Trudeau has more than doubled Canada’s debt while Canadians get poorer

46 percent of Canadians are a few hundred dollars away from not being able to meet their financial obligations… 400,000 more Canadians live in poverty now compared to 2020.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau has more than doubled Canada’s national debt, but Canadian’s quality of life has only decreased.

According to calculations from the Canadian Taxpayers Federation (CTF), Canada’s national debt has more than doubled since Prime Minister Justin Trudeau took power in 2015, reaching a total of $1.239 trillion.

“Canadians can’t afford another decade-and-a-half debt binge,” Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director, said in a . “Trudeau needs to stop wasting so much money and balance the books, because it’s wrong to waste billions on debt interest payments.”

When Trudeau took office in November 2015, Canada’s federal debt was just $616 billion.

Despite this doubling of the national debt, the Trudeau government does not plan to balance the budget until 2040, according to supplementary data from the Parliamentary Budget Office (PBO). 

Currently, every Canadian owes $31,000 of the debt, however, interest charges between now and the time the budget is balanced in 2040 will mean that the number is much higher. By 2040, interest charges on the federal debt will have cost taxpayers a whopping $847 billion, meaning each Canadian will owe an additional $18,000. 

“Waiting until 2040 to balance the budget is outrageous and the government won’t even hit that target if the economy has a hiccup or politicians can’t say no to new spending,” Terrazzano said. “This government has given taxpayers every reason to believe it will never balance the budget.”

While the national debt has skyrocketed, and the government continues to spend money hand-over-fist, the quality of living for Canadians is plummeting. Instead of addressing this, Trudeau continues to send tax dollars to Ukraine and subsidizing a variety of ideologically motivated causes that provide no material benefit to Canadians.

In July, a survey found that a massive 46 percent of Canadians are a few hundred dollars away from not being able to meet their financial obligations.

LifeSiteNews reported that fast-rising food costs in Canada have led to many people feeling a sense of “hopelessness and desperation” with nowhere to turn for help, according to the Canadian government’s own National Advisory Council on Poverty.

At the same time Canadians are being driven into poverty, housing prices have skyrocketed, with a recent analysis estimating that a Canadian household now has to spend an unprecedented 63.5% of its income to afford a mortgage.

At the same time, criminal incidents under the Trudeau government have increased 20 percent, with critics placing the blame on Trudeau’s “catch and release” policy, which allows dangerous criminals to walk free on bail.

Indeed, this policy has put many Canadians in danger, as was the case last month when a Brampton man charged with sexually assaulting a 3-year-old was reportedly out on bail for an October 2022 incident in which he was charged with assault with a dangerous weapon and possession of a dangerous weapon. 

As LifeSiteNews previously reported, a well-known Ottawa think tank warned that Canada’s justice system is unable to keep up with out-of-control crime that has risen sharply in the last few decades to the point where the national murder rate is at its highest in 30 years.

Up Next

BC NDP, Conservatives’ drug policies converge in close election

Don't Miss

Liberal House Leader tells gov’t-funded media they must ‘scrutinize’ Conservatives

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

Canadians largely ignore them and their funding bleeds their competition dry: How the CBC Spends its Public Funding

Brownstone Institute / 7 hours ago

Cut the Truth Out of Our Heads

Crime / 8 hours ago

Numbers don’t lie—crime up significantly in Toronto and across Canada

Economy

Canadians should understand costs of expanding Old Age Security

Published on October 13, 2024

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

In yet another high-stakes maneuver in the fall session of Parliament, the Bloc Québécois recently tabled a motion urging the Trudeau government to support Bill C-319, which would increase Old Age Security (OAS) payments for seniors aged 65 to 74 by 10 per cent. The motion passed and the Bloc is threatening to trigger an election if the Trudeau government doesn’t give the bill final approval before October 29.

Meanwhile, according to a new poll, 79 per cent of Canadians “support or somewhat support” the OAS increase. But crucially, the poll provided no information to respondents about the costs associated with expanding OAS, even though Canadians should understand the costs before they pledge support for any government program.

Consider this—according to past polling, more than two-thirds of Canadians expressed support for the Trudeau government’s national dental care, $10-a-day daycare, and pharmacare programs. Yet once respondents were made aware of potential tax increases (specifically, increases to the GST), support plummeted to less than 50 per cent for all three programs.

Clearly, support for government programs can change dramatically once Canadians understand the costs since they ultimately must pay those costs. So, that being said, what are the costs of a 10 per cent increase in OAS payments for seniors aged 65 to 74?

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux, the policy would cost more than $3 billion a year, with a five-year price tag of $16.1 billion—a “significant chunk of change” in his words.

Based on its latest budget, the Trudeau government expects to run deficits of at least $20.0 billion for the next five years and rack up more than $400 billion in new debt by 2028/29. If the government borrows more money to pay for increased OAS benefits, that debt number will grow even larger.

And again, Canadians will ultimately bear the costs of an expanded OAS through higher taxes in the future because Canadians must pay interest on government debt. This fiscal year (2024/25) federal debt interest costs are already expected to reach $54.1 billion—which is equal to the entire amount raised by the GST. These are taxpayer dollars that won’t go towards any services or programs for Canadians, and interest costs will continue to grow as the government adds more and more debt.

Finally, in addition to being costly, the plan is poorly targeted. While some programs such as the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) provide additional income support to low-income seniors, OAS provides support to many upper middle-income seniors. Indeed, based on current thresholds, individual seniors (aged 65 to 74) earning up to $148,451 per year are eligible to receive OAS (though seniors earning more than $90,997 of income don’t receive the full amount). Therefore, if Bill C-319 becomes law, a senior couple with a combined household income of nearly $300,000 will receive an increase in their OAS payments.

Increasing OAS payments will cost billions each year while supplementing the income of many seniors who aren’t in need. Despite the political theatre in Ottawa, Canadians are ultimately the ones who will foot the bill.

Authors:

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

Grady Munro

Policy Analyst, Fraser Institute

Business

What Inter-Provincial Migration Trends Can Tell Us About Good Governance

Published on October 13, 2024

Todayville

David Clinton

It turns out we move a great deal less than our American neighbors

Government policies have consequences. Among them is the possibility that they might so annoy the locals that people actually get up and head for the exit. Given how parting can be such sweet sorrow (and how it’s a pain to lose out on all that revenue from provincial income, property, and sales tax), legislatures generally prefer to keep their citizens on this side of the door.

Nevertheless, migration happens. And when enough people do it at the same time, they sometimes leave economic and social clues behind waiting to be discovered. This graph represents net migrations since 1971 into and out of the four largest provinces:

The Audit is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to The Audit

It may just be possible to make out some broad patterns here. Quebec has never had a net inbound migration year (although there’s been plenty of immigration to Quebec from outside of Canada). But nothing matches the mass exodus of anglophones due to concerns over language and separation in the 1970s.

Curiously it seems that Alberta and British Columbia received far more migrants than Ontario around that time – although the actual numbers tell us that they were more likely to have come from Saskatchewan and Ontario than Quebec. By contrast, most disillusioned Quebecers found their way to Ontario. Besides the 70s, Alberta also enjoyed inbound spikes in the mid-90s, mid-00s, and early 10s. And it looks like they’re in the middle of another boom cycle as we speak.

The real value of all this data however, is in using it to test causation hypotheses. In other words, can statistical analysis tell us what it was that caused the migrations? And are some or all of those causes the result of government policy choices? Here are some possibilities we’ll explore:

Household income trends
Government debt
Crime rates
Healthcare costs
Housing costs

Right off the top I’ll come clean with you: there’ll be no smoking gun here. I could find no single historical measure that came close to explaining migration patterns. However I was able to confidently discard some theories. That’s a win I guess. And other numbers did hint to intriguing possibilities.

Inter-provincial variations in household income, crime rates (specifically murder rates), healthcare costs (including prescriptions, eye care, and dental care), and even housing affordability had no measurable impact on migration. This was true for both correlation coefficients and lag analysis (where we looked at migration changes in the years following an economic event).

Rising unemployment had, at best, a minimal impact on outbound migration. And even then, it was only noticeable for Alberta and Prince Edward Island.

Of all the metrics I explored, the only one that might have had a serious influence in migration was provincial government budget deficits.

Folks from Alberta, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland all responded to growing government debt by clearing out. Now, I doubt this was their way to telling the government what they really thought about bad fiscal management. Rather, people probably decided to move to greener pastures in response to the ripple-effect consequences of deficits, like higher taxes, reduced social services, and deteriorating infrastructure.

I suspect that part of the reason I wasn’t able to find any strong connections between those metrics and migration patterns is because there really isn’t all that much migration going on in the first place.

Take Ontario’s record net population loss of 31,018 residents back in 2021. That may sound like a lot of people, but it’s actually just a hair over two-tenths of one percent of the total Ontario population. And even Quebec’s epic 1979 loss of 46,429 people was still nowhere near one percent. It was 0.7117456, to be precise. Those aren’t significant numbers.

When so few people choose to move, it’s probably because there’s nothing on the macro level going on that’s pushing them. Those who do go, probably do it primarily for personal reasons that just won’t show up in population-scale data.

There’s also the very real possibility that Canadians are smart enough to realize that things probably won’t be any better over there than they already are right here. Fewer than two-thirds of one percent of Ontarians left for other provinces in 2023, while only around one-third of a percent gave up on Quebec.

By contrast, annual state-to-state migration figures in the U.S. typically range between 1 percent to 5 percent of each state’s population. In 2022, that added up to 8.2 million people, according to the Census Bureau.

Subscribe to The Audit. For the full experience, upgrade your subscription.

In the market for bespoke data analysis?

Custom Reports by The Audit