Fraser Institute
Trudeau’s legacy includes larger tax burden for middle-class Canadians

From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro
On Monday outside Rideau Cottage in Ottawa, after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told Canadians he plans to resign, a reporter asked Trudeau to name his greatest accomplishments. In response, among other things, Trudeau said his government “reduced” taxes for the “middle class.” But this claim doesn’t withstand scrutiny.
After taking office in 2015, the Trudeau government reduced the second-lowest personal income tax rate from 22.0 per cent to 20.5 per cent—a change that was explicitly sold by Trudeau as a tax cut for the middle class. However, this change ultimately didn’t lower the amount of taxes paid by middle-class Canadians. Why?
Because the government simultaneously eliminated several tax credits—which are intended to reduce the amount of income taxes owed—including income splitting, the children’s fitness credit, children’s arts tax credit, and public transit tax credits. By eliminating these tax credits, the government helped simplify the tax system, which is a good thing, but it also raised the amount families pay in income taxes.
Consequently, most middle-income families now pay higher taxes. Specifically, a 2022 study published by the Fraser Institute found that nearly nine in 10 (86 per cent) middle-income families (earning household incomes between $84,625 and $118,007) experienced an increase in their federal personal income taxes as a result of the Trudeau government’s tax changes.
The study also found that other income groups experienced tax increases. Nearly three-quarters (73 per cent) of families with a household income between $54,495 and $84,624 paid higher taxes as a result of the tax changes. And across all income groups, 61 per cent of Canadian families faced higher personal income taxes than they did in 2015.
The Trudeau government also introduced a new top tax bracket on income over $200,000—which raised the top federal personal income tax rate from 29 per cent to 33 per cent—and other tax changes that increased the tax burden on Canadians including the recent capital gains tax hike. Prior to this hike, investors who sold capital assets (stocks, second homes, cottages, etc.) paid taxes on 50 per cent of the gain. Last year, the Trudeau government increased that share to 66.7 per cent for individual capital gains above $250,000 and all capital gains for corporations and trusts.
According to the Trudeau government, this change will only impact the “wealthiest” Canadians, but in fact it will impact many middle-class Canadians. For example, in 2018, half of all taxpayers who claimed more than $250,000 of capital gains in a year earned less than $117,592 in normal income. These include Canadians with modest annual incomes who own businesses, second homes or stocks, and who may choose to sell those assets once or infrequently in their lifetimes (when they retire, for example). These Canadians will feel the real-world effects of Trudeau’s capital gains tax hike.
While reflecting on his tenure, Prime Minister Trudeau said he was proud that his government reduced taxes for middle-class Canadians. In reality, taxes for middle-class families have increased since he took office. That’s a major part of his legacy as prime minister.
Business
Lower taxes will help increase living standards for Canadian families

From the Fraser Institute
By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro
According to a new poll from RBC, nearly half (48 per cent) of Canadians can’t maintain their standard of living due to rising costs. These polling results should come as no surprise; recent research has shown that Canadian living standards are in a historic decline.
Governments across the country should take note, and immediately cut the largest expense for families—taxes.
Consider this. Gross domestic product (GDP) is the value of all goods and services produced in the economy, and is the most widely used measure of economic prosperity. And by measuring GDP on a per-person basis (and adjusting for inflation), we can track how living standards of Canadians change over time.
According to the latest data from Statistics Canada, as of September 2024, GDP per person was $58,601 compared to $59,905 in June 2019 (after adjusting for inflation). And since the fourth quarter of 2022, living standards have fallen in seven of the last eight quarters.
The driving factor behind this decline in living standards is Canada’s sluggish economic growth in recent years. Moreover, as highlighted in the poll, inflation over the last several years has left Canadians weary and struggling to cope with the elevated cost of necessities such as food and housing.
Again, if governments want to help improve living standards, they should reduce taxes and leave more money in the pockets of Canadian families.
In 2023 (the latest year of comparable data), the average Canadian family spent a larger share of its income on taxes (43.0 per cent) than on food, shelter and clothing combined (35.6 per cent). In other words, taxes are the largest single expense for Canadian families, and governments have the power to lower this expense to help families make ends meet.
Tax reductions would also benefit the overall economy and increase opportunities for workers. Across a variety of income levels ranging from $50,000 to $300,000 a year, Canadians in nearly every province face a higher combined (federal and provincial/state) personal income tax rate than Americans in virtually every U.S. state.
Of course, jurisdictions compete to attract and retain high-skilled workers such as doctors, engineers and entrepreneurs because these individuals contribute greatly to overall economic growth. By maintaining higher tax rates than U.S. states, provinces remain at a competitive disadvantage in attracting these workers. Lowering both federal and provincial income tax rates would improve Canada’s competitiveness and help increase economic growth.
A stagnant economy and rising cost of living are reducing living standards while stretching the finances of Canadian families. This budget season, governments from coast to coast should lower taxes to improve the economy and put more money back in the pockets of hard-working Canadians.
Energy
Canada must build 840 solar-power stations or 16 nuclear power plants to meet Ottawa’s 2050 emission-reduction target

From the Fraser Institute
The federal government’s plan to eliminate greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions from electricity generation by 2050 is impossible in practical terms, finds a new study published today by the Fraser Institute, an independent, non-partisan Canadian public policy think-tank.
Due to population growth, economic growth and the transition to electrified transportation, electricity demand in Canada will increase substantially in coming years. “To meet existing and future electricity demand with low-emitting or zero-emitting sources within the government’s timeline, Canada would need to rapidly build infrastructure on a scale never before seen in the country’s history,” said Kenneth P.
Green, senior fellow at the Fraser Institute and author of Rapid Decarbonization of Electricity and Future Supply Constraints.
For example, to generate the electricity needed through 2050 solely with solar power, we’d need to build 840 solar-power generation stations the size of Alberta’s Travers Solar Project. At a construction time of two years per project, this would take 1,680 construction years to accomplish.
If we relied solely on wind power, Canada would need to build 574 wind-power installations the size of Quebec’s Seigneurie de Beaupre wind-power station. At a construction time of two years per project, this would take 1,150 construction years to accomplish.
If we relied solely on hydropower, we’d need to build 134 hydro-power facilities the size of the Site C power station in British Columbia. At a construction time of seven years per project, this would take 938 construction years to accomplish.
If we relied solely on nuclear power, we’d need to construct 16 new nuclear plants the size of Ontario’s Bruce Nuclear Generating Station. At a construction time of seven years per project, this would take 112 construction years to accomplish.
Currently, the process of planning and constructing electricity-generation facilities in Canada is often marked by delays and significant cost overruns. For B.C.’s Site C project, it took approximately 43 years from the initial planning studies in 1971 to environmental certification in 2014, with project completion expected in 2025 at a cost of $16 billion.
“When Canadians assess the viability of the federal government’s emission-reduction timelines, they should understand the practical reality of electricity generation in Canada,” Green said.
Decarbonizing Canada’s Electricity Generation: Rapid Decarbonization of Electricity and Future Supply Constraints
- Canada’s Clean Electricity Regulations (Canada, 2024a) require all provinces to fully “decarbonize” their electricity generation as part of the federal government’s broader “Net-Zero 2050” greenhouse gas emissions mitigation plan.
- Canada’s electricity demands are expected to grow in line with the country’s population, economic growth, and the transition to electrified transportation. Projections from the Canada Energy Regulator, Canadian Climate Institute, and Department of Finance estimate the need for an additional 684 TWh of generation capacity by 2050.
- If Canada were to meet this demand solely with wind power, it would require the construction of approximately 575 wind-power installations, each the size of Quebec’s Seigneurie de Beaupré Wind Farm, over 25 years. However, with a construction timeline of two years per project, this would equate to 1,150 construction years. Meeting future Canadian electricity demand using only wind power would also require over one million hectares of land—an area nearly 14.5 times the size of the municipality of Calgary.
- If Canada were to rely entirely on hydropower, it would need to construct 134 facilities similar in size to the Site C power station in British Columbia. Meeting all future demand with hydropower would occupy approximately 54,988 hectares of land—roughly 1.5 times the area of the municipality of Montreal.
- If Canada were to meet its future demand exclusively with nuclear power, it would need to construct 16 additional nuclear plants, each equivalent to Ontario’s Bruce Nuclear Generating Station.
- Meeting the predicted future electricity demand with these low/no CO2 sources will be a daunting challenge and is likely impossible within the 2050 timeframe.
-
Business2 days ago
Crazy government spending
-
illegal immigration2 days ago
Trump border czar dismisses Pope’s attack on immigration policy
-
Business2 days ago
Hegseth welcomes DOGE to the Pentagon, says national debt a security issue
-
armed forces1 day ago
Pierre Poilievre promises to cut Canada’s funding of global projects overseas
-
International2 days ago
“Trump is a hero”: Marc Fogel lands in U.S. after release from Russian captivity
-
Energy2 days ago
Bipartisan groups in Congress introduce bill to protect strategic petroleum reserve
-
Business2 days ago
Ottawa Appoints Former Trudeau Intelligence Adviser as “Fentanyl Czar”
-
Business2 days ago
Lower taxes will help increase living standards for Canadian families