Business
Bank of Canada survey reveals 86% of Canadians opposed to creating digital ‘dollar’
From LifeSiteNews
The main findings show that Canadians place a ‘high value on holding cash that is backed by their central bank and want to maintain access to bank notes.’
An overwhelming majority, 86% of Canadians, are opposed to the creation of a national digital dollar and want the government and banks to “leave cash alone,” according to results from a recent Bank of Canada (BOC) survey concerning the creation of a “potential digital Canadian dollar.”
In a press release yesterday, the BOC published the feedback it got concerning the creation of a “potential digital Canadian dollar.” The bank says it has been collecting information since 2020 with “stakeholders in the financial sector and civil society.”
The main findings from the BOC’s survey show that Canadians place a “high value on holding cash that is backed by their central bank and want to maintain access to bank notes.”
“Canadians value their right to privacy and many expressed concerns that a digital dollar could compromise that right,” the BOC said about another main finding from its report.
The BOC noted that should a digital dollar be created, it “should be easily accessible and should neither add barriers nor worsen existing ones.”
“A digital dollar should not add to financial stability risks,” the BOC said.
The survey, which was open from May 8 to June 19, 2023, received 89,423 responses. A total of 87% of respondents said they were “aware” of talk concerning the creation of a digital dollar.
The survey results come after the BOC in August admitted that the creation of a central bank digital currency (CBDC) is not needed as many people rely on “cash” to pay for things. The bank concluded that the introduction of a digital currency would only be feasible if consumers demanded its release.
Canadians prefer cash as the best payment method, but bank has not fully ruled out digital dollar
Some 93% of the BOC’s survey respondents said that they continue to use cash as a payment form in addition to the use of debit and credit cards. A total of 66% of respondents said that having access to a digital currency was not important.
A total of 88% of respondents said they were not interested in the creation of an additional “offline” payment method such as an offline digital dollar in addition to cash.
While 85% of respondents said they would not use a digital dollar, 12% said they would, with 3% being uncertain.
Of important note is that the BOC has not ruled out the creation of a digital dollar despite the report’s findings.
The BOC said it “aims to ensure that Canadians will continue to have the benefits of money issued by the central bank in an increasingly digitalized world.”
“Whether and when a digital dollar will become needed is uncertain. Ultimately, the decision to go ahead with a digital dollar belongs to Canadians, through their representatives in Parliament,” the BOC said.
As reported by LifeSiteNews in May, the BOC was looking for public feedback on whether such a form of digital currency, which experts have warned could mean an end to purchasing anonymity, would be viable for Canadians.
Overall, the report found that when all answers were combined, the creation of a digital dollar garnered 86% negative feedback.
According to the BOC, a CBDC would have to offer “compelling advantages to motivate these consumers – particularly the typical, well-connected consumers who account for most of the market — to adopt and use CBDC at sufficient scale to generate widespread merchant acceptance.”
Digital currencies have been touted as a way by some government officials to replace traditional cash.
As noted in a report from LifeSiteNews, experts warn that central bank digital currencies are a “control tool” of governments.
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre promised that if he is elected prime minister, he would stop any implementation of a “digital currency” or a compulsory “digital ID” system.
The BOC at the time said that any final decision on when and if a digital Canadian dollar is issued would be up to the government.
Business
Broken ‘equalization’ program bad for all provinces
From the Fraser Institute
By Alex Whalen and Tegan Hill
Back in the summer at a meeting in Halifax, several provincial premiers discussed a lawsuit meant to force the federal government to make changes to Canada’s equalization program. The suit—filed by Newfoundland and Labrador and backed by British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Alberta—effectively argues that the current formula isn’t fair. But while the question of “fairness” can be subjective, its clear the equalization program is broken.
In theory, the program equalizes the ability of provinces to deliver reasonably comparable services at a reasonably comparable level of taxation. Any province’s ability to pay is based on its “fiscal capacity”—that is, its ability to raise revenue.
This year, equalization payments will total a projected $25.3 billion with all provinces except B.C., Alberta and Saskatchewan to receive some money. Whether due to higher incomes, higher employment or other factors, these three provinces have a greater ability to collect government revenue so they will not receive equalization.
However, contrary to the intent of the program, as recently as 2021, equalization program costs increased despite a decline in the fiscal capacity of oil-producing provinces such as Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Newfoundland and Labrador. In other words, the fiscal capacity gap among provinces was shrinking, yet recipient provinces still received a larger equalization payment.
Why? Because a “fixed-growth rule,” introduced by the Harper government in 2009, ensures that payments grow roughly in line with the economy—even if the gap between richer and poorer provinces shrinks. The result? Total equalization payments (before adjusting for inflation) increased by 19 per cent between 2015/16 and 2020/21 despite the gap in fiscal capacities between provinces shrinking during this time.
Moreover, the structure of the equalization program is also causing problems, even for recipient provinces, because it generates strong disincentives to natural resource development and the resulting economic growth because the program “claws back” equalization dollars when provinces raise revenue from natural resource development. Despite some changes to reduce this problem, one study estimated that a recipient province wishing to increase its natural resource revenues by a modest 10 per cent could face up to a 97 per cent claw back in equalization payments.
Put simply, provinces that generally do not receive equalization such as Alberta, B.C. and Saskatchewan have been punished for developing their resources, whereas recipient provinces such as Quebec and in the Maritimes have been rewarded for not developing theirs.
Finally, the current program design also encourages recipient provinces to maintain high personal and business income tax rates. While higher tax rates can reduce the incentive to work, invest and be productive, they also raise the national standard average tax rate, which is used in the equalization allocation formula. Therefore, provinces are incentivized to maintain high and economically damaging tax rates to maximize equalization payments.
Unless premiers push for reforms that will improve economic incentives and contain program costs, all provinces—recipient and non-recipient—will suffer the consequences.
Authors:
Alberta
Alberta’s fiscal update projects budget surplus, but fiscal fortunes could quickly turn
From the Fraser Institute
By Tegan Hill
According to the recent mid-year update tabled Thursday, the Smith government projects a $4.6 billion surplus in 2024/25, up from the $2.9 billion surplus projected just a few months ago. Despite the good news, Premier Smith must reduce spending to avoid budget deficits.
The fiscal update projects resource revenue of $20.3 billion in 2024/25. Today’s relatively high—but very volatile—resource revenue (including oil and gas royalties) is helping finance today’s spending and maintain a balanced budget. But it will not last forever.
For perspective, in just the last decade the Alberta government’s annual resource revenue has been as low as $2.8 billion (2015/16) and as high as $25.2 billion (2022/23).
And while the resource revenue rollercoaster is currently in Alberta’s favor, Finance Minister Nate Horner acknowledges that “risks are on the rise” as oil prices have dropped considerably and forecasters are projecting downward pressure on prices—all of which impacts resource revenue.
In fact, the government’s own estimates show a $1 change in oil prices results in an estimated $630 million revenue swing. So while the Smith government plans to maintain a surplus in 2024/25, a small change in oil prices could quickly plunge Alberta back into deficit. Premier Smith has warned that her government may fall into a budget deficit this fiscal year.
This should come as no surprise. Alberta’s been on the resource revenue rollercoaster for decades. Successive governments have increased spending during the good times of high resource revenue, but failed to rein in spending when resource revenues fell.
Previous research has shown that, in Alberta, a $1 increase in resource revenue is associated with an estimated 56-cent increase in program spending the following fiscal year (on a per-person, inflation-adjusted basis). However, a decline in resource revenue is not similarly associated with a reduction in program spending. This pattern has led to historically high levels of government spending—and budget deficits—even in more recent years.
Consider this: If this fiscal year the Smith government received an average level of resource revenue (based on levels over the last 10 years), it would receive approximately $13,000 per Albertan. Yet the government plans to spend nearly $15,000 per Albertan this fiscal year (after adjusting for inflation). That’s a huge gap of roughly $2,000—and it means the government is continuing to take big risks with the provincial budget.
Of course, if the government falls back into deficit there are implications for everyday Albertans.
When the government runs a deficit, it accumulates debt, which Albertans must pay to service. In 2024/25, the government’s debt interest payments will cost each Albertan nearly $650. That’s largely because, despite running surpluses over the last few years, Albertans are still paying for debt accumulated during the most recent string of deficits from 2008/09 to 2020/21 (excluding 2014/15), which only ended when the government enjoyed an unexpected windfall in resource revenue in 2021/22.
According to Thursday’s mid-year fiscal update, Alberta’s finances continue to be at risk. To avoid deficits, the Smith government should meaningfully reduce spending so that it’s aligned with more reliable, stable levels of revenue.
Author:
-
ESG2 days ago
Can’t afford Rent? Groceries for your kids? Trudeau says suck it up and pay the tax!
-
Aristotle Foundation1 day ago
Toronto cancels history, again: The irony and injustice of renaming Yonge-Dundas Square to Sankofa Square
-
International1 day ago
Euthanasia advocates use deception to affect public’s perception of assisted suicide
-
armed forces1 day ago
Judge dismisses Canadian military personnel’s lawsuit against COVID shot mandate
-
Alberta11 hours ago
Alberta government announces review of Trudeau’s euthanasia regime
-
Business8 hours ago
Trump’s government efficiency department plans to cut $500 Billion in unauthorized expenditures, including funding for Planned Parenthood
-
Addictions2 days ago
BC Addictions Expert Questions Ties Between Safer Supply Advocates and For-Profit Companies
-
Business16 hours ago
CBC’s business model is trapped in a very dark place