Connect with us

Business

With our economy becalmed, Good Ship Canada needs a new captain

Published

7 minute read

From the MacDonald Laurier Institute

By Jack M. Mintz

Output has been stagnant for five years now. Canada is ‘as idle as a painted ship upon a painted ocean’

One of my favourite poems is Samuel Coleridge’s “The Rime of the Ancient Mariner.” It describes a ship driven by storms towards the South Pole. An albatross saves the ship and crew but the Ancient Mariner kills it, an act of cruelty for which he is later punished, including by having to repeat the story to strangers for the rest of his life.

It is the verse “Day after day, day after day,/ We stuck, nor breath nor motion;/ As idle as a painted ship/ Upon a painted ocean” that became one of my favourites. It comes back to me periodically when life seems stalled.

Which is the case with Canada these days. Our economy is at a standstill. Interest rates are up and inflation, though trending down, remains stubbornly high. Real GDP growth these past four quarters (August 2022 to August 2023) was a feeble 0.9 per cent. Any growth we do have is from a policy-driven population expansion of close to three per cent. But per capita GDP actually fell 2.1 per cent over that period, which means Canadians are poorer today than they were a year ago.

And it’s not just this year. Canada has been a “painted ship on a painted ocean” for some time.  From January 2018 to June of this year, our GDP per capita was flat, according to OECD data released this week. Add in July and August and Canada’s per capita real GDP has declined slightly — from $52,300 in January 2018 to $51,900 in August (in 2012 dollars).

With the pandemic and surging inflation after 2020, you might think other countries’ economies are also becalmed. But they aren’t. U.S. per capita real GDP is up 2.4 per cent over the past year and up 9.3 per cent since January 2018, from US$61,500 to US$67,200 (again in 2012 dollars). At today’s exchange rate, Canada’s per capita GDP is now just 56 per cent of America’s — ouch!

Nor is it just the U.S. we’re slipping behind. Compared to our own slight decline in real per capita GDP since 2018, the OECD average is up 5.6 per cent, though there’s considerable variation across countries. For example, resource-rich Australia’s real per capita GDP was up only 4.8 per cent — which was still better than here — but superstar Ireland’s was up fully 31.0 per cent.

Let’s face it: Sir Wilfrid Laurier’s famous 1904 prediction that “For the next 100 years, Canada shall be the star towards which all men who love progress and freedom shall come” seems hollow these days. It is not that we don’t have the potential to shine; it’s that we so often fail to. We do still attract immigrants, but they often leave — as much as 20 per cent of a cohort over 25 years according to the Conference Board. And if salaries here keep falling behind those in the U.S., will we still be able to attract the best and brightest?

Canada has always been a trading nation but exports as a share of GDP have been relatively flat this past decade. The oil and gas sector has been our most important source of export earnings, surpassing even motor vehicles and parts, but since 2015 the Trudeau government has actively discouraged its growth.

We have had our share of innovations over the years but R&D spending has slipped back to the same share of GDP as it was in 1998. It seems the only way for Canada to develop new things is to subsidize them to the hilt with multi-billion grants like the ones given this past year to three different battery manufacturers.

Our health-care system is a shambles, with long waiting lines and not enough doctors and health professionals. One index ranks Canada’s health system as only 32nd best among 166 countries (with Singapore, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Israel ranking highest). We know what the problems are, but we seemingly don’t have the will to fix them.

Our tax system is a mess, with high rates and far too many ineffective incentives. Canada now has one of the highest top personal income tax rates in the world but applies it at much lower incomes than elsewhere, beginning at only twice the average wage. One important driver of U.S. growth was the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, which bolstered investment by 20 per cent, as shown in important research released last month.

We are a free rider in defence and security spending, at only 1.29 per cent of GDP, well below the minimum two per cent needed to fulfil our NATO obligations. Our financial contribution to modernize NORAD is lacking despite the growing importance of the Arctic to Russia and China. We have contributed little in the way of advanced weaponry or tanks to our allies in Eastern Europe or the Middle East. Europe is desperate for natural gas but instead of buying it from us it is having to import it from Qatar.

While regional tensions have always been a major part of Canadian history, we seem to have lost all sight of nation-building. National infrastructure projects are absent. Provincial trade barriers undermine internal growth but are hard to remove. Alberta, angry with a federal government intent on shackling its energy industry, is ready to pull out of the national social security system. Quebec is drastically hiking tuition fees on students from the rest of Canada who attend its anglophone universities.

To fulfill its remarkable potential, this country cannot remain a painted ship upon a painted ocean. Someone needs to move the ship forward.

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

Automotive

The EV ‘Bloodbath’ Arrives Early

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By David Blackmon

 

Ever since March 16, when presidential candidate Donald Trump created a controversy by predicting President Joe Biden’s efforts to force Americans to convert their lives to electric-vehicle (EV) lifestyles would end in a “bloodbath” for the U.S. auto industry, the industry’s own disastrous results have consistently proven him accurate.

The latest example came this week when Ford Motor Company reported that it had somehow managed to lose $132,000 per unit sold during Q1 2024 in its Model e EV division. The disastrous first quarter results follow the equally disastrous results for 2023, when the company said it lost $4.7 billion in Model e for the full 12-month period.

While the company has remained profitable overall thanks to strong demand for its legacy internal combustion SUV, pickup, and heavy vehicle models, the string of major losses in its EV line led the company to announce a shift in strategic vision in early April. Ford CEO Jim Farley said then that the company would delay the introduction of additional planned all-electric models and scale back production of current models like the F-150 Lightning pickup while refocusing efforts on introducing new hybrid models across its business line.

General Motors reported it had good overall Q1 results, but they were based on strong sales of its gas-powered SUV and truck models, not its EVs. GM is so gun-shy about reporting EV-specific results that it doesn’t break them out in its quarterly reports, so there is no way of knowing what the real bottom line amounts to from that part of the business. This is possibly a practice Ford should consider adopting.

After reporting its own disappointing Q1 results in which adjusted earnings collapsed by 48% and deliveries dropped by 20% from the previous quarter, Tesla announced it is laying off 10 percent of its global workforce, including 2,688 employees at its Austin plant, where its vaunted Cybertruck is manufactured. Since its introduction in November, the Cybertruck has been beset by buyer complaints ranging from breakdowns within minutes after taking delivery, to its $3,000 camping tent feature failing to deploy, to an incident in which one buyer complained his vehicle shut down for 5 hours after he failed to put the truck in “carwash mode” before running it through a local car wash.

Meanwhile, international auto rental company Hertz is now fire selling its own fleet of Teslas and other EV models in its efforts to salvage a little final value from what is turning out to be a disastrous EV gamble. In a giant fit of green virtue-signaling, the company invested whole hog into the Biden subsidy program in 2021 with a mass purchase of as many as 100,000 Teslas and 50,000 Polestar models, only to find that customer demand for renting electric cars was as tepid as demand to buy them outright. For its troubles, Hertz reported it had lost $392 million during Q1, attributing $195 million of the loss to its EV struggles. Hertz’s share price plummeted by about 20% on April 25, and was down by 55% for the year.

If all this financial carnage does not yet constitute a “bloodbath” for the U.S. EV sector, it is difficult to imagine what would. But wait: It really isn’t all that hard to imagine at all, is it? When he used that term back in March, Trump was referring not just to the ruinous Biden subsidy program, but also to plans by China to establish an EV-manufacturing beachhead in Mexico, from which it would be able to flood the U.S. market with its cheap but high-quality electric models. That would definitely cause an already disastrous domestic EV market to get even worse, wouldn’t it?

The bottom line here is that it is becoming obvious even to ardent EV fans that US consumer demand for EVs has reached a peak long before the industry and government expected it would.

It’s a bit of a perfect storm, one that rent-seeking company executives and obliging policymakers brought upon themselves. Given that this outcome was highly predictable, with so many warning that it was in fact inevitable, a reckoning from investors and corporate boards and voters will soon come due. It could become a bloodbath of its own, and perhaps it should.

David Blackmon is an energy writer and consultant based in Texas. He spent 40 years in the oil and gas business, where he specialized in public policy and communications.

Continue Reading

Business

Honda deal latest episode of corporate welfare in Ontario

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Tegan Hill

If Honda, Volkswagen and Stellantis are unwilling to build their EV battery plants in Ontario without corporate welfare, that sends a strong signal that those projects make little economic sense.

On Thursday, the Trudeau and Ford governments announced they will dole out an estimated $5 billion in corporate welfare to Honda so the auto giant can build an electric vehicle (EV) battery plant and manufacture EVs in Ontario. This is the third such deal in Ontario, following similar corporate welfare handouts to Volkswagen ($13.2 billion) and Stellantis ($15.0 billion). Like the previous two deals, the Honda deal comes at a significant cost to taxpayers and will almost certainly fail to create widespread economic benefits for Ontarians.

The Trudeau and Ford governments finalized the Honda deal after more than a year of negotiations, with both governments promising direct incentives and tax credits. Of course, this isn’t free money. Taxpayers in Ontario and the rest of Canada will pay for this corporate welfare through their taxes.

Unfortunately, corporate welfare is nothing new. Governments in Canada have a long history of picking their favoured firms or industries and using a wide range of subsidies and other incentives to benefit those firms or industries selected for preferential treatment.

According to a recent study, the federal government spent $84.6 billion (adjusted for inflation) on business subsidies from 2007 to 2019 (the last pre-COVID year). Over the same period, provincial and local governments spent another $302.9 billion on business subsidies for their favoured firms and industries. (Notably, the study excludes other forms of government support such as loan guarantees, direct investments and regulatory privileges, so the total cost of corporate welfare during this period is actually much higher.)

Of course, when announcing the Honda deal, the Trudeau and Ford governments attempted to sell this latest example of corporate welfare as a way to create jobs. In reality, however, there’s little to no empirical evidence that corporate welfare creates jobs (on net) or produces widespread economic benefits.

Instead, these governments are simply picking winners and losers, shifting jobs and investment away from other firms and industries and circumventing the preferences of consumers and investors. If Honda, Volkswagen and Stellantis are unwilling to build their EV battery plants in Ontario without corporate welfare, that sends a strong signal that those projects make little economic sense.

Unfortunately, the Trudeau and Ford governments believe they know better than investors and entrepreneurs, so they’re using taxpayer money to allocate scarce resources—including labour—to their favoured projects and industries. Again, corporate welfare actually hinders economic growth, which Ontario and Canada desperately need, and often fails to produce jobs that would not otherwise have been created, while also requiring financial support from taxpayers.

It’s only a matter of time before other automakers ask for similar handouts from Ontario and the federal government. Indeed, after Volkswagen secured billions in federal subsidies, Stellantis stopped construction of an EV battery plant in Windsor until it received similar subsidies from the Trudeau government. Call it copycat corporate welfare.

Government handouts to corporations do not pave the path to economic success in Canada. To help foster widespread prosperity, governments should help create an environment where all businesses can succeed, rather than picking winners and losers on the backs of taxpayers.

Continue Reading

Trending

X