Connect with us

Business

Ignore Ottawa’s talking points—Canada is a highly indebted country

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss

Canada falls 21 positions in international rankings after switching from net debt to gross debt, the largest change by far of any country.

The Trudeau government has claimed that Canada “continues to have an enviable fiscal and debt position relative to international peers” because we have the lowest net debt-to-GDP ratio in the G7. But this is misleading. In reality, Canada is actually a highly indebted country relative to our international peers.

The government’s claim originates from the International Monetary Fund (IMF), which notes that Canada has the lowest level of net debt (as a share of its economy) among G7 countries including Germany, Italy, Japan, France, the United Kingdom and the United States. But this specific measure of debt subtracts financial assets from total government debt.

Here’s why that’s a problem.

Again, when calculating net debt, you subtract financial assets because you assume those assets could be used to offset debt. The glaring problem here is that Canada’s financial assets include the assets of Canada Pension Plan (CPP) and Quebec Pension Plan (QPP), which substantially reduce Canada’s net debt. Indeed, according to the latest data from Statistics Canada, there were net assets of $716.7 billion in the combined CPP and QPP as of Dec. 31, 2023.

But the assets of the CPP and QPP are used for payments to existing and future retirees and can’t be used to offset government debt without compromising the ability of the CPP and QPP to provide benefits to retirees. So, Canada having the lowest net debt-to-GDP in the G7 doesn’t mean much when CPP and QPP assets are incorrectly used to make us look less indebted than we actually are.

Thankfully, there’s a much more accurate way to measure of Canada’s indebtedness—gross debt-to-GDP. Gross debt, according to the IMF, includes all “liabilities that require future payment of interest and/or principal by the debtor to the creditor.” And extending the analysis to include a broader group of advanced countries provides a more accurate assessment of Canada’s comparative indebtedness.

According to a new study, among 32 industrialized countries, Canada slides from the 5th-lowest debt ranking when net debt is measured to 26th when gross debt is used. Further, Canada’s gross debt exceeds the total size of the national economy by nearly 5 percentage points. In other words, Canada falls 21 positions in international rankings after switching from net debt to gross debt, the largest change by far of any country.

The consequences of fiscal imprudence are clear. Just like households, governments must pay interest on debt. In 2024, Canada’s federal debt interest costs are expected to eclipse $54.0 billion—equal to the entire amount of revenue the government collects from the Goods and Services Tax (GST). And debt must be repaid by future generations of Canadians through tax increases or reduction in services.

When the Trudeau government claims that Canada is in an enviable position relative to our peers on government indebtedness, it is misleading Canadians. The data clearly show that Canada is among the most indebted advanced economies in the world. That’s not something to boast about.

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

Ford Files Patent to Surveil Drivers

Published on

News release from Armstrong Economics

By Martin Armstrong

Governments are pushing the public to switch to smart vehicles to reduce fossil fuel consumption, but there is also a second motive – surveillance.

This September, Ford filed a new patent to eavesdrop on riders. They plan to share this information with third-parties to personalize the advertisements riders hear. Ford will also take the driver’s destination into consideration to determine location-specific advertisements and suggestions. The technology will factor in the weather, traffic, and all external sensors to fine tune when and what to market to passengers.

Advertisements are perhaps the least ominous use of voice data based on the plans that these car manufacturers have. Car insurance rates in the United States spiked 26% in the past year, which is partly due to car manufacturers sharing ride data with insurance companies. Even older cars with basic features like OnStar have tracking devices that report your driving behavior to the manufacturers who share your data with insurance companies and, ultimately, the government. LexisNexis, which tracks drivers’ behaviors and compiles risk profiles, has been sharing individual data with General Motors, who passes that information along to the insurance companies. General Motors.

One driver demanded that LexisNexis send him his personal report, which was a 258-page document containing every trip he or his wife took in his vehicle over a six-month period. LexisNexis said that this data will be used “for insurers to use as one factor of many to create more personalized insurance coverage.” They even reported small issues such as hard breaking and rapid acceleration, according to the report. “I don’t know the definition of hard brake. My passenger’s head isn’t hitting the dash,” an unnamed Cadillac driver enrolled in the OnStar Smart Driver subscription service told reporters.

“Cars have microphones and people have all kinds of sensitive conversations in them. Cars have cameras that face inward and outward,” a researcher with Mozilla Foundation told the Los Angeles Times. In fact, 19 automakers in 2023 admitted that they have the ability to sell your personal data without notice. Law enforcement may subpoena these records as well.

Ford claims that the patent was submitted, but they do not necessarily plan to use the technology. “Submitting patent applications is a normal part of any strong business as the process protects new ideas and helps us build a robust portfolio of intellectual property. The ideas described within a patent application should not be viewed as an indication of our business or product plans. No matter what the patent application outlines, we will always put the customer first in the decision-making behind the development and marketing of new products and services,” Ford said in a statement released to MotorTrend.

Now, the US Department of Transportation is permitted to mandate that certain manufacturers provide them with vehicle data. Sens. Ron Wyden of Oregon and Edward Markey of Massachusetts testified that all vehicles in the United States with a GPS or emergency call system are collecting travel data that car manufacturers have remote access to via the computer chips. The computer chips are compiling data on vehicle speed, movement, travel, and even using exterior sensors and cameras to record the vehicle’s location.

All of this violates the Fourth Amendment which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures without probable cause. These car manufacturers are surpassing what anyone would consider a reasonable expectation of privacy. Governments, third-party advertisement companies, and insurance companies all have warrantless access to personal data, and drivers are largely unaware they are being spied on. Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act permits the government to have backdoor access to this data.

The aforementioned senators’ concerns fell on deaf ears at the Federal Trade Commission. The Department of Transportation clearly is not listed within the US Constitution. People are already experiencing stiff consequences from autos sharing data with the sharp uptick in insurance rates.

Continue Reading

Business

Companies Are Getting Back To Business And Backing Away From DEI

Published on

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Devon Westhill

 

Classic American companies like John DeereHarley Davidson and Tractor Supply Co. are finally reevaluating Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. They are realizing that their consumers, many from rural, midwestern and working-class communities, don’t care for the DEI practices of corporate elites. They just want good service, reliable tractors and badass motorcycles.

The about-face is especially timely as the Supreme Court’s 2023 affirmative action decision prohibiting race-based college admissions has increased scrutiny of private sector DEI practices. This new legal climate, combined with the discovery of problematic DEI programs at major American companies, means that corporations are at long last feeling significant pressure to prioritize excellence and efficiency over faddish diversity metrics.

Companies operating in the free market have one purpose: to provide quality goods and services to consumers in order to make a profit. For too long, much of corporate America has focused on virtue signaling to appease the left’s cultural mandates. Now, business incentives are forcing a return to the bottom line.

The change began in June when conservative commentator Robby Starbuck took to social media to expose companies masquerading as all-American brands with traditional values. He first exposed Tractor Supply’s DEI practices and announced that he would be investigating a list of other companies considered exemplars of Americana.

In response, Tractor Supply customers began boycotting the company, resulting in an 8% decrease in its stock price (a $2.8 billion market value loss) over five days. This led Tractor Supply to announce later that month the termination of its DEI programming. The company promised to stop submitting data for the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index and withdrew sponsorship of LGBTQ+ pride events and voting campaigns, calling them “nonbusiness activities.”

Starbuck’s later exposure of John Deere’s DEI policies also caused the company to issue a statement announcing major cutbacks to their DEI programs. Harley DavidsonJack Daniels and Lowe’s followed suit, preemptively terminating their DEI programs and standards.

All of these companies should be commended for abandoning excessive DEI and getting back to business.

Now, instead of requiring costly, time-intensive programs to prove their liberal bona fides, they can focus on delivering results for their customers. Free from worry about optics and bureaucratic compliance, they can hire the most qualified employees and let them rise to the top.

But these decisions are not without their naysayers. DEI proponents have labeled these moves as bullying from far-right extremists and claim that terminating these policies will encourage gender and race discrimination in the workplace.

This hysteria is unwarranted and relies on the absurd claim that without DEI standards, there can be no equality, inclusion or respect in the workplace. Of course, it is crucial that businesses cultivate a culture of respect and dignity. Employees should be educated on their protections and duties regarding civil rights and basic civility in the workplace. All of the companies reversing on DEI have remained committed to fostering respectful, safe cultures for their employees.

In fact, too much corporate DEI can wreak havoc on a company’s morale. In many cases, it can result in scapegoating certain groups of people for grievous wrongs none of them had a hand in committing. It can also lead to damaging intellectual conformity and groupthink. DEI hiring quotas, in particular, can lead to serious legal risk. All of this results in the complete opposite of DEI’s purported goals. Instead, it increases workplace disunity and harms true diversity.

Ultimately, the DEI policies at these classic American companies have proven to only burden corporations, frustrate employees and confuse customers. Companies should prioritize producing better quality products, lowering prices, and offering attractive wages and benefits for all employees, instead of pouring time and money into ineffective policies that do not represent the American values of their customer base. So long, discrimination disguised as diversity.

Devon Westhill is the president and general counsel for the Center for Equal Opportunity.

 

Continue Reading

Trending

X