Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Economy

Canadians should understand costs of expanding Old Age Security

Published

4 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jake Fuss and Grady Munro

In yet another high-stakes maneuver in the fall session of Parliament, the Bloc Québécois recently tabled a motion urging the Trudeau government to support Bill C-319, which would increase Old Age Security (OAS) payments for seniors aged 65 to 74 by 10 per cent. The motion passed and the Bloc is threatening to trigger an election if the Trudeau government doesn’t give the bill final approval before October 29.

Meanwhile, according to a new poll, 79 per cent of Canadians “support or somewhat support” the OAS increase. But crucially, the poll provided no information to respondents about the costs associated with expanding OAS, even though Canadians should understand the costs before they pledge support for any government program.

Consider this—according to past polling, more than two-thirds of Canadians expressed support for the Trudeau government’s national dental care, $10-a-day daycare, and pharmacare programs. Yet once respondents were made aware of potential tax increases (specifically, increases to the GST), support plummeted to less than 50 per cent for all three programs.

Clearly, support for government programs can change dramatically once Canadians understand the costs since they ultimately must pay those costs. So, that being said, what are the costs of a 10 per cent increase in OAS payments for seniors aged 65 to 74?

According to the Parliamentary Budget Officer Yves Giroux, the policy would cost more than $3 billion a year, with a five-year price tag of $16.1 billion—a “significant chunk of change” in his words.

Based on its latest budget, the Trudeau government expects to run deficits of at least $20.0 billion for the next five years and rack up more than $400 billion in new debt by 2028/29. If the government borrows more money to pay for increased OAS benefits, that debt number will grow even larger.

And again, Canadians will ultimately bear the costs of an expanded OAS through higher taxes in the future because Canadians must pay interest on government debt. This fiscal year (2024/25) federal debt interest costs are already expected to reach $54.1 billion—which is equal to the entire amount raised by the GST. These are taxpayer dollars that won’t go towards any services or programs for Canadians, and interest costs will continue to grow as the government adds more and more debt.

Finally, in addition to being costly, the plan is poorly targeted. While some programs such as the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) provide additional income support to low-income seniors, OAS provides support to many upper middle-income seniors. Indeed, based on current thresholds, individual seniors (aged 65 to 74) earning up to $148,451 per year are eligible to receive OAS (though seniors earning more than $90,997 of income don’t receive the full amount). Therefore, if Bill C-319 becomes law, a senior couple with a combined household income of nearly $300,000 will receive an increase in their OAS payments.

Increasing OAS payments will cost billions each year while supplementing the income of many seniors who aren’t in need. Despite the political theatre in Ottawa, Canadians are ultimately the ones who will foot the bill.

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

Business

Trudeau leaves office with worst economic growth record in recent Canadian history

Published on

From the Fraser Institute

By Ben Eisen

In the days following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s resignation as leader of the Liberal Party, there has been much ink spilt about his legacy. One effusively positive review of Trudeau’s tenure claimed that his successors “will be hard-pressed to improve on his economic track record.”

But this claim is difficult to square with the historical record, which shows the economic story of the Trudeau years has been one of dismal growth. Indeed, when the growth performance of Canada’s economy is properly measured, Trudeau has the worst record of any prime minister in recent history.

There’s no single perfect measure of economic success. However, growth in inflation-adjusted per-person GDP—an indicator of living standards and incomes—remains an important and broad measure. In short, it measures how quickly the economy is growing while adjusting for inflation and population growth.

Back when he was first running for prime minister in 2015, Trudeau recognized the importance of long-term economic growth, often pointing to slow growth under his predecessor Stephen Harper. On the campaign trail, Trudeau blasted Harper for having the “worst record on economic growth since R.B. Bennett in the depths of the Great Depression.”

And growth during the Harper years was indeed slow. The Harper government endured the 2008/09 global financial crisis and subsequent weak recovery, particularly in Ontario. During Harper’s tenure as prime minister, per-person GDP growth was 0.5 per cent annually—which is lower than his predecessors Brian Mulroney (0.8 per cent) and Jean Chrétien (2.4 per cent).

So, growth was weak under Harper, but Trudeau misdiagnosed the causes. Shortly after taking office, Trudeau said looser fiscal policy—with more spending, borrowing and bigger deficits—would help spur growth in Canada (and indeed around the world).

Trudeau’s government acted on this premise, boosting spending and running deficits—but Trudeau’s approach did not move the needle on growth. In fact, things went from bad to worse. Annual per-person GDP growth under Trudeau (0.3 per cent) was even worse than under Harper.

The reasons for weak economic growth (under Harper and Trudeau) are complicated. But when it comes to performance, there’s no disputing that Trudeau’s record is worse than any long-serving prime minister in recent history. According to our recent study published by the Fraser Institute, which compared the growth performance of the five most recent long-serving prime ministers, annual per-person GDP growth was highest under Chrétien followed by Martin, Mulroney, Harper and Justin Trudeau.

Of course, some defenders will blame COVID for Trudeau’s poor economic growth record, but you can’t reasonably blame the steep but relatively short pandemic-related recession for nearly a decade of stagnation.

There’s no single perfect measure of economic performance, but per-person inflation-adjusted economic growth is an important and widely-used measure of economic success and prosperity. Despite any claims to the contrary, Justin Trudeau’s legacy on economic growth is—in historical terms—dismal. All Canadians should hope that his successor has more success and oversees faster growth in the years ahead.

Continue Reading

Alberta

Before Trudeau Blames Alberta, Perhaps He Should Look in the Mirror

Published on

From EnergyNow.ca

By William Lacey

There has been a lot of talk about how Premier Danielle Smith did not sign a statement of support with the Government of Canada regarding a unified response to any tariff action taken by incoming President of the United States, Donald Trump.

Trudeau singles out Alberta premier for not putting ‘Canada first’ in break with other provinces

Thanks for reading William’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.

Pledge Your Support

While it is easy to throw stones at Premier Smith and call her actions one of selfishness, placing the interests of Alberta ahead of Canada, I think there are a number of reasons why one could reply that she was well within her right to act as she did. Over the last decade, Trudeau has gone out of his way to vilify the oil and gas industry, through his continual bad mouthing of the industry as being antiquated, and implementing policies that ensured that capital flight from the space accelerated, infrastructure projects were cancelled and massive levels of uncertainty were overlaid on the investment landscape going forward. Despite all this, the oil and gas sector still remains one of the most important economic contributors to the economy and is the largest component of exports from Canada to the United States, and it isn’t even close.

The Observatory of Economic Complexity (OEC)

The ironic thing of all this? To get oil to the refineries in the east, you need to IMPORT it by pipeline from the United States or primarily by ship to Quebec and New Brunswick. Had the Energy East Pipeline been built, Canadian refineries could have had Canadian domiciled product to satiate them. Moreover, had Northern Gateway been built, we would have diversified our client list beyond the United States. Sure, the Trans Mountain Pipeline was built, at extraordinary cost and timelines, and some “credit” is due to the Government getting it done, but the proof is in the current landscape that we operate in.

Now, coming back to the beginning. Why do I think Trudeau should look in the mirror before throwing rocks at Premier Smith? I come back to 2015 when Trudeau said Canada is the world’s “first postnational state” and that “there is no core identity, no mainstream in Canada.” He has gone about taking away what many of us grew up with, namely a sense of Canadian identity, and tried to replace that with shame and no collective identity. What is a post nation state you may ask? Post-nationalism or non-nationalism is the process or trend by which nation states and national identities lose their importance relative to cross-nation and self-organized or supranational and global entities as well as local entities.

So, is it any wonder that people are starting to question what is Canadian any more? At a time when Canada is under significant threat, the irony that Alberta likely represents the best tool in this tools (Trudeau) economic toolbox, is wildly ironic. As they say, karma’s a bitch.

Thanks for reading William’s Substack! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support for his work.

Pledge Your Support

Continue Reading

Trending

X