Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

Government has inherent bias for more government

Published

7 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Jason Clemens and Jake Fuss

One of the authors of this op-ed resides in a municipality, which recently launched an online survey to gauge the preferences of residents with respect to its upcoming budget, which is laudable, but the questions illustrate a problem within government: a bias for more government.

The City of Coquitlam in British Columbia asked respondents whether it should increase, decrease or simply maintain the same level of spending in 2025 for policing, recreation, water and sewage, infrastructure and others items. The problem: there wasn’t a single question on whether residents prefer tax reductions.

Moreover, there was no discussion or context about how increased spending for these activities must come from taxpayers in the form of either having more taxpayers (city population increases) and/or higher tax rates for those residing in the city. What’s clear from the survey is that the municipal government prefers to spend more.

And this bias towards more government within government is not restricted to this local municipality. Other municipalities, provincial governments and certainly the Trudeau federal government have favoured more spending.

Under Prime Minister Trudeau federal spending has reached never-before-seen levels, even after adjusting for inflation. Consider, for instance, that per-person federal spending (excluding interest costs) will reach $11,901 this fiscal year (inflation-adjusted), well above previous levels of per-person spending including during the 2008-09 financial crisis and both world wars. The rationale is that Ottawa is delivering services demanded by Canadians.

But is that true? Are Canadians demanding national pharmacare, national dental benefits and a national daycare program? The answer depends on whether the costs of those programs are included in the discussion.

2022 poll asked Canadians about their support for all three programs. Support ranged from 69 per cent for national daycare, to 72 per cent for dental care, to 79 per cent for pharmacare. Here’s the problem, though. The questions were asked without respondents considering any costs. In other words, the respondents were asked whether they support these programs assuming they don’t affect their taxes.

But of course, taxpayers must pay for government spending, and when those costs are included, Canadians are much less supportive. In the same poll, when increased spending is linked with an increase in the GST, support plummets to 36 per cent for daycare, 40 per cent for pharmacare and 42 per cent for dental care.

And these results are not unique. A 2020 poll by the Angus Reid Institute found 86 per cent support for a national prescription drug program—but that support drops by almost half (47 per cent) if a one-percentage point increase in the middle-class personal income tax rate is included.

One explanation for the dramatic change in support rests in another poll, which found that 74 per cent of respondents felt the average Canadian family was overtaxed.

So it’s convenient for governments to avoid connecting more spending with higher taxes.

This internal government support for more government also shows up in our tax mix. Canadian governments rely on less visible taxes than our counterparts in the OECD, a group of high-income, developed countries. For instance, Canadian governments collect 6.8 per cent of the economy (GDP) in consumption taxes such as the GST, which are quite visible and transparent because the cost shows up directly on your bill. That ranks Canada 31st of 38 OECD countries and well below the OECD average of 10.0 per cent.

Alternatively, we rely on personal income tax revenues to a much greater degree and, because these taxes are automatically deducted from the paycheques of Canadians, they are much less apparent to workers. Canada collects 12.3 per cent of the economy in personal income taxes, ranking us 6th highest for our reliance on personal income taxes and above the OECD average of 8.3 per cent.

And a complying media aids the push for more government spending. According to a recent study, when reporting on the announcement of three new federal programs (pharmacare, dental care and national daycare) the CBC and CTV only included the cost of these programs in 4 per cent of their television news coverage. Most of the coverage related to the nature of the new programs, their potential impact on Canadians, and the responses from the Conservative, NDP and Bloc Quebecois. Simply put, the main television coverage didn’t query the government on the cost of these new programs and how taxpayers would pay the bill, leaving many viewers with the mistaken impression that the programs are costless.

Indeed, it’s interesting to note that the same study found that 99.4 per cent of press releases issued by the federal government related to these three programs excluded any information on their costs or impact on the budget.

The inherent bias within government for more government is increasingly clear, and supported by a lack of skepticism in the media. Canadians need clearer information from government on the potential benefits and costs of new or expanded spending, and the media must do a better job of critically covering government initiatives. Only then can we realistically understand what Canadians actually demand from government.

Jason Clemens

Executive Vice President, Fraser Institute

Jake Fuss

Director, Fiscal Studies, Fraser Institute

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

China, Mexico, Canada Flagged in $1.4 Billion Fentanyl Trade by U.S. Financial Watchdog

Published on

Sam Cooper's avatar Sam Cooper

The U.S. Treasury’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network (FinCEN) has identified $1.4 billion in fentanyl-linked suspicious transactions, naming China, Mexico, Canada, and India as key foreign touchpoints in the global production and laundering network. The analysis, based on 1,246 Bank Secrecy Act filings submitted in 2024, tracks financial activity spanning chemical purchases, trafficking logistics, and international money laundering operations.

The data reveals that Mexico and the People’s Republic of China were the two most frequently named foreign jurisdictions in financial intelligence gathered by FinCEN. Most of the flagged transactions originated in U.S. cities, the report notes, due to the “domestic nature” of Bank Secrecy Act data collection. Among foreign jurisdictions, Mexico, China, Hong Kong, and Canada were cited most often in fentanyl-related financial activity.

The FinCEN report points to Mexico as the epicenter of illicit fentanyl production, with Mexican cartels importing precursor chemicals from China and laundering proceeds through complex financial routes involving U.S., Canadian, and Hong Kong-based actors.

The findings also align with testimony from U.S. and Canadian law enforcement veterans who have told The Bureau that Chinese state-linked actors sit atop a decentralized but industrialized global fentanyl economy—supplying precursors, pill presses, and financing tools that rely on trade-based money laundering and professional money brokers operating across North America.

“Filers also identified PRC-based subjects in reported money laundering activity, including suspected trade-based money laundering schemes that leveraged the Chinese export sector,” the report says.

A point emphasized by Canadian and U.S. experts—including former U.S. State Department investigator Dr. David Asher—that professional Chinese money laundering networks operating in North America are significantly commanded by Chinese Communist Party–linked Triad bosses based in Ontario and British Columbia—is not explored in detail in this particular FinCEN report.¹

Chinese chemical manufacturers—primarily based in Guangdong, Zhejiang, and Hebei provinces—were repeatedly cited for selling fentanyl precursors via wire transfers and money service businesses. These sales were often facilitated through e-commerce platforms, suggesting that China’s global retail footprint conceals a lethal underground market—one that ultimately fuels a North American public health crisis. In many cases, the logistics were sophisticated: some Chinese companies even offered delivery guarantees and customs clearance for precursor shipments, raising red flags for enforcement officials.

While China’s industrial base dominates the global fentanyl supply chain, Mexican cartels are the next most prominent state-like actors in the ecosystem—but the report emphasizes that Canada and India are rising contributors.

“Subjects in other foreign countries—including Canada, the Dominican Republic, and India—highlight the presence of alternative suppliers of precursor chemicals and fentanyl,” the report says.

“Canada-based subjects were primarily identified by Bank Secrecy Act filers due to their suspected involvement in drug trafficking organizations allegedly sourcing fentanyl and other drugs from traditional drug source countries, such as Mexico,” it explains, adding that banking intelligence “identified activity indicative of Canada-based individuals and companies purchasing precursor chemicals and laboratory equipment that may be related to the synthesis of fentanyl in Canada. Canada-based subjects were primarily reported with addresses in the provinces of British Columbia and Ontario.”

FinCEN also flagged activity from Hong Kong-based shell companies—often subsidiaries or intermediaries for Chinese chemical exporters. These entities were used to obscure the PRC’s role in transactions and to move funds through U.S.-linked bank corridors.

Breaking down the fascinating and deadly world of Chinese underground banking used to move fentanyl profits from American cities back to producers, the report explains how Chinese nationals in North America are quietly enlisted to move large volumes of cash across borders—without ever triggering traditional wire transfers.

These networks, formally known as Chinese Money Laundering Organizations (CMLOs), operate within a global underground banking system that uses “mirror transfers.” In this system, a Chinese citizen with renminbi in China pays a local broker, while the U.S. dollar equivalent is handed over—often in cash—to a recipient in cities like Los Angeles or New York who may have no connection to the original Chinese depositor aside from their role in the laundering network. The renminbi, meanwhile, is used inside China to purchase goods such as electronics, which are then exported to Mexico and delivered to cartel-linked recipients.

FinCEN reports that US-based money couriers—often Chinese visa holders—were observed depositing large amounts of cash into bank accounts linked to everyday storefront businesses, including nail salons and restaurants. Some of the cash was then used to purchase cashier’s checks, a common method used to obscure the origin and destination of the funds. To banks, the activity might initially appear consistent with a legitimate business. However, modern AI-powered transaction monitoring systems are increasingly capable of flagging unusual patterns—such as small businesses conducting large or repetitive transfers that appear disproportionate to their stated operations.

On the Mexican side, nearly one-third of reports named subjects located in Sinaloa and Jalisco, regions long controlled by the Sinaloa Cartel and Cartel Jalisco Nueva Generación. Individuals in these states were often cited as recipients of wire transfers from U.S.-based senders suspected of repatriating drug proceeds. Others were flagged as originators of payments to Chinese chemical suppliers, raising alarms about front companies and brokers operating under false pretenses.

The report outlines multiple cases where Mexican chemical brokers used generic payment descriptions such as “goods” or “services” to mask wire transfers to China. Some of these transactions passed through U.S.-based intermediaries, including firms owned by Chinese nationals. These shell companies were often registered in unrelated sectors—like marketing, construction, or hardware—and exhibited red flags such as long dormancy followed by sudden spikes in large transactions.

Within the United States, California, Florida, and New York were most commonly identified in fentanyl-related financial filings. These locations serve as key hubs for distribution and as collection points for laundering proceeds. Cash deposits and peer-to-peer payment platforms were the most cited methods for fentanyl-linked transactions, appearing in 54 percent and 51 percent of filings, respectively.

A significant number of flagged transactions included slang terms and emojis—such as “blues,” “ills,” or blue dots—in memo fields. Structured cash deposits were commonly made across multiple branches or ATMs, often linked to otherwise legitimate businesses such as restaurants, salons, and trucking firms.

FinCEN also tracked a growing number of trade-based laundering schemes, in which proceeds from fentanyl sales were used to buy electronics and vaping devices. In one case, U.S.-based companies owned by Chinese nationals made outbound payments to Chinese manufacturers, using funds pooled from retail accounts and shell companies. These goods were then shipped to Mexico, closing the laundering loop.

Another key laundering method involved cryptocurrency. Nearly 10 percent of all fentanyl-related reports involved virtual currency, with Bitcoin the most commonly cited, followed by Ethereum and Litecoin. FinCEN flagged twenty darknet marketplaces as suspected hubs for fentanyl distribution and cited failures by some digital asset platforms to catch red-flag activity.

Overall, FinCEN warns that fentanyl-linked funds continue to enter the U.S. financial system through loosely regulated or poorly monitored channels, even as law enforcement ramps up enforcement. The Drug Enforcement Administration reported seizures of over 55 million counterfeit fentanyl pills in 2024 alone.

The broader pattern is unmistakable: precursor chemicals flow from China, manufacturing occurs in Mexico, Canada plays an increasing role in chemical acquisition and potential synthesis, and drugs and proceeds flood into the United States, supported by global financial tools and trade structures. The same infrastructure that enables lawful commerce is being manipulated to sustain the deadliest synthetic drug crisis in modern history.

The Bureau is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Invite your friends and earn rewards

If you enjoy The Bureau, share it with your friends and earn rewards when they subscribe.

Invite Friends

 

Continue Reading

2025 Federal Election

Canada drops retaliatory tariffs on automakers, pauses other tariffs

Published on

MXM logo  MxM News

Quick Hit:

Canada has announced it will roll back retaliatory tariffs on automakers and pause several other tariff measures aimed at the United States. The move, unveiled by Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne, is designed to give Canadian manufacturers breathing room to adjust their supply chains and reduce reliance on American imports.

Key Details:

  • Canada will suspend 25% tariffs on U.S. vehicles for automakers that maintain production, employment, and investment in Canada.
  • A broader six-month pause on tariffs for other U.S. imports is intended to help Canadian sectors transition to domestic sourcing.
  • A new loan facility will support large Canadian companies that were financially stable before the tariffs but are now struggling.

Diving Deeper:

Ottawa is shifting its approach to the escalating trade war with Washington, softening its economic blows in a calculated effort to stabilize domestic manufacturing. On Tuesday, Finance Minister François-Philippe Champagne outlined a new set of trade policies that provide conditional relief from retaliatory tariffs that have been in place since March. Automakers, the hardest-hit sector, will now be eligible to import U.S. vehicles duty-free—provided they continue to meet criteria that include ongoing production and investment in Canada.

“From day one, the government has reacted with strength and determination to the unjust tariffs imposed by the United States on Canadian goods,” Champagne stated. “We’re giving Canadian companies and entities more time to adjust their supply chains and become less dependent on U.S. suppliers.”

The tariff battle, which escalated in April with Canada slapping a 25% tax on U.S.-imported vehicles, had caused severe anxiety within Canada’s auto industry. John D’Agnolo, president of Unifor Local 200, which represents Ford employees in Windsor, warned the BBC the situation “has created havoc” and could trigger a recession.

Speculation about a possible Honda factory relocation to the U.S. only added to the unrest. But Ontario Premier Doug Ford and federal officials were quick to tamp down the rumors. Honda Canada affirmed its commitment to Canadian operations, saying its Alliston facility “will operate at full capacity for the foreseeable future.”

Prime Minister Mark Carney reinforced the message that the relief isn’t unconditional. “Our counter-tariffs won’t apply if they (automakers) continue to produce, continue to employ, continue to invest in Canada,” he said during a campaign event. “If they don’t, they will get 25% tariffs on what they are importing into Canada.”

Beyond the auto sector, Champagne introduced a six-month tariff reprieve on other U.S. imports, granting time for industries to explore domestic alternatives. He also rolled out a “Large Enterprise Tariff Loan Facility” to support big businesses that were financially sound prior to the tariff regime but have since been strained.

While Canada has shown willingness to ease its retaliatory measures, there’s no indication yet that the U.S. under President Donald Trump will reciprocate. Nevertheless, Ottawa signaled its openness to further steps to protect Canadian businesses and workers, noting that “additional measures will be brought forward, as needed.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X