Business investment key to addressing Canada’s productivity crisis

The Bank of Canada’s senior deputy governor Carolyn Rogers recently raised the alarm on Canada’s productivity crisis, saying “it’s an emergency—it’s time to break the glass.” But to address Canada’s productivity problem, which is contributing to our stagnant living standards, we must first address Canada’s weak business investment.

For perspective, Canada’s economic growth in the fourth quarter of 2023, as measured by per-person GDP, a common indicator of living standards, was $58,111, which is slightly less than it was at the end of 2014 at $58,162 (after adjusting for inflation). That means that over roughly the last decade, Canadian living standards have not increased. Indeed, our economic problems span well beyond the pandemic. In the five years prior to 2019 (the last pre-COVID year), Canada’s per-person GDP (inflation-adjusted) was the 4th weakest out of 38 advanced countries.

Unfortunately, prospects for the future are dim. According to the OECD, Canada will record the lowest rate of per-person GDP growth among 32 advanced economies over roughly the next 40 years. Countries such as Estonia, South Korea and New Zealand are expected to pass Canada and achieve higher living standards by 2060.

Given that growth in productivity—essentially, the value of economic output per hour of work—is key to higher living standards, it’s no surprise that Rogers and other analysts are raising alarms. But what’s at the heart of our productivity crisis?

Put simply, weak business investment. While the federal and many provincial governments have prioritized immigration and bigger government in an effort to stimulate productivity growth and grow our economy, they’ve ignored business investment, which has significantly declined in recent years.

From 2014 to 2022, inflation-adjusted total business investment (in plants, machinery, equipment and new technologies but excluding residential construction) in Canada declined by C$34 billion. During the same time period, after adjusting for inflation, business investment per worker declined (on average) by 2.3 per cent annually. In contrast, business investment per worker grew (on average) by 2.8 per cent annually from 2000 to 2014.

While business investment has generally declined in Canada since 2014, in other countries, including the United States, it’s continued to grow. As a result, Canada’s GDP per hour worked—a key measure of productivity growth—is among the lowest in the OECD.

Think of it this way; when businesses invest in physical and intellectual capital they equip workers with the tools and technology (e.g. machinery, computer programs, artificial intelligence) to produce more and provide higher quality goods and services, which fuels innovation and higher productivity. Because Canada has lower levels of investment in tools and technology, our workers are less productive.

But here’s the good news. Governments across Canada can enact policies to help stimulate business investment, productivity gains, and ultimately, stronger economic growth. The key is to reduce onerous regulations, rein in high government spending, and create a pro-growth tax environment that makes Canada a more attractive place for business to locate and invest. These policies have a proven track record of improving business investment in Canada. For its part, the Trudeau government can prioritize pro-growth policies when it tables the federal budget next week.

Clearly, without a change in the investment climate and stronger productivity growth, the economic outlook looks grim. Fortunately, Canadian governments can respond to this emergency with pro-growth policy reform.

Author:

Tegan Hill

Associate Director, Alberta Policy, Fraser Institute

Up Next

Federal government remains intransigent on emissions cap despite dire warnings of harm

Don't Miss

Federal budget fails to ‘break the glass’ on Canada’s economic growth crisis

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 / 3 hours ago

Trump walks back tariffs on Mexico, Canada for another month

Agriculture / 7 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.