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

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.

Authors:

Alex Whalen

Director, Atlantic Canada Prosperity, Fraser Institute

Lawrence Schembri

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Joel Emes

Senior Economist, Fraser Institute

Related Topics:#AlexWhalen #FraserInstitute #JoelEmes #LawrenceSchembri CanadaVSUSAWagesAndSalaries CanadaWages MedianEmploymentEarnings

Up Next

Conservative MP appeals to Canadians to support bill protecting churches from arson

Don't Miss

Harm Reduction is a Lie: Red Deer South MLA Jason Stephan

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

The Conventional Energy Sector and Pipelines Will Feature Prominently in Alberta’s Referendum Debate

Business / 3 hours ago

Pension and Severance Estimate for 110 MP’s Who Resigned or Were Defeated in 2025 Federal Election

Alberta / 3 hours ago

Why Some Albertans Say Separation Is the Only Way

Business

Pension and Severance Estimate for 110 MP’s Who Resigned or Were Defeated in 2025 Federal Election

Published on May 21, 2025

Todayville

By Franco Terrazzano

Taxpayers Federation releases pension and severance figures for 2025 federal election

The Canadian Taxpayers Federation released its calculations of estimated pension and severance payments paid to the 110 members of Parliament who were either defeated in the federal election or did not seek re-election.

“Taxpayers shouldn’t feel too bad for the politicians who lost the election because they’ll be cashing big severance or pension cheques,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Thanks to past pension reforms, taxpayers will not have to shoulder as much of the burden as they used to. But there’s more work to do to make politician pay affordable for taxpayers.”

Defeated or retiring MPs will collect about $5 million in annual pension payments, reaching a cumulative total of about $187 million by age 90. In addition, about $6.6 million in severance cheques will be issued to some former MPs.

Former prime minister Justin Trudeau will collect two taxpayer-funded pensions in retirement. Combined, those pensions total $8.4 million, according to CTF estimates. Trudeau is also taking a $104,900 severance payout because he did not run again as an MP.

The payouts for Trudeau’s MP pension will begin at $141,000 per year when he turns 55 years old. It will total an estimated $6.5 million should he live to the age of 90. The payouts for Trudeau’s prime minister pension will begin at $73,000 per year when he turns 67 years old. It will total an estimated $1.9 million should he live to the age of 90.

“Taxpayers need to see leadership at the top and that means reforming pensions and ending the pay raises MPs take every year,” Terrazzano said. “A prime minister already takes millions through their first pension, they shouldn’t be billing taxpayers more for their second pension.

“The government must end the second pension for all future prime ministers.”

There are 13 former MPs that will collect more than $100,000-plus a year in pension income. The pension and severance calculations for each defeated or retired MP can be found here.

Some notable severance / pensions

Name Party Years as MP Severance Annual Starting Pension Pension to Age 90

Bergeron, Stéphane BQ 17.6 $ 99,000.00 $ 4,440,000.00

Boissonnault, Randy LPC 7.6 $ 44,200.00 $ 53,000.00 $ 2,775,000.00

Dreeshen, Earl CPC 16.6 $ $ 95,000.00 $ 1,938,000.00

Mendicino, Marco * LPC 9.4 $ 66,000.00 $ 3,586,000.00

O’Regan, Seamus LPC 9.5 $ 104,900.00 $ 75,000.00 $ 3,927,000.00

Poilievre, Pierre ** CPC 20.8 $ 136,000.00 $ 7,087,000.00

Singh, Jagmeet NDP 6.2 $ 140,300.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 2,694,000.00

Trudeau, Justin *** LPC 16.6 $ 104,900.00 $ 141,000.00 $ 8,400,000.00

* Marco Mendicino resigned as an MP on March 14th, 2025

** Pierre Poilievre announced that he would not take a severance

*** The Pension to Age 90 includes Trudeau’s MP pension and his secondary Prime Minister’s pension

Business

New fiscal approach necessary to reduce Ottawa’s mountain of debt

Published on May 21, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

Apparently, despite a few days of conflicting statements from the government, the Carney government now plans to table a budget in the fall. If the new prime minister wants to reduce Ottawa’s massive debt burden, which Canadians ultimately bear, he must begin to work now to reduce spending.

According to the federal government’s latest projections, from 2014/15 to 2024/25 total federal debt is expected to double from $1.1 trillion to a projected $2.2 trillion. That means $13,699 in new federal debt for every Canadian (after adjusting for inflation). In addition, from 2020 to 2023, the Trudeau government recorded the four highest years of total federal debt per person (inflation-adjusted) in Canadian history.

How did this happen?

From 2018 to 2023, the government recorded the six highest levels of program spending (inflation-adjusted, on a per-person basis) in Canadian history—even after excluding emergency spending during COVID. Consequently, in 2024/25 Ottawa will run its tenth consecutive budget deficit since 2014/15.

Of course, Canadians bear the burden of this free-spending approach. For example, over the last several years federal debt interest payments have more than doubled to an expected $53.7 billion this year. That’s more than the government plans to spend on health-care transfers to the provinces. And it’s money unavailable for programs including social services.

In the longer term, government debt accumulation can limit economic growth by pushing up interest rates. Why? Because governments compete with individuals, families and businesses for the savings available for borrowing, and this competition puts upward pressure on interest rates. Higher interest rates deter private investment in the Canadian economy—a necessary ingredient for economic growth—and hurt Canadian living standards.

Given these costs, the Carney government should take a new approach to fiscal policy and begin reducing Ottawa’s mountain of debt.

According to both history and research, the most effective and least economically harmful way to achieve this is to reduce government spending and balance the budget, as opposed to raising taxes. While this approach requires tough decisions, which may be politically unpopular in some quarters, worthwhile goals are rarely easy and the long-term gain will exceed the short-term pain. Indeed, a recent study by Canadian economist Bev Dahlby found the long-term economic benefits of a 12-percentage point reduction in debt (as a share of GDP) substantially outweighs the short-term costs.

Unfortunately, while Canadians must wait until the fall for a federal budget, the Carney government’s election platform promises to add—not subtract—from Ottawa’s mountain of debt and from 2025/26 to 2028/29 run annual deficits every year of at least $47.8 billion. In total, these planned deficits represent $224.8 billion in new government debt over the next four years, and there’s currently no plan to balance the budget. This represents a continuation of the Trudeau government’s approach to rack up debt and behave irresponsibly with federal finances.

With a new government on Parliament Hill, now is the time for federal policymakers to pursue the long-ignored imperative of reducing government debt. Clearly, if the Carney government wants to prioritize debt reduction, it must rethink its fiscal plan and avoid repeating the same mistakes of its predecessor.