Canada’s Aging Population Is Creating A Fiscal Crisis

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

Rising OAS and GIS costs outpacing economic growth, straining the federal budget

Canada’s aging population is creating a financial crisis that policymakers cannot afford to ignore. The rising costs of Old Age Security (OAS) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) pose a growing risk to federal finances, yet no dedicated funding has been established to ensure their long-term viability.

The numbers are staggering. The 2024 Financial Accounts (Public Accounts of Canada, Volume I, p. 43) show that spending on elderly benefits rose at a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 6.24 per cent between 2015 and 2024, climbing from $44.1 billion to $76.04 billion. Over the same period, total federal program spending increased at a CAGR of 7.24 per cent, from $248.7 billion to $466.7 billion.

Although elderly benefits made up 17.7 per cent of total program spending in 2015, they now account for 16.3 per cent. This decline is not due to reduced spending but rather a surge in pandemic-related government expenditures, which temporarily outpaced OAS-GIS growth. Nevertheless, the trajectory is clear: elderly benefits are now the federal government’s third-largest expense, behind only ‘Other Transfer Payments’ and ‘Operating Expenses.’

While these figures already indicate a growing fiscal challenge, government projections suggest the problem will only get worse. According to the federal Fall Economic Statement (Table A1.11, p. 211), economic growth is expected to average four per cent annually until 2029-30. Yet OAS-GIS costs are projected to grow at a compound annual growth rate of 6.5 per cent, outpacing both GDP growth and other program spending. By 2029-30, spending on elderly benefits is expected to reach $104.4 billion, or 18.3 per cent of all program expenditures.

Government projections highlight the rapid growth in elderly benefits over the next six years, as shown in the table below:

Fiscal Year                  Elderly Benefits ($B)                Total Program Expenses ($B)              Percentage of Total Program Expenses
2023-24                       76.0                                          466.7                                                   16.2 per cent
2024-25                       80.9                                          485.7                                                   16.7 per cent
2025-26                       85.5                                          500.3                                                   17.1 per cent
2026-27                       90.1                                          509.3                                                   17.7 per cent
2027-28                       94.6                                          529.7                                                   17.9 per cent
2028-29                       99.5                                          549.7                                                   18.1 per cent
2029-30                       104.4                                        570.3                                                   18.3 per cent

As the table shows, OAS-GIS spending is rising as a proportion of total government expenditures. This mirrors the original crisis in the Canada Pension Plan (CPP), when benefits outpaced contributions as the population aged.

The CPP once faced a similar sustainability crisis, and its reform in 1997 offers a potential model for addressing the challenges of OAS-GIS today. The federal government overhauled the CPP by creating the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board (CPPIB), which now manages $570 billion in assets. At the time, CPP benefits were paid through general government revenues rather than dedicated investments.

The solution involved higher contribution rates and the creation of an independent investment board to manage the fund sustainably.

These changes secured the CPP’s future, but OAS-GIS remains entirely dependent on government revenue, with no financial backing of its own. That makes it even more vulnerable to economic downturns and demographic shifts.

Policymakers must take decisive action to secure its future. One option is to tighten eligibility criteria to curb uncontrolled spending. Cost-of-living adjustments should also be limited to official inflation measures, ensuring sustainability without unfairly burdening low-income seniors.

The federal government must acknowledge the problem before it becomes unmanageable. The next finance minister should seek input from actuaries, investment professionals, economists and the public to explore feasible long-term solutions. A dedicated OAS-GIS Investment Board, similar to the CPPIB, could help ensure the program’s sustainability. The government already expanded CPP in 2019—there is precedent for such an approach.

Since OAS-GIS has no existing assets, the government will need to inject capital into the program. This could be done through annual surpluses deemed excessive for current needs or through long-term debt financing. Issuing 30-, 40- or even 50-year bonds specifically designed to fund OAS-GIS could provide a market-friendly, fiscally responsible path to solvency. If properly structured, such a plan could improve Canada’s credit rating rather than weaken it, ultimately reducing borrowing costs.

Even today, OAS-GIS spending exceeds the annual federal deficit, a clear warning sign that this issue can no longer be ignored. If no action is taken, Canada will face soaring elderly benefits with no sustainable way to fund them.

The time to act is now. Delaying reform will only make the crisis worse, burdening future generations with an unsustainable system. Policymakers have a choice: build a sustainable future for OAS-GIS or allow it to become a fiscal disaster.

Ian Madsen is the Senior Policy Analyst at the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Related Topics:#FrontierCentreForPublicPolicy #IanMadsen CanadaAgingPopulation GuaranteedIncomeSupplement OldAgeSecurity

Up Next

Dairy Farmers Need To Wake Up Before The System Crumbles

Don't Miss

Pursuing world peace: Trump’s secret peace talks with Hamas a stunning break from decades of neocon policy

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

Next federal government should reverse Ottawa’s plastics ban

Business / 1 hour ago

Trump walks back tariffs on Mexico, Canada for another month

Agriculture / 5 hours ago

Dairy Farmers Need To Wake Up Before The System Crumbles

Business

Next federal government should reverse Ottawa’s plastics ban

Published on March 6, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Julio Mejía and Elmira Aliakbari

As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.

Recently at the White House, President Donald Trump signed an executive order reversing the Biden administration’s plan to phase out plastic straws. The Trudeau government, however, continues with its plan to ban single-use plastics, even though this prohibition will have minimal impact worldwide, will actually increase waste in Canada, and force a transition to alternatives that impose greater environmental harm. Rather than doubling down on a flawed policy, the next federal government should reverse Trudeau’s plastic ban.

In 2021, the Trudeau government classified plastic items as “toxic,” paving the way for the ban on the manufacturing, importing and selling of checkout bags, cutlery, stir sticks and straws—all single-use plastics. In 2023, the Federal Court deemed the designation “unreasonable and unconstitutional”—but the Trudeau government defended the measure and is appealing, with a ruling expected this year.

According to the latest available data, Canada’s contributes 0.04 per cent to global plastic waste. The United States contributes 0.43 per cent—more than 10 times Canada’s share. But neither country is a major contributor to global plastic waste.

According to a 2024 article published in Nature, a leading scientific journal, no western country ranks among the top 90 global plastic polluters, thanks to their near-total waste collection and controlled disposal systems. Conversely, eight countries—India, Nigeria, Indonesia, China, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Russia and Brazil—generate more than half of global plastic waste. And nearly 75 per cent of the world’s ocean plastic comes from Asia with only six countries (Philippines, India, Malaysia, China, Indonesia and Myanmar) accounting for most of the world’s ocean plastic pollution.

The Trudeau government’s own science assessment, cited in the court appeal, states that 99 per cent of Canada’s plastic waste is already disposed of safely through recycling, incinerating and environmentally-friendly landfills. Despite these facts, plastic has become a target for blanket restrictions without fully considering its benefits or the downsides of switching to alternatives.

Consider this. Plastics are lightweight, durable and indispensable to modern life. From medical devices, food packaging, construction materials, textiles, electronics and agricultural equipment, plastics play a critical role in sectors that improve living standards.

Alternatives to plastic come with their own environmental cost. Again, according to the government’s own analysis, banning single-use plastics will actually increase waste generation rather than reduce it. While the government expects to remove 1.5 million tonnes of plastics by 2032 with the prohibition, it will generate nearly twice as much that weight in waste from alternatives such as paper, wood and aluminum over the same period. Put simply, the ban will result in more, not less, waste in Canada.

And there’s more. Studies suggest that plastic substitutes such as paper are heavier, require more water and energy to be produced, demand more energy to transport, contribute to greater smog formation, present more ozone depletion potential and result in higher greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions.

As noted by the Trudeau government, plastic substitutes contribute to lower air quality and “typically have higher climate change impacts” due to higher GHG emissions.

While plastic pollution is a pressing global environmental issue, Canada is not a major contributor to this problem. The rationale behind the Trudeau government’s plastic ban lacks foundation, and as major economies including the U.S. go back to plastic, Canada’s plastic prohibition becomes increasingly futile. The next federal government, whoever that may be, should reverse this plastic ban, which will do more harm than good.

Julio Mejía

Policy Analyst

Elmira Aliakbari

Director, Natural Resource Studies, Fraser Institute

Business

Trump walks back tariffs on Mexico, Canada for another month

Published on March 6, 2025

Todayville

From The Center Square

By Brett Rowland

Stocks sunk Thursday afternoon despite President Donald Trump’s decision to grant major exceptions to the 25% tariffs he put on Mexico and Canada earlier this week.

All three major U.S. market indexes were in the red by the time of Trump’s afternoon bill signing. Trump said Thursday in the Oval Office that steel and aluminum tariffs were on track for next week without modifications.

Trump shrugged off the stock losses, blaming the decline on “globalists.”

“I think it’s globalists that see how rich our country is going to be and don’t like it,” he said.

Trump has promised that his tariffs would shift the tax burden away from Americans and onto foreign countries, but tariffs are generally paid by the people who import the products. Those importers then have a choice: They can either absorb the loss or pass it on to consumers through higher prices. He also promised tariffs would make America “rich as hell.” And he’s used tariffs as a negotiating tactic to tighten border security.

Trump granted temporary tariff relief to both Canada and Mexico on Thursday by exempting goods under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement from tariffs until April 2.

On April 2, Trump plans to announce broader reciprocal tariffs against countries that impose tariffs on U.S. goods or keep U.S. goods out of their markets through other methods.

Since imposing his latest round of tariffs on top of trading partners this week, Trump has been paring them back. On Wednesday, Trump said the Big Three automakers – Ford Motor Co., General Motors Co. and Stellantis NV – would be exempt from his tariffs for a month.

In February, Trump took a step forward on his plan to put reciprocal tariffs on U.S. trading partners by signing a memo directing staff to come up with solutions in 180 days. Trump previously said he would put those tariffs in place on April 2 to avoid any confusion on April 1.

In his joint address to Congress on Tuesday, Trump said all countries would have to either make their products in the U.S. or be subject to tariffs.

“Whatever they tariff us, we tariff them. Whatever they tax us, we tax them,” Trump said. “If they do non-monetary tariffs to keep us out of their market, then we do non-monetary barriers to keep them out of our market. We will take in trillions of dollars and create jobs like we have never seen before.”

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA, governs trade between the U.S. and its northern and southern neighbors. It went into force on July 1, 2020. Trump signed the deal. That agreement continued to allow for duty-free trading between the three countries for products largely made in North America.

U.S. goods and services trade with USMCA totaled an estimated $1.8 trillion in 2022. Exports were $789.7 billion and imports were $974.3 billion. The U.S. goods and services trade deficit with USMCA was $184.6 billion in 2022, according to the Office of the United States Trade Representative.