From the Fraser Institute

There’s a growing consensus among economists that the federal government and several provincial governments over the past decade have not enacted enough policies that encourage economic growth. Consequently, Canadians are getting poorer relative to residents of other countries including the United States. In particular, their ability to purchase essential goods and services such as housing and food—in other words, their standard of living—is declining relative to our neighbours to the south.

In fact, according to our new study, among the 10 provinces and 50 U.S. states, median employment earnings—that is, wages and salaries— in 2022 (the latest year of available data) were lowest in the four Atlantic provinces, followed by Manitoba, Saskatchewan, Quebec, Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta. So, the median employment earnings of workers were lower in every Canadian province than in every U.S. state.

Were Canadian provinces always in the basement? Pretty much. In 2010, while only 12 U.S. states reported higher median employment earnings than Alberta, the other nine Canadian provinces ranked among the bottom 10 places. However, the important point is that from 2010 to 2022, Canadian provinces have fallen even further behind as many low-ranking U.S. states substantially improved.

In 2010, the per-worker earnings gap (in 2017 Canadian dollars) between Louisiana, a middle-ranking state, and the nine lowest-ranked Canadian provinces varied from $4,650 (in Saskatchewan) to $15,661 (Prince Edward Island). By 2022, a typical mid-ranking state such as Tennessee was out-earning all provinces by a range of $6,770 (in Alberta) to $16,955 (P.E.I.). In other words, by 2022, not only were workers in all U.S. states out-earning workers in all Canadian provinces, the gap had grown.

Another example—Alberta and Texas are the two largest oil-producing jurisdictions in their respective countries, yet Albertans, who out-earned Texans in 2010, saw their lead of $3,423 per worker become a deficit of $5,254 by 2022.

It’s a similar story for B.C. and Washington, which are geographically proximate and have similar-sized populations. While B.C. experienced strong growth in median employment earnings per worker over this period, it still lost ground relative to Washington—the gap grew from $10,879 in 2010 to $11,311 by 2022.

The change between Ontario and Michigan is even more striking. Again, they are geographic neighbours, have similar-sized populations and share a large auto sector, with Michigan’s lead over Ontario growing from $2,955 per worker in 2010 to $8,661 by 2022. The trends are similar when comparing Saskatchewan to North Dakota or the Atlantic provinces to the New England states; the gaps have only grown larger.

So, why should Canadians care?

Of course, everybody wants to make more money, so Canadians should want to know why workers in Mississippi and Louisiana make more than workers here at home. But there’s also a broader problem—people and capital can move relatively freely across the Canada-U.S. border, meaning this growing divergence in employment earnings has significant ramifications for the Canadian economy.

It could spur the ongoing migration of highly productive individuals, including high-skilled immigrants, who choose to move south. And encourage domestic and foreign firms to invest in the U.S. rather than in Canada. If these trends continue, they will exacerbate the earnings gaps between the two countries and potentially make Canada an economic backwater relative to the U.S. There’s also a significant risk these trends could worsen if the next U.S. administration increases tariffs on Canadian exports to the U.S., effectively abrogating the North American free trade agreement.

Clearly, to mitigate this risk and reverse the ongoing divergence in employment earnings—which largely determine living standards—between Canada and the U.S., the federal and provincial governments should implement bold and sweeping growth-oriented policies to make the Canadian economy more competitive. When Canada is more attractive to business investment, high-skilled workers and entrepreneurs, all workers will reap the rewards.

From the Fraser Institute

By Kenneth P. Green

In case you haven’t heard, the Trudeau government has proposed a new set of “Clean Electricity Regulations” (CERs) to purportedly reduce the use of fossil fuels in generating electricity. Basically, the CERs would establish new standards for the generation of electricity, limiting the amount of greenhouse gases that can be emitted in the process, and would apply to any unit that uses fossil fuels (coal, natural gas, oil) to generate electricity.

The CERs would hit hardest provinces that rely on fossil fuels to generate electricity: Alberta (89 per cent fossil fuels), Saskatchewan (81 per cent), Nova Scotia (76 per cent) and New Brunswick (30 per cent). Not so much Ontario (7 per cent) and Quebec (1 per cent), which are blessed with vast hydro potential.

In theory, the government has been in “consultation” with electricity producers and the provinces that will be most impacted by the CERs, although some doubt the government’s sincerity.

For example, according to Francis Bradley, CEO of Electricity Canada, which advocates for electricity  companies, there is “insufficient time to analyze and provide feedback that could meaningfully impact the regulatory design” adding that the “engagement process has failed to achieve its purpose.” And consequently, the current design of the CERS may impose “significant impairments to the reliability of the electricity system and severe affordability impacts in many parts of the country.”

This was not the first time folks observed a lack of meaningful consultation over the CERs. Earlier this year, Alberta Environment Minister Rebecca Schulz told CBC that an update to the CERs made “no meaningful corrections to the most destructive piece of Canadian electricity regulation in decades” and that CERs “would jeopardize reliability and affordability of power in the province.”

Simply put, with CERs the Trudeau government is gambling with high stakes—namely, the ability of Canadians to access reliable affordable electricity. Previous efforts at decarbonizing electrical systems in Ontario and around the world suggest that such efforts are relatively slow to develop, are expensive, and are often accompanied by periods of electrical system destabilization.

In Ontario, for example, while the provincial government removed coal-generation from its electricity generation from 2010 to 2016, Ontario’s residential electricity costs increased by 71 per cent, far outpacing the 34 per cent average growth in electricity prices across Canada at the time. In 2016, Toronto residents paid $60 more per month than the average Canadian for electricity. And between 2010 and 2016, large industrial users in Toronto and Ottawa experienced cost spikes of 53 per cent and 46 per cent, respectively, while the average increase in electric costs for the rest of Canada was only 14 per cent. Not encouraging stats, if you live in province targeted by CERs.

Reportedly, the Trudeau government plans to release a final version of the new CERs rules by the end of this year. Clearly, in light of the government’s failure to meaningfully consult with the electrical-generation sector and the provinces, the CERs should be put on hold to allow for longer and more sincere efforts to consult before these regulations go into effect and become too entrenched for reform by a future government.

Otherwise, Canadians may pay a steep price for Trudeau’s gamble.