corporate subsidies and other initiatives the government claimed would boost economic growth. Clearly, such growth has not materialized.
The latest budget increased spending for the national child-care program, but the thing has been a disaster from coast to coast, with families unable to find spots, daycare operators in dire straits, and costs to taxpayers ballooning. Similarly, while health-care spending has risen over the years, access to medical care has gone down. Spending and regulation related to climate change have exploded under the Trudeau government, but the environmental benefits of initiatives such as electric vehicle consumer subsidies and plastic bans, if there are any environmental benefits at all, are nowhere near high enough to offset the burden to taxpayers and consumers.
Clearly, the Trudeau government’s ramp-up in spending and increased taxation, as the GDP and investment figures show, have produced severely negative outcomes for eight years. By ramping spending and taxation up yet higher, it will help continue these negative outcomes.
Author:
Alberta
Albertans need clarity on prime minister’s incoherent energy policy

From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
The new government under Prime Minister Mark Carney recently delivered its throne speech, which set out the government’s priorities for the coming term. Unfortunately, on energy policy, Albertans are still waiting for clarity.
Prime Minister Carney’s position on energy policy has been confusing, to say the least. On the campaign trail, he promised to keep Trudeau’s arbitrary emissions cap for the oil and gas sector, and Bill C-69 (which opponents call the “no more pipelines act”). Then, two weeks ago, he said his government will “change things at the federal level that need to be changed in order for projects to move forward,” adding he may eventually scrap both the emissions cap and Bill C-69.
His recent cabinet appointments further muddied his government’s position. On one hand, he appointed Tim Hodgson as the new minister of Energy and Natural Resources. Hodgson has called energy “Canada’s superpower” and promised to support oil and pipelines, and fix the mistrust that’s been built up over the past decade between Alberta and Ottawa. His appointment gave hope to some that Carney may have a new approach to revitalize Canada’s oil and gas sector.
On the other hand, he appointed Julie Dabrusin as the new minister of Environment and Climate Change. Dabrusin was the parliamentary secretary to the two previous environment ministers (Jonathan Wilkinson and Steven Guilbeault) who opposed several pipeline developments and were instrumental in introducing the oil and gas emissions cap, among other measures designed to restrict traditional energy development.
To confuse matters further, Guilbeault, who remains in Carney’s cabinet albeit in a diminished role, dismissed the need for additional pipeline infrastructure less than 48 hours after Carney expressed conditional support for new pipelines.
The throne speech was an opportunity to finally provide clarity to Canadians—and specifically Albertans—about the future of Canada’s energy industry. During her first meeting with Prime Minister Carney, Premier Danielle Smith outlined Alberta’s demands, which include scrapping the emissions cap, Bill C-69 and Bill C-48, which bans most oil tankers loading or unloading anywhere on British Columbia’s north coast (Smith also wants Ottawa to support an oil pipeline to B.C.’s coast). But again, the throne speech provided no clarity on any of these items. Instead, it contained vague platitudes including promises to “identify and catalyse projects of national significance” and “enable Canada to become the world’s leading energy superpower in both clean and conventional energy.”
Until the Carney government provides a clear plan to address the roadblocks facing Canada’s energy industry, private investment will remain on the sidelines, or worse, flow to other countries. Put simply, time is up. Albertans—and Canadians—need clarity. No more flip flopping and no more platitudes.
Fraser Institute
Long waits for health care hit Canadians in their pocketbooks

From the Fraser Institute
Canadians continue to endure long wait times for health care. And while waiting for care can obviously be detrimental to your health and wellbeing, it can also hurt your pocketbook.
In 2024, the latest year of available data, the median wait—from referral by a family doctor to treatment by a specialist—was 30 weeks (including 15 weeks waiting for treatment after seeing a specialist). And last year, an estimated 1.5 million Canadians were waiting for care.
It’s no wonder Canadians are frustrated with the current state of health care.
Again, long waits for care adversely impact patients in many different ways including physical pain, psychological distress and worsened treatment outcomes as lengthy waits can make the treatment of some problems more difficult. There’s also a less-talked about consequence—the impact of health-care waits on the ability of patients to participate in day-to-day life, work and earn a living.
According to a recent study published by the Fraser Institute, wait times for non-emergency surgery cost Canadian patients $5.2 billion in lost wages in 2024. That’s about $3,300 for each of the 1.5 million patients waiting for care. Crucially, this estimate only considers time at work. After also accounting for free time outside of work, the cost increases to $15.9 billion or more than $10,200 per person.
Of course, some advocates of the health-care status quo argue that long waits for care remain a necessary trade-off to ensure all Canadians receive universal health-care coverage. But the experience of many high-income countries with universal health care shows the opposite.
Despite Canada ranking among the highest spenders (4th of 31 countries) on health care (as a percentage of its economy) among other developed countries with universal health care, we consistently rank among the bottom for the number of doctors, hospital beds, MRIs and CT scanners. Canada also has one of the worst records on access to timely health care.
So what do these other countries do differently than Canada? In short, they embrace the private sector as a partner in providing universal care.
Australia, for instance, spends less on health care (again, as a percentage of its economy) than Canada, yet the percentage of patients in Australia (33.1 per cent) who report waiting more than two months for non-emergency surgery was much higher in Canada (58.3 per cent). Unlike in Canada, Australian patients can choose to receive non-emergency surgery in either a private or public hospital. In 2021/22, 58.6 per cent of non-emergency surgeries in Australia were performed in private hospitals.
But we don’t need to look abroad for evidence that the private sector can help reduce wait times by delivering publicly-funded care. From 2010 to 2014, the Saskatchewan government, among other policies, contracted out publicly-funded surgeries to private clinics and lowered the province’s median wait time from one of the longest in the country (26.5 weeks in 2010) to one of the shortest (14.2 weeks in 2014). The initiative also reduced the average cost of procedures by 26 per cent.
Canadians are waiting longer than ever for health care, and the economic costs of these waits have never been higher. Until policymakers have the courage to enact genuine reform, based in part on more successful universal health-care systems, this status quo will continue to cost Canadian patients.
-
Crime2 days ago
How Chinese State-Linked Networks Replaced the Medellín Model with Global Logistics and Political Protection
-
Addictions2 days ago
New RCMP program steering opioid addicted towards treatment and recovery
-
Aristotle Foundation2 days ago
We need an immigration policy that will serve all Canadians
-
Business2 days ago
Natural gas pipeline ownership spreads across 36 First Nations in B.C.
-
Courageous Discourse2 days ago
Healthcare Blockbuster – RFK Jr removes all 17 members of CDC Vaccine Advisory Panel!
-
Business22 hours ago
EU investigates major pornographic site over failure to protect children
-
Health2 days ago
RFK Jr. purges CDC vaccine panel, citing decades of ‘skewed science’
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Conservatives slam Liberal bill to allow police to search through Canadians’ mail